Presentation:
Metaphysical Value
Judgments in Painting
Art has the capacity to go beyond craft, and express world views about the nature of humanity.
This can translate into such deeply felt personal reactions as longing, joy,
despair, excitement, disgust, and hope.
Ayn Rand,
a controversial figure of the 20th Century thought,
presented some theories on the nature of art. One of
those theories, Metaphysical Value Judgments in Art,
is about how art expresses an artist's fundamental view of
humnanity.
For the
painter and the viewer understanding how paintings translate
into world views can be intensely satisfying and offer many years
of solace, excitement, and discovery.
Rand claims that metaphysical value-judgments are the answers to these types of questions:
"Is the universe intelligible to man, or unintelligible and unknowable? Can man find
happiness on earth, or is he doomed to frustration and despair? Does he have the
power…to choose his goals and achieve them…or is he a helpless plaything of
forces beyond his control? Is man, by nature, to be valued as good, or to be despised as
evil?"
The connection between these questions and painting is anything but
self-evident, so we have to be like detectives and look for clues within the
paintings themselves.
Here are some guidelines:
1. Describe what you see.
2. Think of the canvas as the Universe.
Approach each and every artwork as if it is a universe in itself. Simply substitute
"universe" for "canvas" and a whole new outlook will become apparent.
a. Look for the size of humanity
in relationship to the canvas. This is symbolic of humanity's importance in the universe:
is humanity larger than life or tiny and insignificant?
b. How is humanity placed within
this universe? At the top, bottom or center?
c. What is the most prominent
feature within the canvas/universe and what is the main focus?
d. For non-figurative work, what
are the outstanding things and how are they placed in the canvas?
3. What is the relationship of
subject or person to their environment? This will tell us how important humanity is in
relationship to society or nature.
a. Is there a significant
difference of sizes between the setting and the subject?
b. Look for the possible
symbolism of the objects and/or their relationships. For example, a barrier to freedom
symbolized by a chain-link fence. Or, the state buildings are all-powerful above and
humanity is crushed below.
c. Is there more emphasis placed
on one thing more than another? For example, is there a disregard for the setting and is
all the focus on the main figure?
4. Body language.
a. What are people doing? Are
they bent, awkward or upright and elegant?
b. Think about the symbolic
implications of their posture: are they approaching life as a servant, a thug, or a hero?
c. What are the most notable
facial features?
5. Use adjectives to describe the
style, color, and light. This is not a substitute for the facts that are represented in
the painting, but using adjectives first to describe a general impression helps you find
the facts. We are not analyzing whether the means of the painting are good or not, merely
trying to get at the mood of the piece, just as how you might describe the weather outside
as cheerful or crystal-clear.
a. Is the painting distorted,
smeared, vague or is it orderly, in focus, complex?
b. Are the colors murky, dull or
vibrant, bold? Are they in harmony or do they clash?
c. Is the light in the painting
subdued or brilliant?
d. The symbolism of light and
shadow cannot be missed: are the objects or persons dim and the unenlightened? Or are they
enlightened by a radiant universe?
1.Vermeer, The Milkmaid, 1658-60.
"Is the
universe intelligible to man, or unintelligible and unknowable?"
In this Vermeer painting we can
clearly see that it is an interior scene with a woman going about the daily chore of
pouring milk into a bowl. This scene is loaded with many refined details: the weave of the
wicker baskets, the shine of a metal pot (behind her on the wall), the folds of her
clothes, and the decorative images painted on the tiles that line the wall. We can
even see the spiral of the flow of the milk. The woman is realistically presented
with natural anatomy. She is prominent both in size and location. Notice the natural
depth within the painting, she feels quite right in-between the table in the foreground
and the wall behind her. The colors of things are clean and there are clear differences
between the color of her arms and the colors of her clothes. An interesting element is the
prominence of the light on the wall behind her, it takes up a third of the painting and it
makes its brilliance felt.
Within the borders of this canvas
Vermeer projects a realistic view of people, of things, and he projects the true to life
environment of space and light. This painting projects a markedly intelligible view of
humanity and its environment.
2. Kandinsky, Black Spot
I, 1912.
The universe of this Kandinsky is
essentially different from the Vermeer. Here we have abstract objects in fanciful shapes.
They may or may not be based on real things, such as mushrooms, birds, bugs, or dolls. But
taken literally we cannot know with any certainty what these objects are; we are safer to
assume that they aren't things from reality but are simply abstractions. The colors
of green, gold, blue, black, light pink are pure and there are clean distinctions between
them. There is very little depth in the painting and though the colors are bright we have
no sense that there is any light. The relationship of these abstract objects to one
another seems to be arbitrary in the sense that there is a squiggle there, a blob here and
we have the idea that they just popped up.
The universe in this painting,
though clean and clear and whimsical, is unknowable to us in the normal meaning of the
word. Kandinsky projects, quite literally, floating abstractions; abstractions
disconnected from an intelligible universe.
3. Rina, Landscape, c. 2000.
"Can man find
happiness on earth, or is he doomed to frustration and despair?"
In this lecture I have included
two landscapes to show how we can detect value-judgments even in paintings without
people.
In Rina's painting we have a view
of a dirt road receding in perspective to a pinkish gray sky on the horizon. On the
left there is a chain link fence which encloses some dark trees. On the right there are
empty lots. Behind there are some telegraph and electricity poles. Notice the blurring of
the images, we don't have here the crystal-like clarity of either Vermeer or Kandinsky.
Notice the colors, mostly variations on gray-browns that convey a luke-warm atmosphere
even though it appears to be winter, the trees on the right don't have leaves, or are they
dead? Note the that the fence blocks us off from the relatively vital looking trees on the
left. This is symbolic, the beauty of nature is off limits.
Imagine that you are really in
this place do you think that this road leads to happiness on earth? I think not.
Everything in this painting leads to a murky despair.
4. Bierstadt, Looking Down Yosemite
Valley, c. 1868.
This landscape by Bierstadt is
very different from the previous one. Notice the glowing peach light
right-center and how it is flowing along the valley towards us. Notice the
crisp light on the mountain faces, the reflection on the clean water, and the
flourishing health of the trees and grasses in the meadow.
This is a spectacular view of the
start or end of the day - a place that holds the promise of happiness.
5. Munch, The Scream, 1893.
We are keeping to the same
question "can man find happiness on earth, or is he doomed to frustration and
despair?" The Scream by Munch is one of my favorite paintings because of its emotive
power and how once you see this image it never leaves your memory. But uplifting it is
not. Notice how the main figure is at the bottom of the painting/universe and how
the bridge is tilting downwards--these both convey the unmistakable feeling of sinking.
The background swirls in such a way as to give us the feeling that
we are
hallucinating, it gives me the sense of vertigo. Again we have these oppressive warm
gray colors throughout most of the painting and a toxic looking orange that dominates the
sky. Notice that the main character is sexless and has a non-real structure as if its
bones were made of rubber. This aspect adds to our unease. This figure seems to be not
evil itself but a witness to some unspeakable horror and it unfortunately is being drawn
downward towards this vision. It is curious to note that the two figures on the
bridge appear fairly normal, it is clear that one is a man the other a woman, and they are
walking away from the scene.
This person is not doomed to
frustration and despair but, worse, it is simply doomed.
6. M. De La Tour, Self-portrait
Wearing a Jabot, 1751.
This pastel is a self-portrait
and it shows a "man about town" with his powered wig, velvet coat, and his
breezy air. Notice the clarity of the eyes and the genuinely good-natured expression of
his smile. Incidentally, in the history of art it is really hard to find good smiling
portraits; most feel as if the person is grimacing.
This man looks like he is at the
height of his powers, he looks at ease, and I think happily content.
7. Delacroix, Liberty Leading the
People, 1830.
"Does he have the
power…to choose his goals and achieve them…or is he a helpless plaything of
forces beyond his control?"
In Liberty Leading the People by
Delacroix notice the woman charging forward with her out thrust arm raising the French
flag aloft. Notice her location at the top of the canvas. She is inspiring a rabble
of soldiers, dandies, and regular people to carry on even over the obstacles of death,
which lie literally at her feet. Though we don't know whether she and they will
achieve their goals, it is startlingly clear that they are not the playthings of destiny,
they are acting to fulfill their aims.
8. Goya, The Shootings of May 3rd
1808, 1814.
On the other side of this
volitional issue we have Goya's painting of an execution, in which the these poor men have
been lead like sheep to their slaughter. Notice that in the background that the State
buildings are above the scene, the implication is that the state dictates to the humans
below. There is a line of faceless universal soldiers, heads bowed, carrying out
their orders. The main victim thrusts his arms out in the gesture of
"why". Notice how the light box is turned towards the victims, they are
bathed in its sympathetic glow while the soldiers are in the shadow. Also notice that the
color of the light box and the main character is identical gold and white, the implication
being that he is the light.
Goya paints an empathic portrait
of these victims plight but victims they are; hopeless playthings of the mysterious State
lurking in the background.
9. T. Rousseau, The Village of
Becquigny, c. 1860.
Is man, by nature,
to be valued as good, or to be despised as evil?"
Because of the complexity of and
controversy over metaphysical value-judgments in painting I have used the most
obvious examples I could find that would illustrate clearly how Rand's questions relate to
paintings. This example of Rosseau's landscape, though, is not obvious. The
most prominent feature here is the road, it is placed front and center and it leads into a
picturesque old-world village, which is a cluster of very neat cottages with thatched
roofs that extends the width of the canvas. Notice the elaborate detail that is showered
on the vegetation and the trees and how light plays upon them. The blue sky is
aglow. In the center of the road is a curious figure, very small, which is horse
and rider. Notice that they are in the shadow of the tree. Beyond the
horse and rider is even smaller figure.
The symbolism here is very
interesting. Humanity is significant in the sense that it is in the center of the universe
but humanity is very small. And that small humanity is not bathed in light but finds
itself passively standing in the shadow while nature and community are bathed in light.
This painting does not convey that man is to be valued as good or bad but merely small and
unenlightened.
10. Bacon, Pope Innocent X, 1953.
This painting by Bacon is a free
interpretation of a famous Velazquez portrait of Pope Innocent X. Central to the
painting is the Pope screaming in blind terror as he sits in a neon yellow colored chair.
Notice his claw-like hands; in both in size and shape they resemble the paws of a monkey.
The paint looks like it as been stripped in acid. He looks like he is being executed
in an electric chair. Notice how his screaming mouth has bared teeth.
This figure does not inspire our
sympathy as do the victims in the Goya painting, the empty eye sockets and the teeth bared
in a howl are the clues that tell us that this man is filled with hatred. The painting
conveys that humanity is central to the universe but it is evil.
11. Saville, Branded,
Self-portrait, 1992.
When shown this image on a ten
foot screen at my lecture, the whole audience groaned. The next day, four people told me
that they had nightmares about this painting. Saville's painting,
Branded, is
a self-portrait. The oversized woman overwhelms the space of the painting. Her flesh
has the rotten coloring of chicken meat that has been left out too long. Incised on
her flesh are the words "decorative" and "delicate". Her head is
thrown back in a defensive gesture and her hand thrusts out a fistful of flesh in an angry
statement. Notice how small her head is compared to the rest of her.
Humanity, here, is glutinous,
stupid, self-mutilating and is deserving of being despised as evil.
12. Raphael, School of Athens, 1510.
The School of Athens is
considered one of the landmark works of the Italian high Renaissance. Raphael played off the
idea of portraying some of the most famous ancient Greek philosophers, scientists, and
artists by his own contemporaries, such as Michelangelo and Da Vinci. It is a masterpiece
of visual perspective both in how the buildings are shaped and how the figures get bigger
as they are closer to us. Some of the people are loners while others are in small groups.
Everyone is either communicating, reading, drawing, or learning. It is an ode
to the nature of creativity. Notice the light atmosphere and the harmony of the colors. In
the center of the work are two men, one is Plato with his finger pointing upwards towards
the heavens and the other is Aristotle gesturing towards earth. The main figure in the
forefront leaning on a block of marble is reportedly, Michelangelo, he is in a pose of
deep concentration.
This painting is an epic
depiction of humanity as creators, thinkers, doers, and students. It gives the
optimistic view that our horizons are unlimited and that wonderful things await us in the
future--that, in essence, the nature of humanity is glorious.
Michael Newberry
October 2002
Updated May 2012
(This online
presentation was developed from my article On Metaphysical
Value-Judgments in The Journal of Ayn Rand Studies,
Volume 2, No. 2 - Spring 2001, and from a lecture I gave at The Objectivist Center's Summer Seminar at the
University of Pittsburgh in Johnstown in July, 2001.)
