"Romanticist Art" Is Not The Essence Of The Objectivist Esthetics


Jonathan

Recommended Posts

Did you read and comprehend Rand's statements? In reading them, did you not grasp the fact that non-romanticist art can qualify as being aesthetically great according to Objectivism? Did you somehow fail to understand that romanticist works of art can be rated as being aesthetically bad according to Objectivism? Objectivism's preference for romanticist art is an ETHICAL judgment. Aesthetics is not ethics. Get it?

J

I'm not an expert on Objectivism and I am not an Objectivist. My guess is Objectivist aesthetics is based on Objectivist ethics and perhaps also on Objectivist politics.

Your guess is wrong.

J

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 488
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

J,

Do you have a copy of Heller's bio?

If yes, I wonder if you could take and post a picture of the drawing of Cyrus which is shown in the photo section.

That drawing is the quintessential kernel of Rand's "man qua man," the "Man" of her "Man's Life."

Ellen

No, I don't have it. If you' d like though, you could take a photo of it with your iPad, e-mail it to me, and I'll upload it to my Flickr page and post the link here.

J

I'll have L help me tomorrow with the photoing part. Please send me a PM with your current e-mail address.

Thanks.

Ellen

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Did you read and comprehend Rand's statements? In reading them, did you not grasp the fact that non-romanticist art can qualify as being aesthetically great according to Objectivism? Did you somehow fail to understand that romanticist works of art can be rated as being aesthetically bad according to Objectivism? Objectivism's preference for romanticist art is an ETHICAL judgment. Aesthetics is not ethics. Get it?

J

I'm not an expert on Objectivism and I am not an Objectivist. My guess is Objectivist aesthetics is based on Objectivist ethics and perhaps also on Objectivist politics.

Your guess is wrong.

J

http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/esthetics.html

The fifth and last branch of philosophy is esthetics, the study of art, which is based on metaphysics, epistemology and ethics.

Maybe not politics.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Did you read and comprehend Rand's statements? In reading them, did you not grasp the fact that non-romanticist art can qualify as being aesthetically great according to Objectivism? Did you somehow fail to understand that romanticist works of art can be rated as being aesthetically bad according to Objectivism? Objectivism's preference for romanticist art is an ETHICAL judgment. Aesthetics is not ethics. Get it?

J

I'm not an expert on Objectivism and I am not an Objectivist. My guess is Objectivist aesthetics is based on Objectivist ethics and perhaps also on Objectivist politics.

Your guess is wrong.

J

http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/esthetics.html

The fifth and last branch of philosophy is esthetics, the study of art, which is based on metaphysics, epistemology and ethics.

Maybe not politics.

Aesthetics is based in part on ethics. Ethics, period. Not "Objectivist ethics" as you asserted. The Objectivist Esthetics is not based on the Objectivist Ethics.

Additional clarity from Rand:

"It is important to stress, however, that even though moral values are inextricably involved in art, they are involved only as a consequence, not as a causal determinant: the primary focus of art is metaphysical, not ethical."

"Any metaphysical issue will necessarily have an enormous influence on man’s conduct and, therefore, on his ethics; and, since every art work has a theme, it will necessarily convey some conclusion, some “message,” to its audience. But that influence and that “message” are only secondary consequences."

That which is a "secondary consequence" by definition is not the primary basis or essence of aesthetics.

J

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Its essence is that it is a simulation of reality based on an artist's metaphysical value judgments, with the purpose of model-building something that the artist feels is important or worthy of being experienced and contemplated. It's a means of experiencing a condensed version of complex ideas in a manner which allows perceivers to experience them as if they were real events.

Jonathan.

I always like it when something can be explained clearly in words different than the ones normally used.

That explanation of yours is quite good. The only thing it leaves out is the emotional and cognitive (i.e., spiritual) fuel part.

According to Rand, the reason you want to experience this is to fill up on spiritual fuel.

It sounds quirky like that, but that's what she wrote (using other words).

I've done some thinking on this and I agree refueling through modeling is one part of the aesthetic experience, but not the fundamental part. Throughout human history, people have refueled their spirits with periodic meetings that include sermons and rituals--and art has been a part of that, not the essence of it. This is valid from the most primitive tribal witch-doctor meetings up to modern day religious services.

I believe this periodic event represents a real human need since it is present in all cultures over all times. It's something atheists lack and I think Rand tried to fill that void with art.

It partially works, too, But art by itself is not enough. And I think Rand sensed this, but did not articulate it. Still, she did something about it. Notice that sermon-like speeches are part of her fiction.

I'm still working through my thinking on this, but here's how I have characterized it elsewhere regarding ethics. The commitment to keep to moral principles is like eating. You don't just eat one meal and then you're done. (This is Rand's fuel sense.) For moral principles, you have to constantly recommit because life is so varied and distractful. That's where periodic sermons come in. And that's why it's so important that they be periodic.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

An Objectivist Esthetics must be Rand's esthetics or the subject makes no more sense than Objectivist psychology. She was an artist afterall, not a psychologist. Her philosophy began and ended with her esthetics, so it's natural enough she wrote on the subject even though she drove off the pier often enough. If we recognize these things we can study her thoughts on this without wallowing around in it. This is also true of her phlosophy more generally.

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

An Objectivist Esthetics must be Rand's esthetics or the subject makes no more sense than Objectivist psychology. She was an artist afterall, not a psychologist. Her philosophy began and ended with her esthetics, so it's natural enough she wrote on the subject even though she drove off the pier often enough. If we recognize these things we can study her thoughts on this without wallowing around in it. This is also true of her phlosophy more generally.

--Brant

As intensely as she loved heroism, I think that it is very admirable that she was able to be clear-headed enough to not let it taint her Objectivist Esthetics.

J

Link to comment
Share on other sites

An Objectivist Esthetics must be Rand's esthetics or the subject makes no more sense than Objectivist psychology. She was an artist afterall, not a psychologist. Her philosophy began and ended with her esthetics, so it's natural enough she wrote on the subject even though she drove off the pier often enough. If we recognize these things we can study her thoughts on this without wallowing around in it. This is also true of her phlosophy more generally.

--Brant

As intensely as she loved heroism, I think that it is very admirable that she was able to be clear-headed enough to not let it taint her Objectivist Esthetics.

J

Someone published an article in The Objectivist--I think it was Mary Ann Rukavina Sures--that criticized The David because of it's wrinkled brow. I shudder to think of that perfect statue made more perfect by Objectivist criteria = Soviet realism or Nazi what-the-shit. You can be sure Rand edited every word and punctuation point. I have to assume you are being sarcastic, especially since you have been sarcastic this way before.

--Brant

edit: sub "frown" for "wrinkled brow" or somewhat apprehensive look

Edited by Brant Gaede
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Brant,

To me, Mary Ann's critique of The Thinker is one of the embarrassing blemishes on official Objectivism (i.e., that endorsed by Rand). You can read a larger quote by her from The Objectivist here:

One of Rodin's most famous and popular works, The Thinker, sums up his view of man's wretched state. The figure is seated, hunched over in a position that combines strain and limpness. The muscles in his arms, legs and toes are knotted and cramped. The size and development of his body indicate that it was once powerful and energetic, but is now exhausted. His external, physical state reveals his inner strain: the strain of engaging in mental activity.


What a crock.

:smile:

I don't even feel like rebutting this. Let's just say that she was not a good storyteller, but a great rationalizer. If you need a theory in search of some facts that can be twisted to fit it, she's your man. (God, that sounds awful. :smile: )

I shudder to imagine what goes on in a mind that looks at something magnificent like The Thinker and immediately feels "man's wretched state."

TheThinker.jpg

For Pete's sake...

:smile:

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Brant,

To me, Mary Ann's critique of The Thinker is one of the embarrassing blemishes on official Objectivism (i.e., that endorsed by Rand). You can read a larger quote by her from The Objectivist here:

One of Rodin's most famous and popular works, The Thinker, sums up his view of man's wretched state. The figure is seated, hunched over in a position that combines strain and limpness. The muscles in his arms, legs and toes are knotted and cramped. The size and development of his body indicate that it was once powerful and energetic, but is now exhausted. His external, physical state reveals his inner strain: the strain of engaging in mental activity.

What a crock.

:smile:

I don't even feel like rebutting this. Let's just say that she was not a good storyteller, but a great rationalizer. If you need a theory in search of some facts that can be twisted to fit it, she's your man. (God, that sounds awful. :smile: )

I shudder to imagine what goes on in a mind that looks at something magnificent like The Thinker and immediately feels "man's wretched state."

TheThinker.jpg

For Pete's sake...

:smile:

Michael

If the thinker were an ectomorph and had a glorious look of enlightenment on his face he would have been better received.

Ba'al Chatzaf.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

An Objectivist Esthetics must be Rand's esthetics or the subject makes no more sense than Objectivist psychology. She was an artist afterall, not a psychologist. Her philosophy began and ended with her esthetics, so it's natural enough she wrote on the subject even though she drove off the pier often enough. If we recognize these things we can study her thoughts on this without wallowing around in it. This is also true of her phlosophy more generally.

--Brant

As intensely as she loved heroism, I think that it is very admirable that she was able to be clear-headed enough to not let it taint her Objectivist Esthetics.

J

Someone published an article in The Objectivist--I think it was Mary Ann Rukavina Sures--that criticized The David because of it's wrinkled brow. I shudder to think of that perfect statue made more perfect by Objectivist criteria = Soviet realism or Nazi what-the-shit. You can be sure Rand edited every word and punctuation point. I have to assume you are being sarcastic, especially since you have been sarcastic this way before.

--Brant

edit: sub "frown" for "wrinkled brow" or somewhat apprehensive look

I'm not being sarcastic. In her official Objectivist Esthetics, Rand recognized, and even stressed, the distinction between ethical and aesthetic judgments of art. She may not have always practiced that distinction when judging art or overseeing her followers' reviews of art, and that suggests to me that it may have been a hard ditinction for her to make. But she did make it, and I honestly do find that admirable. No sarcasm.

J

Link to comment
Share on other sites

... he would have been better received.

Bob,

By whom?

From my viewpoint, that statue seems to have done all right over the years.

If you meant better received by Rand and her inner circle, well, she thought Beethoven had a malevolent sense of life. So the question is, so what?

I do credit Rand for turning me on to Rachmaninoff and Dali and Mickey Spillane, though. Not very good in the universal aesthetic theory department, but pretty good recommendations.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Brant,

To me, Mary Ann's critique of The Thinker is one of the embarrassing blemishes on official Objectivism (i.e., that endorsed by Rand). You can read a larger quote by her from The Objectivist here:

One of Rodin's most famous and popular works, The Thinker, sums up his view of man's wretched state. The figure is seated, hunched over in a position that combines strain and limpness. The muscles in his arms, legs and toes are knotted and cramped. The size and development of his body indicate that it was once powerful and energetic, but is now exhausted. His external, physical state reveals his inner strain: the strain of engaging in mental activity.

What a crock.

:smile:

I don't even feel like rebutting this. Let's just say that she was not a good storyteller, but a great rationalizer. If you need a theory in search of some facts that can be twisted to fit it, she's your man. (God, that sounds awful. :smile: )

I shudder to imagine what goes on in a mind that looks at something magnificent like The Thinker and immediately feels "man's wretched state."

TheThinker.jpg

For Pete's sake...

:smile:

Michael

Sures' critique of The Thinker is one of many examples -- perhaps one of first? -- of Objectivist nobodies stupidly becoming self-important little Ellsworth Tooheys and trying to piss on giants.

J

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jonathan, I'm going to just a tad nasty here where Rand is concerned, mainly because she does piss me off frequently. First, she liked to shock. Used the word 'selfish' in a way few people did. Praised Charlie's Angels and Marilyn Monroe instead of something meatier. (I mean no offense, byw, against the Angels and Marilyn. Like them myself.) With shock value, however, I think came confusion, as in, so what the hell in art are we supposed to like, anyway? When you enter confusion as an equasion, it makes it harder for anyone to argue against you. Ayn Rand didn't like being argued with. Does that make sense?

I have to think not all of it was subconscious. Her self-made reputation as a lone wolf fighting against society would benefit by her being unconventional. So, the Thinker, a really wonderful statue, becomes a symbol of all of today's ills. I think the older she got, the less she found to like. I think she had trouble finding something good in just about anything. So praising the Angels and Marilyn would almost be a cover for that. Hey, I like stuff!

I'm not sure if this psychobable makes sense, but it's been nagging at me for years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

After "The Break" The Objectivist was seriously behind schedule. A few Objectivists wrote articles so Rand could catch up. Sures wasn't a nobody. At least she gave some lectures on esthetics for NBI. I attended one in 1968 and have forgotten it. I don't even know if it was a whole course. Barbara, I believe, said she hardly knew her. Once the publication was up to date AR started The Ayn Rand Letter, I guess to get away from the contributer problem, avoid the embarassment of having to disclose the amount of circulation decline for The Objectivist (one more issue away), further separate her from NB, and a lot more money. The only problem I had with it all at the time was I thought twice a month publication was going to be too much for her.

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jonathan, I'm going to just a tad nasty here where Rand is concerned, mainly because she does piss me off frequently. First, she liked to shock. Used the word 'selfish' in a way few people did. Praised Charlie's Angels and Marilyn Monroe instead of something meatier. (I mean no offense, byw, against the Angels and Marilyn. Like them myself.) With shock value, however, I think came confusion, as in, so what the hell in art are we supposed to like, anyway? When you enter confusion as an equasion, it makes it harder for anyone to argue against you. Ayn Rand didn't like being argued with. Does that make sense?

I have to think not all of it was subconscious. Her self-made reputation as a lone wolf fighting against society would benefit by her being unconventional. So, the Thinker, a really wonderful statue, becomes a symbol of all of today's ills. I think the older she got, the less she found to like. I think she had trouble finding something good in just about anything. So praising the Angels and Marilyn would almost be a cover for that. Hey, I like stuff!

I'm not sure if this psychobable makes sense, but it's been nagging at me for years.

Her article on Marilyn Monroe was one of the best she ever did and that was 50 years ago. So was the one on Apollo II in 1969. She was, in part, a polemicist. The Virtue of Selfishness was a brilliant title but she hardly delivered inside, opening up by insulting her reader. I suspect her big problem in the 1960s was she wasn't getting laid enough and in the 1970s her health.

--Brant

she liked Charlie's Angels, The Untouchables--I didn't and I saw some of it in first run--and Kojak, not to forget Perry Mason, of course--nothing wrong with her sharing these with her fans

who likes being "argued with"?--she wasn't engaging people any longer on that level--so mox nix

Link to comment
Share on other sites

J. I'm missing something. If Romanticist art is not the essence of O'ist aesthetics, what else is?

Its essence is that it is a simulation of reality based on an artist's metaphysical value judgments, with the purpose of model-building something that the artist feels is important or worthy of being experienced and contemplated. It's a means of experiencing a condensed version of complex ideas in a manner which allows perceivers to experience them as if they were real events.

J

Not in my understanding. Could you be mistaking this which is evidently Rand's definition/explication of ALL art - Naturalist, Romanticist et al - as being central to Romanticist art specifically and exclusively?

"...according to an artist's metaphysical value-judgments" is value-neutral. But what sort of m.v-j's the artist holds, is the million dollar question.

It goes on to find its match (or doesn't) in the viewer's or reader's own metaphysical value-judgments, as confirmation (or not) of his view of existence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

After "The Break" The Objectivist was seriously behind schedule. A few Objectivists wrote articles so Rand could catch up. Sures wasn't a nobody. At least she gave some lectures on esthetics for NBI. I attended one in 1968 and have forgotten it. I don't even know if it was a whole course.t

I meant in the real world. Outside of Objectivist circles. Independent of Rand's coat tails. Sures was and is a nobody.

J

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Barbara, I believe, said she hardly knew [Mary Ann].

Nathaniel said that he hardly knew Mary Ann. I don't recall Barbara's saying one way or the other how well she knew her.

Once the publication was up to date AR started The Ayn Rand Letter, I guess to get away from the contributer problem, avoid the embarassment of having to disclose the amount of circulation decline for The Objectivist (one more issue away), further separate her from NB, and a lot more money. The only problem I had with it all at the time was I thought twice a month publication was going to be too much for her.

--Brant

The paid subscription figure for 1970 was almost identical to that for 1966. See this post, #17 on the "Calendars" thread, for a breakdown. Scroll down into the post for a chart.

Edit: The link isn't going to the post, only to the bottom of the page, I can't figure out why.

Ellen

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