I just went to Peikoff's site to listen to his latest podcast.
After just 2 minutes I couldn't take it any longer and hit the stop button.
He sounds like he's severely constipated. Waterboarding would be more merciful than listening to him.
Anybody else feel that way?

Not sure why my post appears 2x-Apparently did something wrong-my apologies.

When I get some time, I will listen. I do hope any vocal anomaly that might be present is not caused by ill health.

Michael

Something is really wrong there. I listened until the second question and didn't want to hear any more. I hope he simply had too much to drink. Peikoff at his best is bad enough.

--Brant

Dead on right. L.P. has a second rate intellect. On matters of science he is a blatant invincible ignoramus. On matters of politics and ethics anything said is opinion. One can agree or disagree since all ethical and political judgment is convention. He is also not a very good historian. Not of ideas. Not of events.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Baal; Could you tell what you really think about Lenny.

Back in early July, I sent Peikoff the following question for his podcast. I've been visiting his site occasionally, and I may have missed it, but so far he doesn't appear to have answered it.



J

Rand states that in music the recreated concrete is the emotion that is directly evoked, not the sound. (Rand also admits that architecture is unique in that it does not recreate reality and that it does serve a utilitarian purpose.)

Ted,

It's here at several places, but also elsewhere on the Internet. Here is one example that is pretty informative. (Read the following two posts, also.)

As for the rest, Google the following in a single search, exactly as I wrote it:

peikoff "intellectual heir" bidinotto

You will find plenty of references.

Michael

The point is that Rand is inconsistent. The reasons she uses to reject abstract visual art as a legitimate art form, if applied consistently, would also be grounds for rejecting music. If abstract arrangements of sounds can be said to "re-create emotions," then the same is true of abstract arrangements of shapes and colors. Millions of people experience emotions that are "directly evoked" by abstract art.




Yes, she admits that architecture does not fit her definition or requirements of art. The problem is that she categorizes it as art even though it contradicts her statements on what art is. And she identifies no standards by which she determines that other artistically expressive utilitarian objects do not qualify as art. She seems to have wanted to accept certain things as art and to reject certain other things regardless of whether or not they fit her definitions and requirements.

J

Jonathan, you are absolutely right that Rand contradicted herself about architecture. And the contradiction is blatant. The tap dancing engaged in to try to explain this away is itself a rather entertaining artform.

I have argued in my "Art as Microcosm" essay that Rand's definition is fine, it is her argument that architecture does not re-create reality that is wrong.

As for music, it does not re-create emotion any more or any less than does literature. The old canard "music is the language of the emotions" has been around for far too long, and Rand's buying into it was an act of default, not of wisdom and insight.

Some music, like some literature, gives us the experience of things that seem to be engaged in goal-directed action. In music, it is melodic themes, which function (very generally) like characters in literature. The Blumenthals made this point in their 1974 lectures on music, which Rand attended.

She never went beyond her earlier "Art in Cognition", however. She let stand her vague comments on music and her contradictiory remark on architecture. Sad way to go out as an aesthetician, one whose writings held so much promise.

I'm still working on aesthetics, both the overall theory (revamping Rand's model) and its application to music. But honestly, it seems more like arguing about privatizing lighthouses or roads, when the country is galloping toward massive socialization and destruction of the economy. Maybe it's time to find a secure place in the woods somewhere...

reb

If you want to say that architecture is art I have no problem with it. But then you\'d have to include fashion and all sorts of design. Again, I have no problem with this. I'd suggest calling art that creation or aspect of a creation which provides pleasure through contemplation. There are clothing, shelter and food, which are utilitarian, and there are couture, architecture and cuisine which have artful forms. Those are utilitarian arts, while music, painting and drama are fine arts, with no essential utilitarian purpose.

What is that red glop on the plate beneath the slice of pie?

Ba'al Chatzaf

Those were simply the first three images I found with the search term haute cuisine, haute couture and experimental architecture. they are not meant as my favorites. And it looks like some sort of shepherd's pie on meat gravy.

The reason, above all, that Rand classified architecture as an "art" — up-converted it, to borrow from current video products — should be blindingly obvious. It has, in my hardcover copy, 727 pages, and begins and ends with the words "Howard Roark."

I'd say that this rationalization, in light of the quality and brilliance of the work involved, ought to receive a pass. Still, it ought to be placed on the outer fringes of whatever "system" was in her head or came from her pen, along with her dictum about how a woman should not be elected President. Taking it as being indicative of the core of her esthetic theories would be a mistake.

"Love is exception-making," she had her brilliant creation of Gail Wynand say. To me, that applies here. Both in how she exalted what she wrote about at such length, and in what the result deserves.

Yeah, the tap dancing can be entertaining, but I was hoping that Peikoff would answer my question, and do so with something other than tap dancing. I was hoping that he'd show enough intellectual independence to publicly recognize Rand's obvious aesthetic contradictions and express his own views on how he might go about resolving them. Like other Objectivists, he's been quite passionate and vocal about the importance of not allowing contradictions to exist. I see my question to him as a perfect opportunity for him to deal with Rand's contradictions head-on and to show his audience how it's done. Perhaps I'll still get a response from him.

J

Are you interested in a valid answer, or just in Peikoff's answer? The proper response is to accept that architecture, fashion, cuisine, and other areas are artistic, and can be treated by philosophical aesthetics, but to restrict the definition of "fine art" to those art forms with no essentially utilitarian aspect. The reality stays the same. We simply improve our conceptual tools to better address the reality we want to examine.

And what about music, an art form which is non-representational and unintelligible by the standards Rand used to reject abstract painting and sculpture?

Anyway, I think that great architecture itself deserves an exalted status, and not just Rand's beautiful words about it. Architecture (and music) strongly affected Rand, as it does most other people, despite not fitting within the literary-based aesthetic box into which she tried to force all art forms. Clearly she was very moved by architecture as an art form prior to concocting her aesthetic rules which inadvertently denied its art status.

So, I think the solution is not to jettison architecture, music, dance, couture, abstract art or any other art form that doesn't comply with Rand's aesthetic statements, but to reevaluate which of her views are valid in the first place. Personally, I think that her thoughts on the necessity of direct mimetic representation, intelligibility and communication in art were established not as the result of an open philosophical inquiry into the nature of all art forms, but for the purpose of rejecting the art forms that she hated or otherwise arbitrarily decided that she didn't want to accept as art, while apparently neglecting to recognize how her rules would also apply to some of the art forms she loved and deemed to be acceptable.

J

I'm interested in whether or not Peikoff is capable of giving a valid answer.




But declaring that utilitarian objects can't be "fine art" ignores the fact that the utilitarian aspects of a work of art don't necessarily impede the artistic function or expression of the work. You haven't demonstrated that an object can't be "fine art" and utilitarian at the same time -- you haven't demonstrated that there is necessarily a conflict between art and utility.

J

I kind of suspected you were testing Peikoff. And while I don't count myself of a fan of his, I think he would be right to refuse to rise to the bait, unless he had something profound to say - in which case he might want to say it elsewhere.

As for art, I was thinking more about it on the bus, and here is a better explanation of what I mean.

We have a definition for a concept art that seems good, but one of the species of the concept, architecture, violates the definition. The proper epistemological move is to further differentiate the concept of art into a broader concept which includes music and literature as well as fashion and architecture, and also into two or more narrower concepts, erecting one concept to include architecture and other borderline cases and choosing a new more specific name for the other more restricted group which fits the previous definition but which excludes the anomolous exemplars.

So, before, we had the concept art, which was described as an end in itself, defined as a selective recreation according to metaphysical value judgments, and which was meant to include Music, Poetry, Painting, Literature, Drama and Archtecture.

Now, we retain the word Art, broadened to include "stylized creations meant to evoke appreciation," (a wider definition) under which we now subsume Music, Poetry, Painting, Literature, Drama and Archtecture as well as Cuisine, Couture, Illustration, Designer Goods such as fancy cars, vases, etc. And we subsume two more narrow concepts under this more widely defined concept named art, namely Fine Art which are those arts which are an end for themselves and Utilitarian Art which would include architecture and the other "crafts."

All that we are doing is realizing that the term art really had two valid senses, and we are differentiating those senses under two different names and definitions by stipulation, with one of the old senses subsuming the other.

Hence art and fine art would no longer be synonymous. And the two narrower concepts could grade into each other. One can make a vase which will likely never hold flowers. It would be a perhaps a borderline case between utilitarian art and the fine art of sculpture. This is not a problem for Objectivism, because concepts are tools, not straightjackets meant to restrict reality.

I believe in art. I believe in music. I believe in architecture. I believe in arty. Etc. I don't believe in tying my brain in a knot by arguing art and art not.

--Brant

Well, you're not getting paid to think. But human progress depends on the induction of new conceptual distinctions. Before Newton, velocity, acceleration and force were not properly differentiated. There's philosophy, wheteher natural or formal, and there's gossip, and there's precious little in between. But gossip too serves a purpose.

How would you classify the work of M.C. Escher?

Ba'al Chatzaf

Fine art. It falls well within painting/drawing without utilitarian purpose. Why do you ask? If my use of illustration as utilitarian was confusing, I meant only that certain drawings that are done for a utilitarian purpose (medical and natural history illustrations, or the drawings of buildings such as were done for The Fountainhead) have artistic quality/merit. Also, one could count certain photographs as fine art, utilitarian, or even, perhaps, erect a third species of art for them.

Escher is in his own corner of figurative fine art because his work is geometrical, fractal, or self-referential. But it is well within "figuration," if that is the proper term for drawing and painting.

You expect "human progrees" through esthetic theory?

--Brant

I don't expect human "progrees" at all.

(That is an example of gossip. You are quite aware of the point I was making.)

I'm in awe, but I can't tell "wheteher" it's natural or formal.

You are way over my head and way under my interests. The thread is yours.

--Brant

Michael; I hate to be a stickler but Leonard has not been mentioned on the second page of these posts. I recognize the question to Peikoff changed the topic.

Oh, I'm sorry. I thought that this thread was started as a typical gripe about Peikoff's annoying vocal delivery. I thought it was a frivolous topic and no one would mind my going off on a sort of "speaking of Peikoff's podcasts..." diversion. But if people think that they are actually detecting something different in his voice, are seriously worried about his health and wanted to talk about it, I apologize for intruding.

J

Did somebody mention me?



Michael

Jonathan, of course you should have realized that this was not really Chris, but Phil in disguise.

Well, Chris/Phil seems to be very interested in this thread's original topic, so let's all stop being distracted by my thoughtless interruption and give Chris/Phil our undivided attention as he now shares his deep concerns about Peikoff's voice. The floor is yours, Chris/Phil.

J

This is Chris. I just wish people would stick to the original topic. If it's exhausted start another one.

Yes, let us continue to discuss thefascinating philosophical issue of . . . Peikoff's sounding like a
nerdy professor?

I'd like to know if there is any problem with my broadening art to include such areas as couture and haute cuisine but subdividing art into fine and utilitarian and moving architecture into the utilitarian area. Also, should art photography be admitted to fine art, or have its own category? I think photography could fit within fine art, if indeed, as Rand said, Fritz Lang's movie frames are like paintings.

I don't have a problem with broadening art, or subdividing it into various categories, I just don't think that subdivisions accomplish much or are important. I think that if something qualifies as art, it qualifies as art. Period. I don't really care how anyone chooses to further subdivide it after recognizing it as art. As I said above, an object's utilitarian function doesn't necessarily conflict with, contradict or impede its artistic function, so I think that buildings, dresses, cars and cakes can be art.

As for photography, yes, I think that it can be art. Not only because it can capture fictional or symbolic scenes and convey the same expressions, "sense of life" views, or aesthetic ideas that paintings can (serving the same psychological and philosophical purposes), but also because there's a wide range of special effects techniques -- including unlimited pre-digital ones -- that can allow the photographer to create images of things and events that don't/can't exist in reality. Photography is not limited to capturing things in reality, or limited to capturing them "as they are" but not as the "ought to be," as Rand claimed.

I've seen nothing to suggest that Rand actually studied the art of photography before commenting on it. I highly doubt that she viewed the images of the world's greatest art photographers or had the slightest inkling of the techniques they used, before announcing that photography wasn't art.

J

Well, we seem to agree fully on photography.



As for the conceptual analysis, in this case, added conceptual clarity isn't likely to allow us to figure out how to get to the moon, as did Newton's inductions. But there is a reason to at least address the matter. Clarity of mind is one's most precious possession. It is a habit and virtue of boundless value. One should always notice inconsistencies, always question ambiguities, always recognize vagueness, even if the specific issue might not, at the moment, warrant the effort at clarification. The benefits of such a mindset are manifold. One's subconscious gets in the habit of noticing all the important little details. One makes connections subconsciously and seemingly automatically. Attemptedfrauds, intellectual or monetary leap out at you. You learn to think in paragrpahs.

Elsewhere there was a discussion on the nature of creativity. The conceptually analytical mindset put you in the frame to draw connections between object of huge apparent disparity. If you think of the hierarchical nature of concepts, you can see that since all concepts are linked, one's conceptual hierarchy forms a network. You can think of this as an actual net. Do you want to try to catch things in a tangled, patchy net with holes? Or an untangled fine-meshed net with no gaps between the frame and the weave?

Objectivism is not the possession by rote of a few political doctrines. It is a way of thinking. It is Rand's theory of concepts. Conceptual clarity is not a game, it is the essence of Objectivism

I'll return to the topic of this thread, but you may wish I hadn't. I just discovered that on Amazon, the listings for Atlas Shrugged, The Fountainhead, We the Living, and Anthem read: "By Ayn Rand and Leonard Peikoff."

(http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_ss_gw_0_9?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywords=the+fountainhead&sprefix=The+Fount)

Barbara

Lenny really does have delusions of grandeur.

This is fortunate. It's another highway to contempt. Not as bad as his writing that introduction to AS. If AR had known he was ever going to do that, she would have thoroughly hosed him out of her life. I assume he's done the introduction thing with her other books.

--Brant

Well, I found it for the paperback editions of The Fountainhead and We the Living, not the HCs. Couldn't find it for AS, but I didn't look at all the possible screens. I'd say it's just an Amazon phen. and that LP had nothing to do with it. But those introductions? Ugh. It seems he didn't do one for The Fountainhead for his remarks appear to be tacked on to the ending. Call it an "Afterduction?"

--Brant