Jonathan

Objectivist Esthetics, R.I.P.

167 posts in this topic

4 hours ago, Jonathan said:

 

Sorry, but your anecdotal opinions and beliefs aren't enough.

J

Gerschwin intended the music to be a cartoon of Paris traffic.  That music accompanies a traffic scene in Paris.  I will take the composers word for it. 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd take his word for it too, but then I'd like you be outside the discussion loop.

--Brant

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, BaalChatzaf said:

Classical music is much more abstract.  The Gerschin music was deliberately concrete to match the scene in the performance.  I suspect classical music is much more attuned to "mood" than to scenes which can be visualized.  However  the are portions of Beethoven's Eroica  which clearly "picture"  battle scenes. After all the symphony was inspired by and a response to Napoleon's  doings. 

But you're injecting outside information of a certain sort. It's like a perpetual motion machine the inventor has to keep tweaking.

--Brant

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, anthony said:

Yes, it was J I was addressing. That's a good question about meditation vis a vis the desirability of (lets say) "soothing" imagery. A juxtaposition or blend of colours can have an effect which will be efficacious and relaxing. (As I see it, one's mind can take a break every so often from all the "focusing"). At times, simply 'looking' at natural things (without analysing anything) is similar although better, I believe. But do such mood images have to be called "art"? There's quite a few alternative names. Especially considering that there are countless realist paintings which can 'soothe' too, cleverly employing the same colours, lines, et al - the stylistic technique ... plus content. Content and beauty/technical beauty are co-existents, but the subject is the base.

Yes for sure. Consciousness precedes art - as with anything man-made - creating or viewing. Art is not a metaphysical given.

And ~how~ one thinks ( how one regards reality and uses reason), is exposed in art debates even more than 'normal' topics (e.g. politics) so that's why such contrasting philosophies are coming out of the woodwork here.

I agree art qua esthetics is not pin-the-tail-on-the-donkey, but that's what Rand does.

--Brant

you too

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Brant Gaede said:

But you're injecting outside information of a certain sort. It's like a perpetual motion machine the inventor has to keep tweaking.

--Brant

We learn to talk by associating our blabber to things outside us.  And yes, it is a process that has to be tweaked and modified.  Nothing happens for us unless we get out and push.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, anthony said:

Is it not a particular emotion which is evoked by some music on which one can pin one's thinking? (abstractions). A friend was just telling me how he'd once played a piece for his son and asked him to imagine an Army marching home after a battle. The question he asked was did they lose or win? The boy instantly replied "they won of course!" - he was an untrained seven y.o. and recognised the triumphal music (of 'Aida'), and could already abstract an image and a thought.  I think theres an almost unlimited musical 'vocabulary' (the large array of instrumentation and the manner specific instruments are played, is alone a huge variable) by which composers (inc. rock and ballads, etc.) are able to suggest any emotions, but the piece has to have a minimum basic structure and its development listened to over a progressive time frame to have a "suggestive" effect. Unlike 'abstract' art. Totally different perceptual processes. Abstractions from 'abstractions' (visual), don't work. A consciousness has limits.

"An Army marching home after battle." Of course the kid said, "They won, of course!" As an experiment the data are contaminated.

--Brant

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, BaalChatzaf said:

We learn to talk by associating our blabber to things outside us.  And yes, it is a process that has to be tweaked and modified.  Nothing happens for us unless we get out and push.

I think you'd call that "philosophy," not science. You know, that which you're always down on.

Sure you get out and push (pull?) science--into technology. Science is identification and technology creation.

You're a lot of things you don't think you are. I see them. We are all a lot of things we don't know we are. Like science and technology, living is discovery and then creation, all wrapped up into one. That was John Galt. BUT--he was also a philosopher (no?).

Ironically, Rand's two years of sweating over Galt's speech is in contrast to Galt taking a weekend off and dashing one off except, I think, he was speaking extemporaneously: thus illustrating your supremacy of science over philosophy, especially to where the big brains are? Rand bowed down to her supreme human creation.

--Brant

 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Brant Gaede said:

I think you'd call that "philosophy," not science. You know, that which you're always down on.

 

I would call it good sense born of experience. If one lives long enough, one learns a few things.   I am over 80 so I have picked up a trick or two and some handy dandy  true things. 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, BaalChatzaf said:

I would call it good sense born of experience. If one lives long enough, one learns a few things.   I am over 80 so I have picked up a trick or two and some handy dandy  true things. 

Not all of them from peer-reviewed journals.

--Brant

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Brant Gaede said:

Not all of them from peer-reviewed journals.

--Brant

I reviewed them.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, BaalChatzaf said:

Gerschwin intended the music to be a cartoon of Paris traffic.  That music accompanies a traffic scene in Paris.  I will take the composers word for it. 

You missed my point.

I'm demanding scientific proof, not your or anyone else's anecdotal self-reportings. Your statements of what you experienced in a work of art while believing that you had not been exposed to any outside information prior to hearing it does not qualify as  a scientifically controlled experiment.

J

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Jonathan said:

You missed my point.

I'm demanding scientific proof, not your or anyone else's anecdotal self-reportings. Your statements of what you experienced in a work of art while believing that you had not been exposed to any outside information prior to hearing it does not qualify as  a scientifically controlled experiment.

J

Scientific proofs and philosophy don't mix. Then philosophy would be a science. It's not; it never will be. The criterion of scientific proof is the demand for an authority-top-of-the-mountain figure, something Rand desired for herself in one form or another. Proper philosophy is sequential reasoning off it's axiomtic reason and reality base from which philosophy goes one way into ethics and politics and science--scientific philosophy--another. There is, of course, scientific ethics--just to make the science work--but it's more narrowly construed then an ethical system per se. So too for politics. It has an ethics--or individual rights won't work or make sense--but that is narrowly construed. Philosophy is should be and shouldn't be--do and not do--esthetics is not normative. Esthetics does not prescribe or proscribe thus is separate from any philosophical system, though not from morality and ethics. No human optional behavior is free from morality. Morality does not front run esthetics except the operative morality within the artist. What the artist makes one takes or leaves, likes or dislikes. Of course, if you walk into a gallery and an artist pulls out a gun and you buy his painting rather than have your brains blown out--well, that's just wrong.

--Brant

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, Brant Gaede said:

Scientific proofs and philosophy don't mix. Then philosophy would be a science. It's not; it never will be. The criterion of scientific proof is the demand for an authority-top-of-the-mountain figure, something Rand desired for herself in one form or another. Proper philosophy is sequential reasoning off it's axiomtic reason and reality base from which philosophy goes one way into ethics and politics and science--scientific philosophy--another. There is, of course, scientific ethics--just to make the science work--but it's more narrowly construed then an ethical system per se. So too for politics. It has an ethics--or individual rights won't work or make sense--but that is narrowly construed. Philosophy is should be and shouldn't be--do and not do--esthetics is not normative. Esthetics does not prescribe or proscribe thus is separate from any philosophical system, though not from morality and ethics. No human optional behavior is free from morality. Morality does not front run esthetics except the operative morality within the artist. What the artist makes one takes or leaves, likes or dislikes. Of course, if you walk into a gallery and an artist pulls out a gun and you buy his painting rather than have your brains blown out--well, that's just wrong.

--Brant

The only scientific  proofs are well established empirical falsifications  of a hypothesis or theory  Anything else is either the statement of a hypothesis or an empirical corroboration of a prediction, which does not constitute proof.

If you want proofs,  do mathematics.  If you want corroborations of hypotheses  or empirical falsifications,   do science. 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My one and your two--or the old one-two.

--Brant

all good science--a redundancy--is off the axiomatic philosophical base of reality and reason (non-contradiction)

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/7/2016 at 11:57 AM, Jonathan said:

Wow, what a devastating zinger! The Kantians are attacking!

Heh.

And yet the fact still remains that my challenges remain unanswered, both by Rand's dumbest followers and her brightest. Nothing has ever been shown to qualify as art by the Objectivist Esthetics, nor by any of Rand's followers' personal variations on the Objectivist Esthetics.

We're six pages into this thread, and my challenges remain unmet. All that Rand's followers have to offer is evasion, bluff, distraction and pouting.

J

Reprise.

--Repriser

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for bumping the thread, Brant. Aside from my being very busy, this is another reason that I haven't posted in a long time. There's been no need to. If I were to take the time to post an argument, it would be in regard to my primary area of interest, aesthetics. But there have been no substantive or intelligent responses to the challenges that I laid down in this thread. O'vishism's best, brightest, and most publicly prominent run from the challenges, censor or ban them from their websites, or are reduced to whimpering and throwing tantrums.

Alas, I have no more O'vish Esthetics foes to conquer.

J

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, Jonathan said:

Thanks for bumping the thread, Brant. Aside from my being very busy, this is another reason that I haven't posted in a long time. There's been no need to. If I were to take the time to post an argument, it would be in regard to my primary area of interest, aesthetics. But there have been no substantive or intelligent responses to the challenges that I laid down in this thread. O'vishism's best, brightest, and most publicly prominent run from the challenges, censor or ban them from their websites, or are reduced to whimpering and throwing tantrums.

Alas, I have no more O'vish Esthetics foes to conquer.

J

I figured that out late last year--or I figured you'd been run over by irrationality.

--Brant

but I didn't know if you were sweating it out or drinking it down

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now