Debate on IP, 1983: Wendy McElroy vs. J. Neil Schulman


Greybird

Recommended Posts

With that said, I don't care for JMS' black beatnik cap, and sense in Ms. McElroy's picture profound angst.

You have a point there. And Neil smiles too much and Wendy not enough. Bad choices.

I made an interesting psychological experience when studying the two pictures.

Since we happen to know a lot of private info about those two individuals, I find it very difficult to be objective in looking at the pictures, i. e. what I personally associate with both Wendy and Neil strongly flows into my interpretation of their facial expressions.

Since I never perceived Wendy as having much angst (I see her as an extreme risk taker not afraid to transgress boundaries), I find it difficult to detect angst in her expression. Wariness and distrust, yes. Also hardness, and an attitude of calculation by someone who does not want to put her cards on the table.

But like I said, it is all colored by what I personally connote with Wendy.

(The bitterness I also "see" in Wendy's face is not influenced by what I have read about her though).

The same goes for Neil: "ebullient", "wears his heart on his sleeve", "a good hearted-guy, but very impulsive and too trusting", "not having enpough inner distance to his own experience" - again, all that I connote with Neil flows into my interpretation of his photo.

Ms. Xray: you realize that everything I have said about their pictures is/was a tongue-in-cheek effort to poke at Greybird's preemptive lecture about going off topic, right?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 113
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

For my guitar practice, I have just what they would expect. When they ask me for a writer shot, I just give them something confusing, lately it has been this:

RoscoeErwinStill.jpg

It do work real fine in the Southern Market., by crackie'.

rde

Good shot, Rich. Your picture is confusing enough by itself, however, so you don't need to include the guy wearing shades with his arm around you. :rolleyes:

Ghs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

With that said, I don't care for JMS' black beatnik cap, and sense in Ms. McElroy's picture profound angst.

You have a point there. And Neil smiles too much and Wendy not enough. Bad choices.

I made an interesting psychological experience when studying the two pictures.

Since we happen to know a lot of private info about those two individuals, I find it very difficult to be objective in looking at the pictures, i. e. what I personally associate with both Wendy and Neil strongly flows into my interpretation of their facial expressions.

Since I never perceived Wendy as having much angst (I see her as an extreme risk taker not afraid to transgress boundaries), I find it difficult to detect angst in her expression. Wariness and distrust, yes. Also hardness, and an attitude of calculation by someone who does not want to put her cards on the table.

But like I said, it is all colored by what I personally connote with Wendy.

(The bitterness I also "see" in Wendy's face is not influenced by what I have read about her though).

The same goes for Neil: "ebullient", "wears his heart on his sleeve", "a good hearted-guy, but very impulsive and too trusting", "not having enpough inner distance to his own experience" - again, all that I connote with Neil flows into my interpretation of his photo.

Ms. Xray: you realize that everything I have said about their pictures is/was a tongue-in-cheek effort to poke at Greybird's preemptive lecture about going off topic, right?

No, I wasn't aware of that. Instead I thought that you as prosecutor probably has seen a lot of people with angst in their faces and therefore may be very good at detecting it.

But just curious: what do you see in the pictures?

Edited by Xray
Link to comment
Share on other sites

With that said, I don't care for JMS' black beatnik cap, and sense in Ms. McElroy's picture profound angst.

You have a point there. And Neil smiles too much and Wendy not enough. Bad choices.

I made an interesting psychological experience when studying the two pictures.

Since we happen to know a lot of private info about those two individuals, I find it very difficult to be objective in looking at the pictures, i. e. what I personally associate with both Wendy and Neil strongly flows into my interpretation of their facial expressions.

Since I never perceived Wendy as having much angst (I see her as an extreme risk taker not afraid to transgress boundaries), I find it difficult to detect angst in her expression. Wariness and distrust, yes. Also hardness, and an attitude of calculation by someone who does not want to put her cards on the table.

But like I said, it is all colored by what I personally connote with Wendy.

(The bitterness I also "see" in Wendy's face is not influenced by what I have read about her though).

The same goes for Neil: "ebullient", "wears his heart on his sleeve", "a good hearted-guy, but very impulsive and too trusting", "not having enpough inner distance to his own experience" - again, all that I connote with Neil flows into my interpretation of his photo.

Ms. Xray: you realize that everything I have said about their pictures is/was a tongue-in-cheek effort to poke at Greybird's preemptive lecture about going off topic, right?

No, I wasn't aware of that. Instead I thought that you as prosecutor probably has seen a lot of people with angst in their faces and therefore may be very good at detecting it.

But just curious: what do you see in the pictures?

I don't presume to judge people based on one picture, nor, if I did make such presumptions, would I publish them in a public forum. I hope my attempt at humor on this has not implied otherwise.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For my guitar practice, I have just what they would expect. When they ask me for a writer shot, I just give them something confusing, lately it has been this:

RoscoeErwinStill.jpg

It do work real fine in the Southern Market., by crackie'.

rde

Good shot, Rich. Your picture is confusing enough by itself, however, so you don't need to include the guy wearing shades with his arm around you. :rolleyes:

Ghs

I agree with George on this, and would also caution Rich that, with the recent heat wave, he may want to ditch the formal summer suit with red neckware and don a tank top or something. Keep the baseball cap though. :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For my guitar practice, I have just what they would expect. When they ask me for a writer shot, I just give them something confusing, lately it has been this:

RoscoeErwinStill.jpg

It do work real fine in the Southern Market., by crackie'.

rde

Good shot, Rich. Your picture is confusing enough by itself, however, so you don't need to include the guy wearing shades with his arm around you. :rolleyes:

Ghs

I agree with George on this, and would also caution Rich that, with the recent heat wave, he may want to ditch the formal summer suit with red neckware and don a tank top or something. Keep the baseball cap though. :lol:

This theory is what I look for. It is better than when it brings up requests for DNA testing--the ugly truth of it.

rde

I done told you, yo Honor: I don't got no black babies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thus, even though I might not appreciate or like certain styles of music, I would never automatically assume that my response is owing to a "metaphysical" deficiency in the music itself.

Yeah, I think that artistic creation and response is so complex and individual, and includes so much emotion and subjectivity, that one can't necessarily know, even after a lot of deep, honest introspection, exactly what one is feeling and identifying with in a work of art, or why. I really don't understand how anyone could assume that something must be wrong with them, or that they don't have a good or proper "sense of life" or healthy psychology just because they know (or assume) that Rand had (or would have had) a negative interpretation or response to a given work of art. I mean, to me, worrying that there must be something wrong with me because I connect with a horror movie or a melancholy jazz piece would be the equivalent of worrying that there must be something wrong with me because I connected with We The Living, what with it's darkness and...

...tragic ending.

I would need to add some qualifications here, such as the ability of a given genre of music to express a wide range of emotions and subtle variations. It is on this basis that I would criticize "rap" (for the most part) as a primitive form of music.

Is primitiveness grounds for aesthetic criticism? I think that primitive art can often be much more effective and expressive, and sometimes much more genuine and original, than polished and sophisticated art.

One last thing for now: I think our personal enjoyment of art should be a "moral-free zone." We should feel free to enjoy a work of art spontaneously and at the moment, rather than burdening ourselves with all kinds of moral self-doubts if we happen to enjoy the "wrong" kind of art, by O'ist standards, and thereby tie ourselves in knots of guilt and self-doubt. This is no exaggeration, as I first learned during my UA Students of Objectivism days. (Again, some qualifications are in order, but I won't go into those here.)

I agree. I'm always amazed at how many Objectivists today are still uptight, and even frantic, about art. I was placed on moderation at Rebirth of Reason years ago, and labeled a "dirty dog" dissenter, due to my laughing at the attitude there that most of the art in the world is "harmful," and due to my explaining why I found positive meanings in works which Objectivism's self-appointed Cultural Warriors had "objectively" deemed to be anti-man, anti-reason, etc. It's really fucked up when you explain to someone that you see a work of art as representing something like the triumph of the will in the face of adversity, or whatever, and you point to the content in the work to support your view, and they respond that, no, the artwork shows mankind as defective, and since you've admitted to liking it, you therefore like it because your "sense of life" metaphysical view is that mankind is defective!

It has been years since I read The Romantic Manifeso , but I think Rand speaks of two fundamentally different types of metaphysical value judgments that constitute the foundation of a "benevolent" sense of life versus a "malevolent" sense of life.

To be honest, this typology has never made much sense to me. A metaphysical value judgment entails the evaluation of existence per se, and I don't think such judgments are appropriate here. From an atheistic perspective, existence, including the existence of human life, is neither benevolent nor malevolent. Existence simply is. The universe was not created by a benevolent God, and most of what exists in the universe would be judged malevolent, if judged by its incompatibility with human existence.

That the universe simply is -- that it is neutral and indifferent -- was also Rand's view, so her choice of the terms "benevolent universe premise" and "malevolent universe premise" could be seen as being either philosophically careless or too artsy. She really wasn't talking about our views of the universe, but of our views of mankind's potency or lack of it.

Her position was that one's "metaphysical" view of existence is an answer the 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 man have the power of choice, the power to choose his goals and to achieve them, the power to direct the course of his life—or is he the helpless plaything of forces beyond his control, which determine his fate? Is man, by nature, to be valued as good, or to be despised as evil?"

I think it's downright silly and incredibly shallow to believe that identifying with dark works of art is necessarily the equivalent of answering that the universe is unintelligible, and that man is helpless and doomed, etc.

So how would an orthodox O'ist evaluate the "sense of life" exhibited in this tune? It certainly is not joyous or optimistic; on the contrary, it is depressing as hell. But it can "speak" to me in a way that few tunes can; in fact, it can bring tears to my eyes. So does this mean that I should engage in a psycho-epistemological analysis and examine my premises? Nope, not at all.

In other words, you recognize that being "spoken" to by such music gives you something like comfort or relief from a condition or emotional state which you don't believe is the metaphysical essence of mankind?

Isn't it odd that Rand's view was that art can give man "a moment to gain fuel to move farther" by allowing him to see or feel his values successfully achieved, but she apparently failed to recognize that feeling how others (including fictional others) have stumbled or fallen, or feeling that one is not alone in experiencing certain depths of pain, etc., can be a very similar type of "fuel"? It's good to need and seek aesthetic, "metaphysical" fuel to overcome certain struggles or obstacles in life, but not others? Being fueled by art to overcome the difficulties of a chosen, long-term, large-scale goal is a good thing, but being fueled by art to overcome the difficulties of unchosen setbacks or failures reveals that one sees setbacks and failures as mankind's nature? Ridiculous.

J

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thus, even though I might not appreciate or like certain styles of music, I would never automatically assume that my response is owing to a "metaphysical" deficiency in the music itself.

Yeah, I think that artistic creation and response is so complex and individual, and includes so much emotion and subjectivity, that one can't necessarily know, even after a lot of deep, honest introspection, exactly what one is feeling and identifying with in a work of art, or why. I really don't understand how anyone could assume that something must be wrong with them, or that they don't have a good or proper "sense of life" or healthy psychology just because they know (or assume) that Rand had (or would have had) a negative interpretation or response to a given work of art. I mean, to me, worrying that there must be something wrong with me because I connect with a horror movie or a melancholy jazz piece would be the equivalent of worrying that there must be something wrong with me because I connected with We The Living, what with it's darkness and...

...tragic ending.

I would need to add some qualifications here, such as the ability of a given genre of music to express a wide range of emotions and subtle variations. It is on this basis that I would criticize "rap" (for the most part) as a primitive form of music.

Is primitiveness grounds for aesthetic criticism? I think that primitive art can often be much more effective and expressive, and sometimes much more genuine and original, than polished and sophisticated art.

One last thing for now: I think our personal enjoyment of art should be a "moral-free zone." We should feel free to enjoy a work of art spontaneously and at the moment, rather than burdening ourselves with all kinds of moral self-doubts if we happen to enjoy the "wrong" kind of art, by O'ist standards, and thereby tie ourselves in knots of guilt and self-doubt. This is no exaggeration, as I first learned during my UA Students of Objectivism days. (Again, some qualifications are in order, but I won't go into those here.)

I agree. I'm always amazed at how many Objectivists today are still uptight, and even frantic, about art. I was placed on moderation at Rebirth of Reason years ago, and labeled a "dirty dog" dissenter, due to my laughing at the attitude there that most of the art in the world is "harmful," and due to my explaining why I found positive meanings in works which Objectivism's self-appointed Cultural Warriors had "objectively" deemed to be anti-man, anti-reason, etc. It's really fucked up when you explain to someone that you see a work of art as representing something like the triumph of the will in the face of adversity, or whatever, and you point to the content in the work to support your view, and they respond that, no, the artwork shows mankind as defective, and since you've admitted to liking it, you therefore like it because your "sense of life" metaphysical view is that mankind is defective!

It has been years since I read The Romantic Manifeso , but I think Rand speaks of two fundamentally different types of metaphysical value judgments that constitute the foundation of a "benevolent" sense of life versus a "malevolent" sense of life.

To be honest, this typology has never made much sense to me. A metaphysical value judgment entails the evaluation of existence per se, and I don't think such judgments are appropriate here. From an atheistic perspective, existence, including the existence of human life, is neither benevolent nor malevolent. Existence simply is. The universe was not created by a benevolent God, and most of what exists in the universe would be judged malevolent, if judged by its incompatibility with human existence.

That the universe simply is -- that it is neutral and indifferent -- was also Rand's view, so her choice of the terms "benevolent universe premise" and "malevolent universe premise" could be seen as being either philosophically careless or too artsy. She really wasn't talking about our views of the universe, but of our views of mankind's potency or lack of it.

Her position was that one's "metaphysical" view of existence is an answer the 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 man have the power of choice, the power to choose his goals and to achieve them, the power to direct the course of his life—or is he the helpless plaything of forces beyond his control, which determine his fate? Is man, by nature, to be valued as good, or to be despised as evil?"

I think it's downright silly and incredibly shallow to believe that identifying with dark works of art is necessarily the equivalent of answering that the universe is unintelligible, and that man is helpless and doomed, etc.

So how would an orthodox O'ist evaluate the "sense of life" exhibited in this tune? It certainly is not joyous or optimistic; on the contrary, it is depressing as hell. But it can "speak" to me in a way that few tunes can; in fact, it can bring tears to my eyes. So does this mean that I should engage in a psycho-epistemological analysis and examine my premises? Nope, not at all.

In other words, you recognize that being "spoken" to by such music gives you something like comfort or relief from a condition or emotional state which you don't believe is the metaphysical essence of mankind?

Isn't it odd that Rand's view was that art can give man "a moment to gain fuel to move farther" by allowing him to see or feel his values successfully achieved, but she apparently failed to recognize that feeling how others (including fictional others) have stumbled or fallen, or feeling that one is not alone in experiencing certain depths of pain, etc., can be a very similar type of "fuel"? It's good to need and seek aesthetic, "metaphysical" fuel to overcome certain struggles or obstacles in life, but not others? Being fueled by art to overcome the difficulties of a chosen, long-term, large-scale goal is a good thing, but being fueled by art to overcome the difficulties of unchosen setbacks or failures reveals that one sees setbacks and failures as mankind's nature? Ridiculous.

J

Well, somebody had to draw the line and make the identifications, and Rand did do that - you must admit.

Otherwise we'd be stuck in some arbitrary place where anything goes as good art. Not that I totally discount the "I know it when I see it" school, which has often been my personal reaction.

I think a lot of great art has somewhat mixed premises. I think I too have mixed premises in my enjoyment of it. But I know which most lifts me - and that's not simply the bromidic heroic figure against a tamed backdrop of nature - it is more complex than that.

Reality dictates that there must be more stumbles in Man's existence, than leaps. Art should reflect this, otherwise we'd be living on a diet of saccharine.

Great Romanticist-Realist art, a rare breed, does not negate reality; rather, it puts the two into perspective - a single triumph outweighs all disasters.

"Sense of life" can be markedly over-emphasized, by O'ists, and also unfairly dismissed. Far as I understand it, it is the immediate, lightning-quick estimate, (a "pre-conceptual equivalent of metaphysics"), of a person or an art-work. That feeling we get on first acquaintance with both. No 'biggie', but it does provide the introduction to deeper appraisal.

Also, it may, or may not reflect the person's true metaphysical nature, or the artist's value-judgments. Things aren't always as integrated as they could be.

With art, an individual's most preponderant inner values (premises) are directly confronted by the art-work's S.O.L - the results are often unpredictable.

Subjective? Yup, often.

But who else could have so clearly demarcated the Objective/Subjective, Romanticist/Naturalist line, and the inherent superiority of the former, as Rand has?

Though to too rigidly apply or seek the one in mutual exclusivity of the other is an error, imo.

Tony

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, somebody had to draw the line and make the identifications, and Rand did do that - you must admit.

I would admit that Rand gave her personal view of what art is, and that it has value to me.

Otherwise we'd be stuck in some arbitrary place where anything goes as good art.

No. Humans were doing just fine creating, defining, understanding and valuing art long before Rand came along. She identified some of her own personal criteria for what constitutes good writing, but she didn't identify any standards for judging the other arts as "good" (other than a few comments here and there based on her subjective and often times uninformed tastes). She basically only said that one is to judge how well the artist has projected his view of existence, but she didn't identify any standards or methods of making such judgments. Not exactly earth shaking, or immune to what you call "arbitrariness."

As for "anything goes" in art, anything can go as art when using Rand's methods. Do you want, say, a paper napkin on your car's floor to qualify as great art? If so, just assert that it's a glorious type of art that's in a special "class by itself" (the class of objects which qualify as art despite contradicting your definition and criteria), and that you're absolutely certain that someday someone will discover an objective "conceptual vocabulary" for Found Object Art. Bada bing, it's great art!

Not that I totally discount the "I know it when I see it" school, which has often been my personal reaction.

I think a lot of great art has somewhat mixed premises. I think I too have mixed premises in my enjoyment of it. But I know which most lifts me - and that's not simply the bromidic heroic figure against a tamed backdrop of nature - it is more complex than that.

Reality dictates that there must be more stumbles in Man's existence, than leaps. Art should reflect this, otherwise we'd be living on a diet of saccharine.

Great Romanticist-Realist art, a rare breed, does not negate reality; rather, it puts the two into perspective - a single triumph outweighs all disasters.

"Sense of life" can be markedly over-emphasized, by O'ists, and also unfairly dismissed.

I agree. I think there's value in Rand's concept of "sense of life," despite the fact that Rand and her followers have abused the hell out of it.

Far as I understand it, it is the immediate, lightning-quick estimate, (a "pre-conceptual equivalent of metaphysics"), of a person or an art-work. That feeling we get on first acquaintance with both. No 'biggie', but it does provide the introduction to deeper appraisal.

Also, it may, or may not reflect the person's true metaphysical nature, or the artist's value-judgments. Things aren't always as integrated as they could be.

I'd say that the more important issue is that Objectivist consumers of art aren't as good at identifying meanings and "metaphysical value-judgments" in art as they pretend to be. Their "sense of life" reactions to art are just as emotional and subjective as everyone else's, if not more so, and therefore just as invalid as a criterion of aesthetic judgment according to Objectivism. From what I've seen, Objectivists' "sense of life" responses usually don't "provide the introduction to deeper appraisal" as you suggest, but impede or prevent such deeper appraisal.

With art, an individual's most preponderant inner values (premises) are directly confronted by the art-work's S.O.L - the results are often unpredictable.

Subjective? Yup, often.

But who else could have so clearly demarcated the Objective/Subjective, Romanticist/Naturalist line, and the inherent superiority of the former, as Rand has?

I don't think that Rand was all that clear on those issues. In fact, I think she blurred the line between objectivity and subjectivity in art, owing to her hatred of subjectivity and her apparent need to believe that her subjective reactions were objective. As for Romanticism vs Naturalism, again, Rand gave her personal opinion on what she thought were the essences of those concepts. I disagree with her that everything boils down to an artist's views on volition in regard to those concepts.

J

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think one way to objectify art, at least in painting and sculpture, is technical mastery of techniques. If someone has great skills regarding perspective and use of color and choice of composition, etc., why would he then turn out crap?

--Brant

Edited by Brant Gaede
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think one way to objectify art, at least in painting and sculpture, is technical mastery of techniques. If someone has great skills regarding perspective and use of color and choice of composition, etc., why would he then turn out crap?

--Brant

Maybe he'd turn out what you call "crap" because he sees his intentional deviations from accurate perspective and color, etc., as expressive enhancements or romantic improvements on reality?

J

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think one way to objectify art, at least in painting and sculpture, is technical mastery of techniques. If someone has great skills regarding perspective and use of color and choice of composition, etc., why would he then turn out crap?

--Brant

Maybe he'd turn out what you call "crap" because he sees his intentional deviations from accurate perspective and color, etc., as expressive enhancements or romantic improvements on reality?

J

Could be. Do you think Picasso was a great artist? I do. However, that doesn't mean I like all or even most of his stuff. (I've never seen "most of his stuff.") I only say this because I think "Guernica" was a great painting. Well, there was, what, his early "Cubist" period. Please understand I am an incompetent esthetician and really don't try to be. BTW, that's unlikely to be what I'd call "crap," for wouldn't the artist have to be something of a master to do those "deviations."

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Could be. Do you think Picasso was a great artist? I do. However, that doesn't mean I like all or even most of his stuff.

Ditto.

BTW, that's unlikely to be what I'd call "crap," for wouldn't the artist have to be something of a master to do those "deviations."

I don't think that an artist would have to be a master before deviating from reality for expressive purposes, but obviously he'd have to have some knowledge of what he's doing and why.

J

Link to comment
Share on other sites

George,

From what you've said on this thread, it appears that you and I have similar views on art, so I'm curious to know what was at the core of your disagreement with JR in your "blistering flamewar" on A2 over the topic of art and "sense of life," which you mentioned earlier.

J

Edited by Jonathan
Link to comment
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