Imagination and Primacy of Consciousness?


anthony

Recommended Posts

Of course I'm much taken with the methods and results of artistic creation.

To make some thing out of 'fresh air', so to speak, - to give it form in images, structures, words, and music, is something I have attempted, and moreso have admired in the masters of art.

It was interesting to read here recently a quote by Ayn Rand, saying in part, that "the power to rearrange the combinations of natural elements is the only creative power man possesses."

Great,but. The original source of natural elements is existent in reality, so (superficially) they are available to anyone.

My understanding is that the most important creative process is internalized: for an author, it could start with, for instance - why not...?, what if...? ("it's the industrialists who go on strike for once - Bingo!"); the sculptor visualizes the completed statue, before he picks up his tools; a composer conceives a hint of a melody in his 'internal ear'.

And so it goes.

I have never seen any O'ist discussion of imagination, and that is a little strange.

The fundamentals of Romantic Manifesto are a valuable contribution to understanding art, and bringing aesthetics under the O'ist umbrella, I believe, but Rand did, I think, over-reach on some minor points. Is the Primacy of Existence in creativity not over-reaching, too?

My question is: Isn't artistic creation dependent largely on the Primacy of Consciousness; and if so, what of it?

Tony

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 72
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

My question is: Isn't artistic creation dependent largely on the Primacy of Consciousness; and if so, what of it?

Tony

Creativity requires mental flexibility. Nature gives us the dots, it is our burden to connect them. This can be done with originality or it can be pedestrian and plodding and all points in between.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There should be a recognition of the distinction between imaginating and fantasizing - one is speculative relatings within reality, the other is not [with only the aspect which do relate to reality being of any 'value' at least to the extent of falsely 'tying' them together and leading to a presumption the fantasy has value to reality]....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is a textbook example (a very elementary text at that) of a stolen concept. We come to know what the imaginary is by contrasting it to the objectively real. The former concept could never have arisen without the latter.

An author by the name of Ayn Rand is very good on this kind of thing. You ought to check her out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My question is: Isn't artistic creation dependent largely on the Primacy of Consciousness; and if so, what of it?

Her definition of art was “selective recreation of reality according to the artist’s metaphysical value judgements”. This may seem to rule out intentional creation of unreality, but that’s another matter (e.g. fantasy, some science fiction). In a sense the artist practices primacy of consciousness, in that he creates a world, so he’s god in effect. I don’t see any significance here to the philosophical issue of primacy of existence vs. primacy of consciousness, though. What are you getting at?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In a sense the artist practices primacy of consciousness, in that he creates a world, so he’s god in effect.

ND,

That's what I was getting at.

In fact the - "he's god in effect"- part is word for word what I considered originally posting.

Essentially, one may see creation as: reality -> consciousness -> reality.

Exactly congruent with Rand's "selective recreation of reality according to the artist's..." etc, is my notion that the artist 'adds value' to observed reality.

Do you agree with this?

I'd like to explore this more : the process of consciousness during which the artist attempts to make the world in his own image.

Despite Reidy's fair criticism of me employing a stolen concept here, it has been my experience that the internal process can be agonizingly long-drawn out, so much so, that one can lose touch with the reality. Consciousness (instead of existence) then seems to become primary, with all its attendant draw-backs.

Ah, it's late. I hope this makes some sense to someone.

Tony

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What you're calling "primacy of consciousness" looks to like simple use of imagination. The standard for the real thing is much higher; it's the belief that consciousness suffices to make things real or that nothing exists outside of consciousness. I wonder if any deliberate human activity would fail to meet your definition. Art wouldn't, as you've pointed out. Neither would driving, which requires imagining yourself at a destination and, to that end, imagining the car starting when you turn the key and stopping when you appply the brake and so on. Neither would cooking or grocery shopping or walking across a room. If you could bring the imagined states about simply by imagining them (which is what p.o.c. holds), you wouldn't do anything to realize them, because you wouldn't need to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

my notion that the artist 'adds value' to observed reality.

Do you agree with this?

Take two contrasting examples: Steinbeck’s Cannery Row is supposedly about real people and events that really happened. He changed the names, reordered the events, maybe added in some exaggeration. Star Wars takes place “a long time ago in galaxy far far away”, where the laws of physics aren’t quite right, and there’s "the force" to contend with. Telekinesis works, etc. Do you agree that in both cases the author "adds value to observed reality"?

the internal process can be agonizingly long-drawn out, so much so, that one can lose touch with the reality. Consciousness (instead of existence) then seems to become primary, with all its attendant draw-backs.

What reality? If you’re writing historical fiction and your plot/theme requires that events not proceed in the order they really happened, that’s normal. I’m thinking of Quo Vadis, where Nero gets deposed right after the fire of Rome and the persecution of the Christians. He lasted a couple-three years after that, in reality. Or are you wrestling with a case where the plot/theme requires characters to act in ways that are unreal? Francisco giving up sex with Dagny until the strike succeeds, then coping so well with losing her to Galt in the end. In reality, he’d have spent the time upfront discussing it with her, until he’d convinced her to come along right from the beginning. But then, there goes the story.

BTW, here's a simply dreadful piece about Amadeus by Edward Cline. Randroid claptrap at it's worst. Relevant though, to this subject.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course I'm much taken with the methods and results of artistic creation...I have never seen any O'ist discussion of imagination, and that is a little strange.

Perhaps the lack of discussions on artistic creativity and imagination has had a lot to do with the demographics of O'land? Most O'ists appear to be math/science/engineering-types with the general mindset of 'prove or disprove.' I see artistic imagination as being about exploring both the possible and impossible, of delaying or avoiding critical judgments, and of trusting in intuitive thinking, where I think the general math/science mindset is primarily focused on cold, hard facts, and on the critical and the negative, and is very distrusting of, and uninterested in, intuitive thinking.

Despite Reidy's fair criticism of me employing a stolen concept here, it has been my experience that the internal process can be agonizingly long-drawn out, so much so, that one can lose touch with the reality. Consciousness (instead of existence) then seems to become primary, with all its attendant draw-backs.

I think Rand's concept of art as a "re-creation of reality" is more about the internal consistency of the 'reality' that is being simulated than it is about the simulation being consistent with actual reality. I don't see why any artist worth his or her salt would worry about "losing touch with reality" while creating art, since the whole point is to put yourself into the imaginary world while you're creating it. There's no reason to impose anything from reality onto it. So, I guess I see things opposite to the way that you see them -- I don't see the act of getting lost in a "re-creation of reality" as a drawback, but as the means and the point of creating art.

J

Edited by Jonathan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course I'm much taken with the methods and results of artistic creation.

To make some thing out of 'fresh air', so to speak, - to give it form in images, structures, words, and music, is something I have attempted, and moreso have admired in the masters of art.

It was interesting to read here recently a quote by Ayn Rand, saying in part, that "the power to rearrange the combinations of natural elements is the only creative power man possesses."

Great,but. The original source of natural elements is existent in reality, so (superficially) they are available to anyone.

My understanding is that the most important creative process is internalized: for an author, it could start with, for instance - why not...?, what if...? ("it's the industrialists who go on strike for once - Bingo!"); the sculptor visualizes the completed statue, before he picks up his tools; a composer conceives a hint of a melody in his 'internal ear'.

And so it goes.

I have never seen any O'ist discussion of imagination, and that is a little strange.

The fundamentals of Romantic Manifesto are a valuable contribution to understanding art, and bringing aesthetics under the O'ist umbrella, I believe, but Rand did, I think, over-reach on some minor points. Is the Primacy of Existence in creativity not over-reaching, too?

My question is: Isn't artistic creation dependent largely on the Primacy of Consciousness; and if so, what of it?

Tony

Imagination is the more or less arbitrary rearrangement of preexisting elements. You can imagine a new arrangements of colors. You can't imagine a new color. One of the benefits of broad experience is that it widens the imagination.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My question is: Isn't artistic creation dependent largely on the Primacy of Consciousness; and if so, what of it?

Tony

Creativity requires mental flexibility. Nature gives us the dots, it is our burden to connect them. This can be done with originality or it can be pedestrian and plodding and all points in between.

Ba'al Chatzaf

"Connecting given dots" seems a similar idea to Keer's "arbitrary re-combination of existing elements" notion.

The poet Samuel Taylor Coleridge (author of the famous "Rime of the Ancient Mariner") spent the final decades of his life writing works on philosophy (including a treatise on logic, by the way), and he wrote quite a bit about the problem of imagination. For him, there are two types of mental processes going on: the first is, indeed, a mere "flexibility of mind" in which already given dots -- that are, note well, recognized as being "dots" rather than as something else -- are "arbitrarily" rearranged into some novel pattern of dots. Coleridge rejects the idea that this is an example of "imagination" at work; in fact, he uses a different word for this sort of pattern rearrangement; i.e. "fancy." He also rejects the notion that any sort of real originality or "greatness" can arise from the exercise of mere fancy. "Fancy", we might conclude, is the province of the 2nd-rater, the mediocre.

"Imagination", however, is quite different. It might include elements of mere rearrangement, of course, but it goes far beyond it by actually attempting to perceive "in the mind's eye" certain relations among the given dots that cannot be perceived by a mere rearrangement. By his lights -- and I agree with Coleridge -- "imagination" is a mode of perception -- similar, in fact, to sight, except more commingled with conscious thinking -- and, like ordinary material perception (sight, hearing, touch, etc.), a means to knowledge of the real world.

"Fancy", then, according to Coleridge, is "making things up", "rearranging" given things in some new pattern.

"Imagination" might employ "fancy" to some extent but surpasses a mere rearrangement of parts by perceiving something about reality that wasn't perceived before, and therefore leads (or, at least, can lead) to new knowledge about the world. In fact, we might say that to the extent it actually does lead to new knowledge about the real world, then it was an example of imagination; to the extent that it does not lead to new knowledge, then it was simply an example of fancy.

By this sort of division of terms, then, we can see "Imagination" as not only the mode of perception common to the "great" creators in the arts, but also -- relating this to the thread on scientific discovery and induction -- common to the "greats" in science, since it positions scientific research as an essentially creative enterprise, not entirely different from creativity in the arts. What this implies, of course, is quite profound: it implies that not only does imagination employed in the service of scientific discovery lead to the discovery of new knowledge, new truths about reality that weren't grasped before, but that imagination employed in the service of the arts can just as well lead to the discovery of new knowledge about the real world. Thus, a great novel, painting, or poem is not merely a clever or arbitrary rearrangement of elements; it shows us, or teaches us something about the real world that we did not perceive before.

In sum, I side with Coleridge on this: imagination (as distinct from fancy) is a mode of perception, and like other modes of perception, it gives us information about the real world. Imagination is a means of gaining new knowledge about the world, while fancy is not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In sum, I side with Coleridge on this: imagination (as distinct from fancy) is a mode of perception, and like other modes of perception, it gives us information about the real world. Imagination is a means of gaining new knowledge about the world, while fancy is not.

I do not believe it is that simple, nor do I believe that it is all that worthwhile to talk about imagination and "fancy" together in this way. At least not now in present day. Fancy is a very old term with its own connotations and contexts. Why would we re-animate it here? I don't think I would have cared for it even if I lived back then. Other than that, I guess I am down with you.

rde

Being all subjective.

Edited by Rich Engle
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some of these searching contributions are lending weight to my 'pet' theory - that induction ( B) ) is somehow central to imagination and the creative process.

Hell, for that matter, for "connecting the dots", deduction too.

Tony

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In sum, I side with Coleridge on this: imagination (as distinct from fancy) is a mode of perception, and like other modes of perception, it gives us information about the real world. Imagination is a means of gaining new knowledge about the world, while fancy is not.

I do not believe it is that simple, nor do I believe that it is all that worthwhile to talk about imagination and "fancy" together in this way. At least not now in present day. Fancy is a very old term with its own connotations and contexts. Why would we re-animate it here? I don't think I would have cared for it even if I lived back then. Other than that, I guess I am down with you.

rde

Being all subjective.

I do not believe it is that simple,

Never claimed anything having to do with a subject like imagination was simple.

nor do I believe that it is all that worthwhile to talk about imagination and "fancy" together in this way.

I do. It's as important to distinguish "imagination" from "fancy" as it is to distinguish between "perception" and "sensation". Closely related? Yes. Identical? No.

Fancy is a very old term with its own connotations and contexts. Why would we re-animate it here?

Same can be said for the term "imagination." If you don't like the term "fancy," find another term. I brought it up because I posted on Coleridge's thinking about this topic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some of these searching contributions are lending weight to my 'pet' theory - that induction ( B) ) is somehow central to imagination and the creative process.

Hell, for that matter, for "connecting the dots", deduction too.

Tony

Here's my pet revision of your pet theory:

"Imagination" is central to induction, not the other way around.

Furthermore, I side with the old logicians on this issue (great teachers of the subject like Richard Whately). For them, there was simply no such thing as "inductive logic." "Logic" is a deductive science, period. So-called "induction", for the old logicians, would fall under a closely-related topic -- rhetoric, i.e., a mode of argumentation and persuasion. Induction was usually treated as a species of "argument from analogy."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Furthermore, I side with the old logicians on this issue (great teachers of the subject like Richard Whately). For them, there was simply no such thing as "inductive logic." "Logic" is a deductive science, period. So-called "induction", for the old logicians, would fall under a closely-related topic -- rhetoric, i.e., a mode of argumentation and persuasion. Induction was usually treated as a species of "argument from analogy."

Argument from analogy is not a valid form of inference. Why? Because you can start off with something true, apply argument from analogy and end up with something false. A valid form of inference always and always goes from true to true. As sure as the principle of con-contradiction is true.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Furthermore, I side with the old logicians on this issue (great teachers of the subject like Richard Whately). For them, there was simply no such thing as "inductive logic." "Logic" is a deductive science, period. So-called "induction", for the old logicians, would fall under a closely-related topic -- rhetoric, i.e., a mode of argumentation and persuasion. Induction was usually treated as a species of "argument from analogy."

Argument from analogy is not a valid form of inference. Why? Because you can start off with something true, apply argument from analogy and end up with something false. A valid form of inference always and always goes from true to true. As sure as the principle of con-contradiction is true.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Argument from analogy is not a valid form of inference.

According to the old logicians (e.g., Whately), neither, therefore, is induction.

However, induction, as a form of persuasion, is a valid form of argumentation.

We tend to look down our noses today at the subject of rhetoric. Originally, "discourse" was divided into three subjects (which where, in fact, the first three subjects in the classical "Seven Liberal Arts" inherited from antiquity). The three subjects -- known as the "Trivium" (for "three ways") -- were grammar, logic, and rhetoric. Rhetoric was considered the epitome; logic, an important but subservient art.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Argument from analogy is not a valid form of inference.

According to the old logicians (e.g., Whately), neither, therefore, is induction.

However, induction, as a form of persuasion, is a valid form of argumentation.

.

A point I have made several times, if you care to read it. Look at the thread entitled "What problem?".

Even so, Induction and its cousin Abduction (hypothesizing to a cause) are indispensable for learning new stuff from what we already know. Induction and Abduction is how we go from specific assertions to general assertions. While there is no guarantee of being right in doing so, if we ever want the machinery of generalization to work for us, risking being wrong is one of the prices we pay for general assertions.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Edited by BaalChatzaf
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think Rand's concept of art as a "re-creation of reality" is more about the internal consistency of the 'reality' that is being simulated than it is about the simulation being consistent with actual reality. I don't see why any artist worth his or her salt would worry about "losing touch with reality" while creating art, since the whole point is to put yourself into the imaginary world while you're creating it. There's no reason to impose anything from reality onto it. So, I guess I see things opposite to the way that you see them -- I don't see the act of getting lost in a "re-creation of reality" as a drawback, but as the means and the point of creating art.

J

Jonathan,

The very reason for this topic should be evidence of my partial endorsement of this view.

It is apparent that there is no one way to artistic creation - one has to go with what one's got, here and now.

If one's metaphysical premises are exposed, as they certainly will be, in the finished product as - (broadly) Naturalist, or as Romanticist ; or as consciousness-based, rather than existence-based ; as inductive, as opposed to deductive ; malevolent/benevolent sense of life, or whatever other categories...

well, so be it.

Nothing can cause paralysis of creativity, like being self-consciously aware of one's metaphysical status, during the creative process, imo.

Anyhow, those categories are very seldom mutually exclusive, as far as I've seen.

Personally, I am heavily biased to Romanticism, since the 'oughts' of art are what sustain me. But I've read a thousand novels and seen many pictures that have 'mixed premises'(and straight Naturalism) which I also found uplifting or simply enjoyable.

As afterthought, you must have noticed artists and authors shift over time. To use that inductive thing, doesn't it appear that AR switched gradually from a more inductive and subjective approach early on, with Anthem, We the Living, and The Fountainhead, - to the more deductive Atlas Shrugged?

Tony

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My question is: Isn't artistic creation dependent largely on the Primacy of Consciousness; and if so, what of it?

Tony

Creativity requires mental flexibility. Nature gives us the dots, it is our burden to connect them. This can be done with originality or it can be pedestrian and plodding and all points in between.

Ba'al Chatzaf

"Connecting given dots" seems a similar idea to Keer's "arbitrary re-combination of existing elements" notion.

The poet Samuel Taylor Coleridge (author of the famous "Rime of the Ancient Mariner") spent the final decades of his life writing works on philosophy (including a treatise on logic, by the way), and he wrote quite a bit about the problem of imagination. For him, there are two types of mental processes going on: the first is, indeed, a mere "flexibility of mind" in which already given dots -- that are, note well, recognized as being "dots" rather than as something else -- are "arbitrarily" rearranged into some novel pattern of dots. Coleridge rejects the idea that this is an example of "imagination" at work; in fact, he uses a different word for this sort of pattern rearrangement; i.e. "fancy." He also rejects the notion that any sort of real originality or "greatness" can arise from the exercise of mere fancy. "Fancy", we might conclude, is the province of the 2nd-rater, the mediocre.

"Imagination", however, is quite different. It might include elements of mere rearrangement, of course, but it goes far beyond it by actually attempting to perceive "in the mind's eye" certain relations among the given dots that cannot be perceived by a mere rearrangement. By his lights -- and I agree with Coleridge -- "imagination" is a mode of perception -- similar, in fact, to sight, except more commingled with conscious thinking -- and, like ordinary material perception (sight, hearing, touch, etc.), a means to knowledge of the real world.

"Fancy", then, according to Coleridge, is "making things up", "rearranging" given things in some new pattern.

"Imagination" might employ "fancy" to some extent but surpasses a mere rearrangement of parts by perceiving something about reality that wasn't perceived before, and therefore leads (or, at least, can lead) to new knowledge about the world. In fact, we might say that to the extent it actually does lead to new knowledge about the real world, then it was an example of imagination; to the extent that it does not lead to new knowledge, then it was simply an example of fancy.

By this sort of division of terms, then, we can see "Imagination" as not only the mode of perception common to the "great" creators in the arts, but also -- relating this to the thread on scientific discovery and induction -- common to the "greats" in science, since it positions scientific research as an essentially creative enterprise, not entirely different from creativity in the arts. What this implies, of course, is quite profound: it implies that not only does imagination employed in the service of scientific discovery lead to the discovery of new knowledge, new truths about reality that weren't grasped before, but that imagination employed in the service of the arts can just as well lead to the discovery of new knowledge about the real world. Thus, a great novel, painting, or poem is not merely a clever or arbitrary rearrangement of elements; it shows us, or teaches us something about the real world that we did not perceive before.

In sum, I side with Coleridge on this: imagination (as distinct from fancy) is a mode of perception, and like other modes of perception, it gives us information about the real world. Imagination is a means of gaining new knowledge about the world, while fancy is not.

Please provide three good illustrative examples for each of your separate categories.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In fact, we might say that to the extent it actually does lead to new knowledge about the real world, then it was an example of imagination; to the extent that it does not lead to new knowledge, then it was simply an example of fancy.

What does "new knowledge" mean in the arts? Is it knowledge that no one has ever had in the past, or could it also be knowledge that is new to one person but not to another?

If you or Coleridge or Ayn Rand or some of her followers disliked a work of art, or refused to take the time to contemplate it fully, or were lacking in aesthetic sensitivity and were therefore not capable of "perceiving something about reality that wasn't perceived before" through the artwork, would the artwork therefore officially be declared an example of "fancy" rather than "imagination" despite the fact that the majority of the rest of the population liked the work, took the time to contemplate it fully, and were quite capable of perceiving something new in it?

J

Edited by Jonathan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The very reason for this topic should be evidence of my partial endorsement of this view.

It is apparent that there is no one way to artistic creation - one has to go with what one's got, here and now.

If one's metaphysical premises are exposed, as they certainly will be, in the finished product as - (broadly) Naturalist, or as Romanticist ; or as consciousness-based, rather than existence-based ; as inductive, as opposed to deductive ; malevolent/benevolent sense of life, or whatever other categories...

well, so be it.

I don't agree that one's "metaphysical premises" are necessarily "exposed" through one's art. Art is usually quite complex, and identifying an artist's premises, beliefs and "sense of life" through his art is nowhere near as easy, as objective, or as reliable as many Objectivists wish to pretend.

Nothing can cause paralysis of creativity, like being self-consciously aware of one's metaphysical status, during the creative process, imo.

Anyhow, those categories are very seldom mutually exclusive, as far as I've seen.

Personally, I am heavily biased to Romanticism, since the 'oughts' of art are what sustain me. But I've read a thousand novels and seen many pictures that have 'mixed premises'(and straight Naturalism) which I also found uplifting or simply enjoyable.

Yeah, I don't believe that most art is easily divided into Rand's categories of Naturalism vs Romanticism, malevolent vs benevolent, etc.

As afterthought, you must have noticed artists and authors shift over time. To use that inductive thing, doesn't it appear that AR switched gradually from a more inductive and subjective approach early on, with Anthem, We the Living, and The Fountainhead, - to the more deductive Atlas Shrugged?

Yes, and I think most serious fans of the arts seem to agree that Rand's earlier (and more "inductive and subjective") works were better artistically.

J

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The very reason for this topic should be evidence of my partial endorsement of this view.

It is apparent that there is no one way to artistic creation - one has to go with what one's got, here and now.

If one's metaphysical premises are exposed, as they certainly will be, in the finished product as - (broadly) Naturalist, or as Romanticist ; or as consciousness-based, rather than existence-based ; as inductive, as opposed to deductive ; malevolent/benevolent sense of life, or whatever other categories...

well, so be it.

I don't agree that one's "metaphysical premises" are necessarily "exposed" through one's art. Art is usually quite complex, and identifying an artist's premises, beliefs and "sense of life" through his art is nowhere near as easy, as objective, or as reliable as many Objectivists wish to pretend.

Nothing can cause paralysis of creativity, like being self-consciously aware of one's metaphysical status, during the creative process, imo.

Anyhow, those categories are very seldom mutually exclusive, as far as I've seen.

Personally, I am heavily biased to Romanticism, since the 'oughts' of art are what sustain me. But I've read a thousand novels and seen many pictures that have 'mixed premises'(and straight Naturalism) which I also found uplifting or simply enjoyable.

Yeah, I don't believe that most art is easily divided into Rand's categories of Naturalism vs Romanticism, malevolent vs benevolent, etc.

As afterthought, you must have noticed artists and authors shift over time. To use that inductive thing, doesn't it appear that AR switched gradually from a more inductive and subjective approach early on, with Anthem, We the Living, and The Fountainhead, - to the more deductive Atlas Shrugged?

Yes, and I think most serious fans of the arts seem to agree that Rand's earlier (and more "inductive and subjective") works were better artistically.

J

Without concrete examples of what you mean, this is all rather hard to imagine. Anybody care to illustrate what they mean?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Without concrete examples of what you mean, this is all rather hard to imagine. Anybody care to illustrate what they mean?

You want me to illustrate the points I made in my previous post? Okay.

I wrote:

I don't agree that one's "metaphysical premises" are necessarily "exposed" through one's art. Art is usually quite complex, and identifying an artist's premises, beliefs and "sense of life" through his art is nowhere near as easy, as objective, or as reliable as many Objectivists wish to pretend.

Examples:

Just by looking at the following works of art, you cannot identify their creators' "senses of life," nor their "metaphysical premises," nor their views on the "malevolence or benevolence of the universe," nor much of anything else about them or their philosophical beliefs or values.

2486715879_0b0c5660ef_o.jpg

2487531420_d3c92acf31_o.jpg

2487531764_7ae199a9ba_o.jpg

I wrote:

Yeah, I don't believe that most art is easily divided into Rand's categories of Naturalism vs Romanticism, malevolent vs benevolent, etc.

Examples: the above sculptures are not easily divided into Rand's categories of Naturalism vs Romanticism. To Rand, the essential nature of Naturalism was that it presented a deterministic view of mankind, where Romanticism presented a volitional view. Each of the sculptures above could be seen as either representing characters submitting to a deterministic fate, or to displaying volitional choice. They could be heroes or zeroes. Each could be interpreted as presenting either a "malevolent" or "benevolent universe premise." The "evidence contained in the works," and even the myths upon which they are based (if we were to allow ourselves access to such information despite its being an "outside consideration" and therefore an Objectivist aesthetic no-no), supports either interpretation.

I wrote:

Yes, and I think most serious fans of the arts seem to agree that Rand's earlier (and more "inductive and subjective") works were better artistically.

On this one I'm not interested in hunting down examples of people who I consider serious fans of the arts and their views on Rand's art. To do so would be too time consuming and not worth the effort. Suffice it to say that most of the people (not all, but most) whom I respect as serious fans of the arts tend to rate Atlas Shrugged as artistically poorer than Rand's previous works. Many of them think that AS is philosophically more mature, and that it's message is perhaps more important ethically than those of her previous novels, but those are not aesthetic judgments.

J

Edited by Jonathan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

My question is: Isn't artistic creation dependent largely on the Primacy of Consciousness; and if so, what of it?

Tony

Creativity requires mental flexibility. Nature gives us the dots, it is our burden to connect them. This can be done with originality or it can be pedestrian and plodding and all points in between.

Ba'al Chatzaf

"Connecting given dots" seems a similar idea to Keer's "arbitrary re-combination of existing elements" notion.

The poet Samuel Taylor Coleridge (author of the famous "Rime of the Ancient Mariner") spent the final decades of his life writing works on philosophy (including a treatise on logic, by the way), and he wrote quite a bit about the problem of imagination. For him, there are two types of mental processes going on: the first is, indeed, a mere "flexibility of mind" in which already given dots -- that are, note well, recognized as being "dots" rather than as something else -- are "arbitrarily" rearranged into some novel pattern of dots. Coleridge rejects the idea that this is an example of "imagination" at work; in fact, he uses a different word for this sort of pattern rearrangement; i.e. "fancy." He also rejects the notion that any sort of real originality or "greatness" can arise from the exercise of mere fancy. "Fancy", we might conclude, is the province of the 2nd-rater, the mediocre.

"Imagination", however, is quite different. It might include elements of mere rearrangement, of course, but it goes far beyond it by actually attempting to perceive "in the mind's eye" certain relations among the given dots that cannot be perceived by a mere rearrangement. By his lights -- and I agree with Coleridge -- "imagination" is a mode of perception -- similar, in fact, to sight, except more commingled with conscious thinking -- and, like ordinary material perception (sight, hearing, touch, etc.), a means to knowledge of the real world.

"Fancy", then, according to Coleridge, is "making things up", "rearranging" given things in some new pattern.

"Imagination" might employ "fancy" to some extent but surpasses a mere rearrangement of parts by perceiving something about reality that wasn't perceived before, and therefore leads (or, at least, can lead) to new knowledge about the world. In fact, we might say that to the extent it actually does lead to new knowledge about the real world, then it was an example of imagination; to the extent that it does not lead to new knowledge, then it was simply an example of fancy.

By this sort of division of terms, then, we can see "Imagination" as not only the mode of perception common to the "great" creators in the arts, but also -- relating this to the thread on scientific discovery and induction -- common to the "greats" in science, since it positions scientific research as an essentially creative enterprise, not entirely different from creativity in the arts. What this implies, of course, is quite profound: it implies that not only does imagination employed in the service of scientific discovery lead to the discovery of new knowledge, new truths about reality that weren't grasped before, but that imagination employed in the service of the arts can just as well lead to the discovery of new knowledge about the real world. Thus, a great novel, painting, or poem is not merely a clever or arbitrary rearrangement of elements; it shows us, or teaches us something about the real world that we did not perceive before.

In sum, I side with Coleridge on this: imagination (as distinct from fancy) is a mode of perception, and like other modes of perception, it gives us information about the real world. Imagination is a means of gaining new knowledge about the world, while fancy is not.

Please provide three good illustrative examples for each of your separate categories.

Please provide three good illustrative examples for each of your separate categories.

Please provide nine good reasons, in 6 dialects, in 3 different languages, why I should do anything for you, Keer, after you threw a little hissy-fit in another thread and sneered that you'd never respond to any of my posts. "Division of labor" doesn't mean "I do your work for you."

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