Judgmental Aesthetics Time!

[studiodekadent]

An unfortunate problem with some Objectivists is that they regard divergent aesthetic tastes as "treachery to Objectivism" and thus proof that the person with the "wrong" tastes is insufficiently Objectivist and thus worthy of condemnation.

Here's my contribution to this (unfortunate) tradition.

This is a song from the video game "Deus Ex: Human Revolution" (a game that's basically thematically masturbatory to any Objectivist). This is a game about mankind's ability to use reason and science to rise up to the level of the gods.

Therefore, if you don't love this song (the game's theme song), you're not Objectivist enough. You're a traitor. You don't believe in human greatness, or science, or reason, or logic. And therefore you have Death Premises in your Sense Of Life which need to be rooted out.

NOTES: I love this song but this post is intended to be a Reductio Ad Absurdum to an unfortunately common argument made by Randians so don't assume I actually BELIEVE what I wrote above.

[Peter]

It starts out sounding religious, or like something from the show Game of Thrones, and then the high pitched female singer sounds like how experts think singing was performed in ancient Rome (as heard on the HBO show Rome.) I don't know how they know that. It's not bad. I was also reminded of the ending of an action movie.

Peter

[Jonathan]

An unfortunate problem with some Objectivists is that they regard divergent aesthetic tastes as "treachery to Objectivism" and thus proof that the person with the "wrong" tastes is insufficiently Objectivist and thus worthy of condemnation.

The problem isn't just with "some Objectivists," but with the actual, official Objectivist Esthetic theory. It was ~designed~ to be used as a weapon of moral and psychological condemnation. It was ~intended~ as a tool to be used in posing as superior to others. It was constructed for the purpose of attempting to validated the belief that certain people have "objectively superior" tastes and interpretations of art. In other words, it's not actually Objectivist in its epistemological method. It's not a rational, dispassionate, philosophical investigation into the nature of art and aesthetic response in reality, but rather a personal introspection into Rand's tastes and interpretations, combined with lots of bluff and transparent attempts at intimidation.

I'm glad you're not falling for it!

J

[Ellen Stuttle]

Jonathan,

I think that you've become as bad as or even worse than Ayn Rand (or Nathaniel Branden) ever was at making unsupportable psychological assertions.

Just how would you propose to prove that Rand set out to devise a theory of art which would give her "a weapon of moral and psychological condemnation," etc.?

Ellen

[Jonathan]

Jonathan,

I think that you've become as bad as or even worse than Ayn Rand (or Nathaniel Branden) ever was at making unsupportable psychological assertions.

Do you think that they never intended to make unsupportable psychological assertions? Do you think that they never intended to be vicious? Do you think it's impossible that they enjoyed being intimidating, and sometimes intentionally used their ability to intimidate when they didn't have anything to back up their assertions?

Just how would you propose to prove that Rand set out to devise a theory of art which would give her "a weapon of moral and psychological condemnation," etc.?

I think that a few things add up to sufficient proof:

Rand's abundant use of the weapon that she created, while offering nothing objective or rational to back up the smears of others based on their creation or enjoyment of art.

The eagerness and glee with which she used the weapon on others.

Her abandonment of her own stated epistemological method when addressing the subject of art and aesthetic judgment.

Her belief in the "objective superiority" of her personal tastes, interpretations and judgments, and her very snooty, snotty attitude toward judging art (and others' judgments of it), especially in regard to art forms about which she knew very little. (Her lack of self-questioning, her lack of curiosity on the issue of how she happened to become the ultimate objective technical expert on all of the art forms without having been educated on them.)

J

[Ellen Stuttle]

I think that you've become as bad as or even worse than Ayn Rand (or Nathaniel Branden) ever was at making unsupportable psychological assertions.

Do you think that they never intended to make unsupportable psychological assertions? Do you think that they never intended to be vicious? Do you think it's impossible that they enjoyed being intimidating, and sometimes intentionally used their ability to intimidate when they didn't have anything to back up their assertions?

Do you see any relevance of your questions to my stated opinion?

Just how would you propose to prove that Rand set out to devise a theory of art which would give her "a weapon of moral and psychological condemnation," etc.?

I think that a few things add up to sufficient proof:

I think that even if everything you describe Rand as doing were fully accurate (and I don't think it is), none of it would add up to anything as proof of your assertions concerning Rand's intent in forming her theory of art.

Ellen

[Brant Gaede]

Rand didn't have the time and health to really delve into esthetics. She did write some interesting stuff. She was always interesting. Deconstructing her and her work and influence does not mean roasting her on a spit.

Her basic problem was conflating her life and her art and herself and her philosophy. The reason she didn't want philosophical give and take that wasn't complete agreement after you heard her arguments--that could be through Nathaniel Branden--was she already had the truth and if you didn't get it something was the matter with you. On every thing important she was not to be corrected or subject to pretension from the ignorant, the stupid and the detractors. She never understood that the philosophy of Ayn Rand was hers alone and was apart from any "Objectivism" that made any sense as an autonomous philosophical construct universally applicable to man qua man. Instead it was Rand qua man and therefore hardly travelled or even present-day travels. The seduction was a combination of glory seeking by her and her admiring readers and that the basic principles--and-I-mean-BASIC--were rock-solid sound.

--Brant

[Jonathan]

Where in Rand's writings on art do we see any indication whatsoever that she gave serious consideration to investigating the possibility that aesthetic judgments are not objective (by her definition, or by any other)? Where did she do anything beyond merely shallowly mocking and sneering at others for their recognition of the reality of the subjective nature of aesthetic judgments? Where's the rational substance to support her position? Where is the actual argument rather than just bluff and puff and snarl?

Where might we see examples of her applying logic and reason to the issue of objectivity versus subjectivity in aesthetic judgments, instead of example after example of the unsupported, predetermined conclusion that proper aesthetic judgments, especially hers, MUST be objective?

Where might we see, from Rand or from any of her followers, the identification of actual objective standards and criteria for aethetic judgments? Where in her writings did Rand later pick back up on the task of providing the missing proof of her theory of objectivity in aethetic judgments, which she had skipped due to its having been "outside the scope of the discussion"?

Where might we see examples of Rand admitting to having discovered that she had been wrong in some of her own aesthetic tastes and judgments? After all, she wasn't very knowledgeable or experienced with certain art forms, so it would logically follow that, when applying truly objective aesthetic judgments, she would learn some things that she hadn't known before, and would discover that certain of her passionate evaluations were mistaken. I haven't seen any of that. I've only seen the opposite: her absolute certainty that her tastes were right, and objectively correct, and superior and righteous, and that others, including very knowledgeable, experienced and accomplished others, needed to be reprimanded for their tastes and judgments.

Are those the behaviors of someone who is openly investigating the nature of aesthetic judgment, and following wherever reality leads? No. Are they the actions of someone who is rigorously following the Objectivist epistemological method of applying logic and reason, of being critical of one's own theory and testing it from every angle? No. They're the behaviors of someone who wants/needs to believe that her tastes are objective and superior, and who wants/needs to belittle others for their differing tastes. The goal is not identifying the nature of aesthetic judgment. The goal is "I am right and superior, you are wrong and disgusting."

J

[Ellen Stuttle]

Jonathan,

What do you mean by "aesthetic judgments" in the above post?

Near as I can tell, you're once again mixing together moral judgments, "sense-of-life" responses, and technical appraisals.

Ellen

[Brant Gaede]

Where in Rand's writings on art do we see any indication whatsoever that she gave serious consideration to investigating the possibility that aesthetic judgments are not objective (by her definition, or by any other)? Where did she do anything beyond merely shallowly mocking and sneering at others for their recognition of the reality of the subjective nature of aesthetic judgments? Where's the rational substance to support her position? Where is the actual argument rather than just bluff and puff and snarl?

Where might we see examples of her applying logic and reason to the issue of objectivity versus subjectivity in aesthetic judgments, instead of example after example of the unsupported, predetermined conclusion that proper aesthetic judgments, especially hers, MUST be objective?

Where might we see, from Rand or from any of her followers, the identification of actual objective standards and criteria for aethetic judgments? Where in her writings did Rand later pick back up on the task of providing the missing proof of her theory of objectivity in aethetic judgments, which she had skipped due to its having been "outside the scope of the discussion"?

Where might we see examples of Rand admitting to having discovered that she had been wrong in some of her own aesthetic tastes and judgments? After all, she wasn't very knowledgeable or experienced with certain art forms, so it would logically follow that, when applying truly objective aesthetic judgments, she would learn some things that she hadn't known before, and would discover that certain of her passionate evaluations were mistaken. I haven't seen any of that. I've only seen the opposite: her absolute certainty that her tastes were right, and objectively correct, and superior and righteous, and that others, including very knowledgeable, experienced and accomplished others, needed to be reprimanded for their tastes and judgments.

Are those the behaviors of someone who is openly investigating the nature of aesthetic judgment, and following wherever reality leads? No. Are they the actions of someone who is rigorously following the Objectivist epistemological method of applying logic and reason, of being critical of one's own theory and testing it from every angle? No. They're the behaviors of someone who wants/needs to believe that her tastes are objective and superior, and who wants/needs to belittle others for their differing tastes. The goal is not identifying the nature of aesthetic judgment. The goal is "I am right and superior, you are wrong and disgusting."

J

I take some exception to the last word of your last paragraph, if not some of the rest.

--Brant

her last brain cracker was ITOE--she never wrote ITOA(estheics)

[Jonathan]

Jonathan,

What do you mean by "aesthetic judgments" in the above post?

I mean what Rand meant. "Aesthetic judgment" means interpreting what one thinks an artwork means, by experiencing its content and the effects of its artistic style, and then evaluating how well the artist performed his task by judging his work's artistic merit.

Near as I can tell, you're once again mixing together moral judgments, "sense-of-life" responses, and technical appraisals.

Ellen

Then you need to focus harder, and pay closer attention. And, more importantly, you need to stop willfully trying to misinterpret my statements. Stop trying to pick fights for the sake of picking fights.

J

[moralist]

On ‎2‎/‎4‎/‎2016 at 5:12 PM, Brant Gaede said:

...and that the basic principles--and-I-mean-BASIC--were rock-solid sound.

I can attest to that...

They WORK.

 

Greg