Winged Beauties

[kiaer.ts]

Great tush on the top one.

Photobucket deleted the picture when I uploaded it.

[anthony]

No, my purpose in comparing a staged still photograph to a movie scene was not to suggest that if a photojournalist showed up at a movie set during filming and took a photo of it for, say, Entertainment Weekly that the photo would be art. The point is that if a photographer were to stage his own fictional scene, the resulting photo would be art. Perhaps not according to your criteria, but to Rand's.

No, I don't believe I'm splitting hairs, but the staged 'fictional scene' might qualify as art; a photograph of the scene is a recording.

An orchestra could be playing Bach, but a tape-recording of it is a reproduction.

Camera and tape recorder are both dumb instruments - which experts know how to use to their maximum potential. They render faithfully what they're aimed at.

As sound-recording is not art-form, neither is photography.

Rand's criteria? "Art requires a selective re-creation."

Also, "[photography] is a technical, not a creative skill." (I don't agree completely with this one - creative skill is necessary in better photography.)

"There is an artistic element in some photographs...and some of them can be very beautiful."

And, "A certain type of confusion about the relationship between scientific discoveries and art, leads to a frequently asked question: Is photography art?"

How d'ya like that "scientific discoveries and art"?! Quite prescient of digital technology. I'd bet she'd still come to the same conclusions today.

Tony

[Jonathan]

No, I don't believe I'm splitting hairs, but the staged 'fictional scene' might qualify as art; a photograph of the scene is a recording.

An orchestra could be playing Bach, but a tape-recording of it is a reproduction.

A mere passive "tape-recording" (using the Sears cassette recorder that you got for Christmas when you were 8 years old) of an orchestra playing Bach might be nothing more than a reproduction, but a serious, professional studio recording which was an integral part of the performance would not. It would be a work of art quite distinct from what the ear would hear in reality.

Camera and tape recorder are both dumb instruments - which experts know how to use to their maximum potential. They render faithfully what they're aimed at.

I take it that you're not too familiar with the art of audio recording. Have you ever played in a band and recorded your music professionally? If you had, you'd know that a professional studio recording does not "render faithfully" what the microphones are aimed at. The result is nothing like what the ear would hear in reality. Live sessions are nowhere near to what can be achieved in studio, just as what the eye sees in reality is nowhere near to what a camera can capture of the same scene. Neither camera nor tape recorder are limited to reproducing what they're aimed at.

The fact that you may have limited yourself to using cameras and tape recorders in certain ways doesn't mean that the instruments themselves have the limitations.

As sound-recording is not art-form, neither is photography.

Audio recording certainly is an art form. Listen to a studio recording of Lady Gaga, and then listen to her performing the same song live without any sound equipment, and then tell us that there's no difference between the two works of art -- that one is just a "reproduction" of the other.

Beyond that, sound art is an independent art form. In the examples we've discussed here so far, we've been talking about pieces of music, which are works of art by themselves, being enhanced by the skills of audio recording experts. But there's no reason to begin with such independent works of art. Sound artists create "recreations of reality" which are conceived and executed in such a way that they can't be performed without recording equipment. They're not "reproductions" of other works of art.

Rand's criteria? "Art requires a selective re-creation."

Also, "[photography] is a technical, not a creative skill." (I don't agree completely with this one - creative skill is necessary in better photography.)

"There is an artistic element in some photographs...and some of them can be very beautiful."

And, "A certain type of confusion about the relationship between scientific discoveries and art, leads to a frequently asked question: Is photography art?"

How d'ya like that "scientific discoveries and art"?! Quite prescient of digital technology. I'd bet she'd still come to the same conclusions today.

If Rand were alive today and still as uninformed about the medium, she might indeed come to the same conclusions. However, I think that if she were to take a tour of some advanced photo studios, and learn exactly what artist-photographers do, there's a good chance that she'd change her mind.

Then again, I think she sometimes had a bit of stubbornness in her, so we might have to skip the necromancy and go with time travel instead: If we could go back in time and expose Rand to technical knowledge of photography before she publicly declared it to be non-art according to the official Objectivist Esthetics, then I think she probably would have been willing to recognize it as an art form (without having to to eat her own published declarations on the subject).

J

[anthony]

A mere passive "tape-recording" (using the Sears cassette recorder that you got for Christmas when you were 8 years old) of an orchestra playing Bach might be nothing more than a reproduction, but a serious, professional studio recording which was an integral part of the performance would not. It would be a work of art quite distinct from what the ear would hear in reality.

Music is an art form.

Ergo, Bach was an artist.

Ergo, musicians playing Bach, are artists.

Ergo, sound technicians, recording the musicians, are artists.

A bridge too far in your aesthetic and logical chain, Jonathan.

I think the correct question to ask you is: what do you NOT consider art?

Tony

btw, I'm not expert on sound engineering, but I've sat in on enough studio sessions and live performances of my friend, a serious blues and jazz guitarist, to know something about it.

[caroljane]

from interested Total Non-Visual Outsider:

"Moral is what you feel good after"- Hemingway

"Art is what I like looking at" - average Joe Subjectivist

Are you in some way talking about this?

[Jonathan]

Music is an art form.

Ergo, Bach was an artist.

Ergo, musicians playing Bach, are artists.

Ergo, sound technicians, recording the musicians, are artists.

A bridge too far in your aesthetic and logical chain, Jonathan.

My actual logical chain would be something more like:

In any collaborative production of an artwork, those who have creative input and control and whose decisions affect the final outcome of the artwork are artists.

People ranging from composers to musicians to conductors to audio producers have creative input and control over the art that they are playing a part in creating, and their decisions affect the final outcome of the artwork.

Therefore they are artists.

I think the correct question to ask you is: what do you NOT consider art?

I would consider the photos that you took as a photojournalist to be non-art. You've said that your purpose was to record reality, no? I take you at your word. If you say that you were following certain rules of "photography qua photography," and faithfully reproducing reality, and not making selective recreations, then your work wouldn't be art according to Rand's Esthetics.

btw, I'm not expert on sound engineering, but I've sat in on enough studio sessions and live performances of my friend, a serious blues and jazz guitarist, to know something about it.

Okay, then you know enough to know that studio sessions aren't just "reproductions" of reality?

J

[anthony]

Jonathan,

Neither of us is going to persuade the other it seems, but not to say that this has not been stimulating.

I'm seeing a certain irony here.

Just as Ayn Rand over-reached to some extent by trying to incorporate a few too many concepts (and some personal tastes) under the umbrella of Objectivism - and taken a disproportionate amount of flak for it, considering the vastness of her contribution, imo - you are doing similar, I believe.

That is, forcing too many peripherals to art, under the 'art umbrella'.

Considering your criticism of Rand regarding art - and I've agreed with you up to a point in the past,- you must recognize the irony too.

(Even though you don't agree )

Tony

[Jonathan]

Just as Ayn Rand over-reached to some extent by trying to incorporate a few too many concepts (and some personal tastes) under the umbrella of Objectivism - and taken a disproportionate amount of flak for it, considering the vastness of her contribution, imo - you are doing similar, I believe.

That is, forcing too many peripherals to art, under the 'art umbrella'.

In my experience, your position is typical. Objectivists and Objectivish-types tend to err on the side of eliminating art forms and disqualifying people as artists rather than accepting art forms outside of those that Rand accepted. They seem to believe that they are protecting the field of epistemology by doing so. The theory seems to be that if a few more things qualify as art, there's reason to panic because anything and everything might then qualify as art, and art as a concept would have no meaning and the world would end. The way it generally works is that, in the realm of art, a person can disagree with Rand and still be a good Objectivist only if he rejects more art forms than she did, where he is anti-Objectivist if he accepts more art forms than she did.

Anyway, Tony, could you be specific about what falls under your "umbrella" of art and artists? My position, as I said in my last post, is that people who are actively involved in the creation of a work of art, and who exercise creative control -- selectivity -- over it, are artists. You seem to think that that's a silly position to take. So, where would you draw the line regarding who is or is not an artist, and how would you prove that it's a rational/logical/objective demarcation? If you think that a modern audio producer should be classified as a non-artist technician, shouldn't your criteria also lead you to classify any musician or actor who performs someone else's work as a non-artist technician?

Could you define your terms or maybe phrase your position in the form of a syllogism as I did above? As things stand, I can see no rhyme or reason behind your views. Everything seems to be kind of subjective, vague and arbitrary. I wouldn't know where you stand on, say, whether or not an orchestra's conductor or the director of a play or movie should be classified as an artist, or whether a film's art director should, or a set or costume designer, or a film editor. I've clearly and objectively identified my criteria, so it's very easy to determine if a person is an artist by simply answering the question, "Did he or she have creative input and control over the work of art?" Will you identify your criteria as clearly and objectively?

Considering your criticism of Rand regarding art - and I've agreed with you up to a point in the past,- you must recognize the irony too.

The only irony that I see is that when I apply Rand's criteria to a field in which I have expertise, I'm often seen as opposing Objectivism. Choosing Objectivism over Rand somehow apparently makes one anti-Objectivist.

J

[anthony]

Jonathan,

It's not clear to me yet whether we disagree entirely or are only degrees apart.

I view Objectivist aesthetics as I do Objectivism - a solid core. (Also, occasionally a point of departure).

As we know, the core is Romanticism - which, who can deny, we need more than ever, today. To get personal, although I have gained much from Naturalist art, it has informed me, largely, and uplifted me, seldom.

I am about to re-read The Romantic Manifesto (since it's been quite some time), and picked out at random this quote:

"Whatever the variety and the vast potential of the performing arts, one must always remember that they are a consequence and extension of the primary arts..."

Which supports why I have objections to introducing a modern audio producer as artist. One objection - without being exclusionary, please understand - that I think of the creative, original, artist as an individualist. But I'll concede that a certain amount of collaboration might be significant.

He is the "primary artist", in Rand's term.

In music, from primary artist (the composer), the next level is from he or her, is to musical performer, whose obligation is to the composer first, then his own particular style and interpretation, second.*

Then at the third level is the sound technician, who can lay down tracks, change levels, and so on, for added emphasis, but still with fidelity to the composer's vision.

His may be a "selective re-creation of reality" - as you say - but is it - to complete Rand's famous definition, "...according to [his] metaphysical value-judgements."?

And should it be? No, and no, I believe.

If this is his desire, he should go and compose his own music.

Another quote from TRM:

"The reason why art has such a profoundly PERSONAL significance for men, is that art confirms or denies the efficacy of a man's consciousness, according to whether an artwork supports or negates his own fundamental view of reality."

Is this your opinion? If so, do our differences concern our fundamental views of reality?

*(Much simplified, and rarely true of other forms of music I often enjoy, such as Jazz, Blues, Rock.)

Tony

[BaalChatzaf]

Jonathan,

It's not clear to me yet whether we disagree entirely or are only degrees apart.

I view Objectivist aesthetics as I do Objectivism - a solid core. (Also, occasionally a point of departure).

As we know, the core is Romanticism - which, who can deny, we need more than ever, today. To get personal, although I have gained much from Naturalist art, it has informed me, largely, and uplifted me, seldom.

What we need is a strong does of realism and honesty. First things first. Call things by their right names. Romanticism can lead to delusion. Reality never leads to delusion.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[anthony]

Jonathan,

It's not clear to me yet whether we disagree entirely or are only degrees apart.

I view Objectivist aesthetics as I do Objectivism - a solid core. (Also, occasionally a point of departure).

As we know, the core is Romanticism - which, who can deny, we need more than ever, today. To get personal, although I have gained much from Naturalist art, it has informed me, largely, and uplifted me, seldom.

What we need is a strong does of realism and honesty. First things first. Call things by their right names. Romanticism can lead to delusion. Reality never leads to delusion.

Ba'al Chatzaf

No, what you are describing is 'sentimentalism' - it is not Romanticism.

This stated dichotomy of Realism/Romanticism is fallacious, as much as is Is/Ought.

Tony

[BaalChatzaf]

This stated dichotomy of Realism/Romanticism is fallacious, as much as is Is/Ought.

Tony

Is/Ought is a dichotomy. Is derives from physical laws. Ought does not. There are no moral facts, only opinions of what is moral or judgments of what is moral. Morality does not flow from physical laws.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[kiaer.ts]

I am about to re-read The Romantic Manifesto

If you haven't also read The Art of Fiction you should, it amounts to a second volume of The Romantic Manifesto. It and The Art of Non Fiction are two of her best works.

[anthony]

This stated dichotomy of Realism/Romanticism is fallacious, as much as is Is/Ought.

Tony

Is/Ought is a dichotomy. Is derives from physical laws. Ought does not. There are no moral facts, only opinions of what is moral or judgments of what is moral. Morality does not flow from physical laws.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Well, seeing as the physical laws of our nature have nothing to do with our morality, what are the options?

Spiritual moralism, handed down by Moses, Mohammed, et al.

Or, society's slave morality.

Mm, no... I guess I'll stick with the morality that "flows from physical laws".

[Brant Gaede]

This stated dichotomy of Realism/Romanticism is fallacious, as much as is Is/Ought.

Tony

Is/Ought is a dichotomy. Is derives from physical laws. Ought does not. There are no moral facts, only opinions of what is moral or judgments of what is moral. Morality does not flow from physical laws.

Does morality "flow" from reality?

--Brant

[anthony]

I am about to re-read The Romantic Manifesto

If you haven't also read The Art of Fiction you should, it amounts to a second volume of The Romantic Manifesto. It and The Art of Non Fiction are two of her best works.

Ted,

Thanks.

I place TRM 'right up there' with her best, so that's some recommendation.

Tony

[Jonathan]

I view Objectivist aesthetics as I do Objectivism - a solid core. (Also, occasionally a point of departure).

As we know, the core is Romanticism...

I wouldn't say that the core of Rand's aesthetics is Romanticism, but realism. Romanticism is the core of the moral component of her views on art. The core of her aesthetics is concretization and intelligibility. In her view, aesthetic judgments were those which pertained to judging how well an artist projected his view of existence, and not whether or not his views or artworks were Romantic.

...which, who can deny, we need more than ever, today. To get personal, although I have gained much from Naturalist art, it has informed me, largely, and uplifted me, seldom.

I am about to re-read The Romantic Manifesto (since it's been quite some time), and picked out at random this quote:

"Whatever the variety and the vast potential of the performing arts, one must always remember that they are a consequence and extension of the primary arts..."

Which supports why I have objections to introducing a modern audio producer as artist. One objection - without being exclusionary, please understand - that I think of the creative, original, artist as an individualist. But I'll concede that a certain amount of collaboration might be significant.

He is the "primary artist", in Rand's term.

Here's more from Rand on the Performing Arts which might interest you:

In these arts, the medium employed is the person of the artist. His task is not to re-create reality, but to implement the re-creation made by one of the primary arts.

This does not mean that the performing arts are secondary in esthetic value or importance, but only that they are an extension of and dependent on the primary arts. Nor does it mean that performers are mere “interpreters”: on the higher levels of his art, a performer contributes a creative element which the primary work could not convey by itself; he becomes a partner, almost a co-creator—if and when he is guided by the principle that he is the means to the end set by the work.

The basic principles which apply to all the other arts, apply to the performing artist as well, particularly stylization, i.e., selectivity: the choice and emphasis of essentials, the structuring of the progressive steps of a performance which lead to an ultimately meaningful sum. The performing artist’s own metaphysical value-judgments are called upon to create and apply the kind of technique his performance requires. For instance, an actor’s view of human grandeur or baseness or courage or timidity will determine how he projects these qualities on the stage. A work intended to be performed leaves a wide latitude of creative choice to the artist who will perform it. In an almost literal sense, he has to embody the soul created by the author of the work; a special kind of creativeness is required to bring that soul into full physical reality.

When the performance and the work (literary or musical) are perfectly integrated in meaning, style and intention, the result is a magnificent esthetic achievement and an unforgettable experience for the audience.

In music, from primary artist (the composer), the next level is from he or her, is to musical performer, whose obligation is to the composer first, then his own particular style and interpretation, second.*

Then at the third level is the sound technician, who can lay down tracks, change levels, and so on, for added emphasis, but still with fidelity to the composer's vision.

Determining which collaborative creators were at which level would depend on the artwork in question. A conductor, who is really an old-fashioned version of an audio producer, might have much more control over how a piece of music is performed than any of the individual instrumentalists.

His may be a "selective re-creation of reality" - as you say - but is it - to complete Rand's famous definition, "...according to [his] metaphysical value-judgements."?

And should it be? No, and no, I believe.

Why would it not be according to his "metaphysical value-judgments"? You seem to be falsely assuming that two or more people working on the same piece of art can't have common values and visions. It's not at all rare for artists with similar tastes and values to develop friendships, to want to work together, and to complement each other's abilities.

Another quote from TRM:

"The reason why art has such a profoundly PERSONAL significance for men, is that art confirms or denies the efficacy of a man's consciousness, according to whether an artwork supports or negates his own fundamental view of reality."

Is this your opinion? If so, do our differences concern our fundamental views of reality?

I think Rand's view on why art has profound personal significance to people is one of many possible explanations.

As for your wondering if our differences concern our fundamental views of reality, I doubt it. People with very similar "fundamental views of reality" sometimes have similar tastes in art, but they just as often have very dissimilar tastes.

J

Edited January 24, 2011 by Jonathan

[kiaer.ts]

I am about to re-read The Romantic Manifesto

If you haven't also read The Art of Fiction you should, it amounts to a second volume of The Romantic Manifesto. It and The Art of Non Fiction are two of her best works.

Ted,

Thanks.

I place TRM 'right up there' with her best, so that's some recommendation.

Tony

Yes, exactly. I rank Romantic Manifesto equal with VoS and second only to ItOE. Get both Fiction and Non Fiction, the latter being a profound book on epistemology cloaked as a course on writing.