But she differs from other conservative critics in regarding the invention of abstract painting and sculpture in the early twentieth century as the "decisive turning point in the breakdown of the concept of art.
After returning to New York, she took a course on Italian Renaissance Painting at Columbia University with the now-legendary professor of art history Howard McParlin Davis.
An article she wrote about a nutrition education project she organized at her son’s public school gained national attention.
[16] The article received a 1980 Health Journalism Award from the American Chiropractic Association,[17] and was featured in the revised edition of Frances Moore Lappé’s best-selling book Diet for a Small Planet.
[22] She subsequently conceived, produced, and directed Books Our Children Read, a half-hour film documenting that response.
Rejecting the inventions of both modernism and postmodernism, it champions contemporary work "that, like the great art of past centuries, is concerned with fundamental human values, and is both intelligible and well crafted."
Its editorial viewpoint is "broadly informed" by Ayn Rand's Objectivist philosophy—in particular, by the theory of art she outlined in the first four essays of The Romantic Manifesto.
., it seeks to promote the traditional values of the past in its dedication "to an artistic spirit which projects and celebrates the best and noblest aspects of man and his universe."
(1993, 1997) of Magazines for Libraries further noted: "Aristos looks like a negligible newsletter, but [its feature articles carry] more weight than those found in more substantial periodicals.
"[27] Publication of the print journal was suspended in the fall of 1997 to enable the editors to focus on researching and writing What Art Is: The Esthetic Theory of Ayn Rand,[6] based on a series of articles they had published in Aristos in 1991 and 1992.
[33] An updated and expanded version of the article was later published in After the Avant-Gardes, edited by Elizabeth Millán, professor of philosophy at DePaul University.
[6] A review in Choice magazine (April 2001) recommended it for all academic levels as well as for general readers—noting, in part, that "Torres and Kamhi show an encyclopedic knowledge of twentieth-century art."
"[37] In their response to the review, published as a letter in a subsequent issue, the authors rejected as "ill-founded" the "assumption that, because we favor an objective definition of art, we would approve the acts of censorship (and abrogation of property rights) that might result from it under present law.
Beginning by dismissing the "certainty" of Ayn Rand "disciples," Kimball goes on to observe that the book is "a rich, opinionated mélange .
"[40] In a C-Span In Depth interview,[41] cultural historian Jacques Barzun was asked what he thought of Ayn Rand and responded that he had not read her work but that her theory of art had been "the subject of a large and very interesting and thorough book by Louis Torres [and Michelle Marder Kamhi]"—which "not only remedied [his prior] ignorance" of Rand's work but prompted him to "admire a great part (not all) of her theory of art.
While she agrees with Rand's view that the primary purpose of art is nonutilitarian and psychological in nature and that its cognitive function is "to bring man's fundamental concepts and values 'to the perceptual level of his consciousness' and allow him 'to grasp them directly, as if they were percepts,'" she cannot understand why that would entail rejecting so much of the contemporary art she admires.
In a response to the piece, Kamhi points out what she sees as Steinhauer's logical inconsistencies and politically inspired animus against Rand.
offers anyone who has ever left a contemporary art museum scratching his head or muttering under his breath the chance to release a big, therapeutic sigh of relief.
"[54] The Journal of Information Ethics observed: "This perceptive study, an 'indictment of the avant-garde's spurious inventions,' is so encompassing that it would be impossible in a brief review even to mention the many interconnected issues and areas the author covers in superb exemplified detail.
occupies some of the same debunking gallery space as Tom Wolfe's The Painted Word, except that Kamhi seems less interested in puncturing pretension than she is in teaching us how to look.
for the Canadian e-zine Arts & Opinion wrote that it "made [her], by stages, angry, contrary, furious, dismissive," adding: "but, most importantly, thoughtful."
While she considered the book "well written [and] scrupulously researched," she vehemently objected to Kamhi's rejection of avant-garde work, arguing: "Twentieth century art requires a different language and means of representation than nineteenth century art in order to accurately, convincingly reflect the zeitgeist.
He observed that "[f]rom the point of view of the art-world establishment," the book "may at worst be ignored, or at best be cynically derided as out of date and irrelevant.
In a rejoinder, Kamhi pointed out that Werthein's piece ("consisting mainly of [her] passing out specially equipped sneakers to illegal immigrants") was by no means a work of graphic art.
[65] He aimed to defend "visual culture studies" and "social justice art education" against objections raised by Kamhi in several articles.
It offers both an appreciation of traditional visual art and a critique of various avant-garde inventions since the early twentieth century, as well as of the underlying theoretical assumptions.
"[68] In the view of BookLife (a division of Publishers Weekly): "[T]his pull-no-punches essay collection deriding abstract art and its postmodernist successors.
makes a passionate and effective argument that such work is 'incomprehensible to the poor viewer' and advocates for representational art to regain its primacy.
[T]hough [Kamhi] may not win over devotees of modernism, readers who find abstract and conceptual art baffling will be thrilled to encounter a kindred spirit.
"[69] An in-depth review in the Journal of Ayn Rand Studies argues that "Kamhi presents a compelling case against the modernist and postmodernist inventions that have come to dominate the artworld since the early twentieth century."