Objectivist Esthetics, R.I.P.


Jonathan

Recommended Posts

8 hours ago, Ellen Stuttle said:

Now you've taken onto yourself the role of keeper of the dictionary in the sky wherein correct meanings of terminology are kept and you've accused Rand of playing a shell game by substituting a different concept for the concept she was talking about when instead she was just using terminology differently from your decreed correct meanings.

And as if there's no such topic as technical assessment discussed in art schools.

And as if you haven't made multiple technical assessments yourself.

Ellen

No, I'm just going with the meaning of "aesthetics" that has existed throughout the entire history of mankind. The term refers to spontaneous emotional responses involving beauty, taste, sentiment, etc.

The term does not refer to measuring if a note played on a trumpet is slightly flat, or if a painting of a lime has five percent more cyan than the color of a real lime. It doesn't refer to measuring how high a dancer has leapt, or to keeping an eye out for split infinitives in a novel, or sentences which end in prepositions.

I have nothing against technical judgments. They apply to art, as they do to anything else, and are an important part of our interactions with art, but they are not aesthetic judgments.

Identifying the reality that an artist deviated from proper perspective, or from proper tuning, is a standard technical judgment. Judging how the altered perspective or tuning feels and/or what it means is an aesthetic judgment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Ellen Stuttle said:

The question I asked is if you "really doubt that there are many individual works - and very much Rand's own - which qualify as art by Rand's definition of art and her theory of the nature of art".

Your shifting to what you don't doubt "some people" might think doesn't answer the question, and your bringing in identifying artists' themes is a further example of your reverse procedure discussed in the post above.

I said nothing about what "some people might think." Rather, I said that I have no doubt that some works would qualify as art by Rand's criteria to some people. In other words, I think that some people would be able to successfully identify what Rand requires: the artist's intended meaning.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've found an apt old post on this thread which could use further comment, and which might clarify my position:

On 10/21/2017 at 6:23 PM, Ellen Stuttle said:

I'm interested by what Tony's personal reaction is - substituting "personal" for your poisoning-the-well use of "subjective."

Personal reactions are where it's at with art. 

I mentioned earlier your little switch to using "personal" rather than "subjective." The issue at hand is whether a given thought process is either subjective or objective. Injecting the concept "personal" into the discussion is, at best, irrelevant, and, at worst, a lame distraction.

I agree that "personal reactions are where it's at with art."  Those "personal reactions" are what Kamhi and Torres refer to as "esthetic responses," which they correctly identify as being "spontaneous and emotional."

Things which are spontaneous and emotional do not comply with Rand's notion of "objectivity," which, in her view, was the process of volitionally adhering to reality by using an objective standard and applying the rules logic and reason to any given individual situation. Since Rand has not identified any objective standards or means of measuring aesthetic phenomena, then her and her followers' aesthetic tastes and judgments cannot meet her notion of being objective. They are therefore subjective. Not just "personal," but subjective.

That which does not follow her method of objectivity is subjective. Objectivity in aesthetics is not possible while the objective standards and means -- what Ayn Rand called "objective esthetic principles" -- are missing/remain unidentified. See, one can't apply those means when they don't yet exist. Since no objective means of measuring aesthetic phenomena exists, that leaves only subjective means. Or, as Rand said in regard to music, absent the objective means, tastes must be "treated as a subjective matter."

 

On 10/21/2017 at 6:23 PM, Ellen Stuttle said:

Looks like you're still trying to turn technical evaluation into the tail that wags the dog.  Rand wasn't making a requirement that anyone perform a technical evaluation of an artwork.  She was simply warning against confusing one's personal response and moral judgment with technical evaluation.

She was doing more than that. She was warning against confusing subjective judgments with objective ones. She stressed that merely liking or agreeing with a work of art was not an objective judgment. The issue isn't "technical evaluations," but subjective judgments versus objective ones. Rand neglected to deliver the objective means of judging aesthetic phenomena.

Since she held the view that there is "no place" for the "non-objective in any human product," there is no place for art until the day that the "objective esthetic principles" are discovered.

 

P.S. And, by the way, the idea of introducing predictions into philosophy doesn't fly. Such as in the belief that we can categorize a phenomenon as meeting a certain definition and criteria, which it doesn't actually meet, if we declare that some day someone will find the means of allowing it to meet the criteria. There's no asserting that music must have an objective "conceptual vocabulary," so therefore it does have one, and that someday some music technician will discover it, and therefore that we get to count music as being objective and as qualifying as art right now. The same is true of the "objective esthetic principles" that would apply to all other art forms. They don't exist, and Objectivists don't get to act as if they necessarily will exist some day just cuz Rand said so. Remember Rand's scoldings on the potential versus the actual? Well, that applies here. Objectivism is supposed to deal with the actual, not with Rand's wishes for imagined potentials.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Most people . . . think that abstract thinking must be “impersonal”—which means that ideas must hold no personal meaning, value or importance to the thinker. This notion rests on the premise that a personal interest is an agent of distortion. But “personal” does not mean “nonobjective”; it depends on the kind of person you are. If your thinking is determined by your emotions, then you will not be able to judge anything, personally or impersonally. But if you are the kind of person who knows that reality is not your enemy, that truth and knowledge are of crucial, personal, selfish importance to you and to your own life—then, the more passionately personal the thinking, the clearer and truer".

“Philosophical Detection,”
Philosophy: Who Needs It

----

To head off "personal" being mischaracterized into "subjective", this quote should be noted. Enough garbling of Rand and objectivism has been going on...

I think most important is that one doesn't 'remove oneself' - to be objective. And each person is unique, from varying backgrounds (cultures, upbringing, psychology, sense of life, personality, etc.) and at varying stages of conceptual and character development, and different values, expertise, experiences - you name it. That's "personal" as I see it, and neutral in itself - but an individual may be subjectively-personal or objectively-personal, depending on whom.

For good measure, to clarify objectivity and subjectivity:

"Objectivity ... pertains to the relationship of consciousness to existence. Metaphysically, it is the recognition of the fact that reality exists independent of any perceiver's consciousness. Epistemologically, it is the recognition of the fact that a perceiver's (man's) consciousness must acquire knowledge of reality by certain means (reason) in accordance with certain rules (logic)." [...]

"Subjectivism is the belief that reality is not a firm absolute, but a fluid, plastic, indeterminate realm, which can be altered, in whole or in part, by the consciousness of the perceiver. [...] Pure or extreme subjectivism does not recognize the concept of identity, i.e., the fact that man or the universe or anything possesses a specific nature".

"The subjective means the arbitrary, the irrational, the blindly emotional". [AR]

----

From "...does not recognize the fact that ... anything possesses a specific nature" -- here's an exercise applying the principles above to the philosophy of aesthetics. Is art made, considered and permitted generally to have a "plastic" nature, and therefore subjective and arbitrary? As performed by some artists, clearly. (Andy Warhol, on some junk he produced: "If it's made by an artist, it's art").

Does their work promote and endorse subjectivity in many viewers? I think so. "Abstract" art doesn't personally concern me, by itself. I find the artworks funny or boring and empty. At best, it might create a tranquil/energetic mood or sensation, like clever decorative design, but passing it off intellectually as art (with special "emotional" meaning to only a few experts) plays a small part in people's drift into subjectivism, and that's concerning.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, anthony said:

"Most people . . . think that abstract thinking must be “impersonal”—which means that ideas must hold no personal meaning, value or importance to the thinker. This notion rests on the premise that a personal interest is an agent of distortion. But “personal” does not mean “nonobjective”; it depends on the kind of person you are. If your thinking is determined by your emotions, then you will not be able to judge anything, personally or impersonally. But if you are the kind of person who knows that reality is not your enemy, that truth and knowledge are of crucial, personal, selfish importance to you and to your own life—then, the more passionately personal the thinking, the clearer and truer".

“Philosophical Detection,”
Philosophy: Who Needs It

----

To head off "personal" being mischaracterized into "subjective", this quote should be noted. Enough garbling of Rand and objectivism has been going on...

I think most important is that one doesn't 'remove oneself' - to be objective. And each person is unique, from varying backgrounds (cultures, upbringing, psychology, sense of life, personality, etc.) and at varying stages of conceptual and character development, and different values, expertise, experiences - you name it. That's "personal" as I see it, and neutral in itself - but an individual may be subjectively-personal or objectively-personal, depending on whom.

For good measure, to clarify objectivity and subjectivity:

"Objectivity ... pertains to the relationship of consciousness to existence. Metaphysically, it is the recognition of the fact that reality exists independent of any perceiver's consciousness. Epistemologically, it is the recognition of the fact that a perceiver's (man's) consciousness must acquire knowledge of reality by certain means (reason) in accordance with certain rules (logic)." [...]

"Subjectivism is the belief that reality is not a firm absolute, but a fluid, plastic, indeterminate realm, which can be altered, in whole or in part, by the consciousness of the perceiver. [...] Pure or extreme subjectivism does not recognize the concept of identity, i.e., the fact that man or the universe or anything possesses a specific nature".

"The subjective means the arbitrary, the irrational, the blindly emotional". [AR]

----

From "...does not recognize the fact that ... anything possesses a specific nature" -- here's an exercise applying the principles above to the philosophy of aesthetics. Is art made, considered and permitted generally to have a "plastic" nature, and therefore subjective and arbitrary? As performed by some artists, clearly. (Andy Warhol, on some junk he produced: "If it's made by an artist, it's art").

Does their work promote and endorse subjectivity in many viewers? I think so. "Abstract" art doesn't personally concern me, by itself. I find the artworks funny or boring and empty. At best, it might create a tranquil/energetic mood or sensation, like clever decorative design, but passing it off intellectually as art (with special "emotional" meaning to only a few experts) plays a small part in people's drift into subjectivism, and that's concerning.

This is next to worthless and not because of misquoting or misrepresenting; because you don't reference the quotations except, partially, in the first paragraph.

Reads like a slandering of subjectivity.

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/7/2017 at 3:59 PM, Jonathan said:

No, I'm just going with the meaning of "aesthetics" that has existed throughout the entire history of mankind. The term refers to spontaneous emotional responses involving beauty, taste, sentiment, etc.

The term does not refer to measuring if a note played on a trumpet is slightly flat, or if a painting of a lime has five percent more cyan than the color of a real lime. It doesn't refer to measuring how high a dancer has leapt, or to keeping an eye out for split infinitives in a novel, or sentences which end in prepositions.

I have nothing against technical judgments. They apply to art, as they do to anything else, and are an important part of our interactions with art, but they are not aesthetic judgments.

Identifying the reality that an artist deviated from proper perspective, or from proper tuning, is a standard technical judgment. Judging how the altered perspective or tuning feels and/or what it means is an aesthetic judgment.

Definitely Rand did not spend much time on "beauty, taste, sentiment, etc." Not to overlook where she did, however. (As example: "The value involved is life, and the words naming the emotion are: *This* is what life means to *me*"). Seems she took represented beauty much as a 'given' - inherent in artworks, by skilled artists.

I strongly suspect "the meaning of aesthetics that has existed throughout the entire history of mankind" always was inherently flawed. In some way or other, and to some degree or other, all the early philosophers and artists were Creationists, supernaturalists, and so on. What that means is they thought that beauty and everything in Nature exists as God-given for man's reverential upliftment. As he made man, so he made beauty. No matter that it's explicitly known that a beautiful animal and its lithe movements, or the colors of sunsets, a stirring landscape scene (etc. etc) have come about by natural means and phenomena - regardless of man's existence - the mysticism of beauty has survived implicitly until today. Asked if the purpose of natural beauty is FOR mankind, most secularists would laugh, but subconsciously most still hold to it, I believe is quite true.

Carried through to art, depicted beauty has been the mainstay of the artists, who were hailed by at least one philosopher as "geniuses" who channel and 'reproduce' (NOT re-create or re-present from their consciousness) natural beauty, and so has continued that mystical tradition.

Because of this there has been no proper, rational "philosophy of aesthetics" until the radical approach of Rand's. Asked and answered: What purpose does art have for men's consciousnesses? And too, because of this clinging to ancient mysticism, there hasn't been nearly enough work in the "science of aesthetics", which would comprehensively cover several empirical disciplines (including artistic techniques, and so on). 

The *philosophy* and the *science* of aesthetics are two close fields, and Rand naturally focused on one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Brant Gaede said:

This is next to worthless and not because of misquoting or misrepresenting; because you don't reference the quotations except, partially, in the first paragraph.

Reads like a slandering of subjectivity.

--Brant

Slandering subjectivity? And how! What do you suppose?

The quotes are from The Objectivist Newsletter (Feb. 1965) and from Art and Moral Treason (The Romantic Manifesto). I don't make up quotes and you should be familiar with their essence anyhow.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, anthony said:

Slandering subjectivity? And how! What do you suppose?

The quotes are from The Objectivist Newsletter (Feb. 1965) and from Art and Moral Treason (The Romantic Manifesto). I don't make up quotes and you should be familiar with their essence anyhow.

I'll let whoever can and wants to figure it out.

You fail on both counts.

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Brant Gaede said:

I'll let whoever can and wants to figure it out.

You fail on both counts.

--Brant

What about? Objectivism contra subjectivism? Her explanations of those are too well known, in several places. Rand on art? I make no claim to be the last word on that. But I have read her with receptivity, and have 1. tried for an overview of what she ultimately means and 2. have compared what I believe she means, with reality and the mind - and my experience (with art, in this case). They are the two criteria I abide by, with emphasis on the latter.

Of respondents here, I think Ellen has read The Romantic Manifesto with the goal of objective comprehension. It's not as if Rand needs a "charitable" read, but being receptive to her non-conformist ideas, for a while at least suspending any preconceptions one has picked up about art, is essential. For that, I encourage and urge those interested to read TRM for themselves (at least twice)and never to rely on anyone's second- and third-hand interpretations.They mostly pick away at the odd loose threads of the theory as if they are the entire fabric, or completely misrepresent Rand.

"Objectivity ... pertains to the nature of consciousness to existence".

If one accepts this statement, one can realize the importance of art which ties consciousness and existence together.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Subjectivity is a much broader topic than addressed by Rand which automatically makes her intellectualized rants doubtful if not bogus. Did she ever take von Mises on about the subjective theory of value (valuing)? I don't think so. She did champion von Mises, however--generally sanction.

I have not much interest in Orthodox Objectivism 101--been there; done that--or living within her philosophy--her philosophy not Objectivism--and seeing reality through her prisms. That way of doing business is worth investigating, not adopting.

Note that I am not debating whether Rand said this or that or whether your understanding of her on this topic is correct. My POV is 180 degrees different.

If you had properly referenced her quotes--article, book, page number--then your post would have scholarly legs and transcendent value. But anyone doing serious research has no use or time for less. It's as if your post never happened except for those interested in people trapped in a philosophy they think they understand but don't. They see trees all about them--seemingly wonderful trees some wonderful indeed--but not the true forest.

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, nope. I see reality through my own eyes. Orthodox, schmorthodox. 

Properly referenced quotes - come on. These are hardly scholastic entries of mine and Rand on objectivity/subjectivity doesn't need any attribution, most here have heard it all before. (And I should think I am allowed a little good faith for being honest by now). I can see how Objectivists could become trapped at "Orthodox Objectivism 101", with their attention on infighting, personalities, ARI (and its sometime rationalism). I have no patience for internal politics, but anyway that passed me by. The O'ist methodology is true to life and my mind, and that's what matters - use it or lose it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

58 minutes ago, Brant Gaede said:

Subjectivity is a much broader topic than addressed by Rand which automatically makes her intellectualized rants doubtful if not bogus. Did she ever take von Mises on about the subjective theory of value (valuing)?

Perhaps not directly, but certainly conceptually:

"The free market represents the social application of an objective theory of values. Since values are to be discovered by man’s mind, men must be free to discover them—to think, to study, to translate their knowledge into physical form, to offer their products for trade, to judge them, and to choose, be it material goods or ideas, a loaf of bread or a philosophical treatise. Since values are established contextually, every man must judge for himself, in the context of his own knowledge, goals, and interests. [That would be what Mises mistakenly call subjective value.] Since values are determined by the nature of reality, it is reality that serves as men’s ultimate arbiter: [That would be what Rand means by objective value.] ... if a man’s judgment is right, the rewards are his; if it is wrong, he is his only victim." [Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal, p. 23]

Mises, like most of the Austrian school economists, misuses the term, "subjective," to mean whatever an individual mind does, blurring the fact that any mind, even the same mind, can engage in either objective or subjective reason. The difference between subjective and objective is the basis for one's reasoning, whether fact based on evidence and clear reasoning (based on objective reality) or based on feeling, emotion, faith, and whim (based on one's 'subjective' experience alone). Attempting to equate Rand's meaning with Mises' meaning of, 'subjective,' is just confusion.

Randy

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, anthony said:

"Most people . . . think that abstract thinking must be “impersonal”—which means that ideas must hold no personal meaning, value or importance to the thinker. This notion rests on the premise that a personal interest is an agent of distortion. But “personal” does not mean “nonobjective”; it depends on the kind of person you are. If your thinking is determined by your emotions, then you will not be able to judge anything, personally or impersonally. But if you are the kind of person who knows that reality is not your enemy, that truth and knowledge are of crucial, personal, selfish importance to you and to your own life—then, the more passionately personal the thinking, the clearer and truer".

“Philosophical Detection,”
Philosophy: Who Needs It

----

To head off "personal" being mischaracterized into "subjective", this quote should be noted. Enough garbling of Rand and objectivism has been going on...

I think most important is that one doesn't 'remove oneself' - to be objective. And each person is unique, from varying backgrounds (cultures, upbringing, psychology, sense of life, personality, etc.) and at varying stages of conceptual and character development, and different values, expertise, experiences - you name it. That's "personal" as I see it, and neutral in itself - but an individual may be subjectively-personal or objectively-personal, depending on whom.

For good measure, to clarify objectivity and subjectivity:

"Objectivity ... pertains to the relationship of consciousness to existence. Metaphysically, it is the recognition of the fact that reality exists independent of any perceiver's consciousness. Epistemologically, it is the recognition of the fact that a perceiver's (man's) consciousness must acquire knowledge of reality by certain means (reason) in accordance with certain rules (logic)." [...]

"Subjectivism is the belief that reality is not a firm absolute, but a fluid, plastic, indeterminate realm, which can be altered, in whole or in part, by the consciousness of the perceiver. [...] Pure or extreme subjectivism does not recognize the concept of identity, i.e., the fact that man or the universe or anything possesses a specific nature".

"The subjective means the arbitrary, the irrational, the blindly emotional". [AR]

----

From "...does not recognize the fact that ... anything possesses a specific nature" -- here's an exercise applying the principles above to the philosophy of aesthetics. Is art made, considered and permitted generally to have a "plastic" nature, and therefore subjective and arbitrary? As performed by some artists, clearly. (Andy Warhol, on some junk he produced: "If it's made by an artist, it's art").

Does their work promote and endorse subjectivity in many viewers? I think so. "Abstract" art doesn't personally concern me, by itself. I find the artworks funny or boring and empty. At best, it might create a tranquil/energetic mood or sensation, like clever decorative design, but passing it off intellectually as art (with special "emotional" meaning to only a few experts) plays a small part in people's drift into subjectivism, and that's concerning.

Judgments that are "personal" don't become objective just because one is a follower of Rand and has declared his allegiance to objectivity. One's emotions, whims, spontaneous responses and tastes don't qualify as objective just because one wishes them to.

Judgments which are "personal" are not objective according to Objectivism unless they follow the specific process of objectivity, which is the process of volitionally adhering to reality by using a clearly identified objective standard and applying the rules logic and reason.

That method must be applied to each individual instance of judgment in order for the judgment to qualify as objective. If a viewer looks at something and wants to objectively judge whether or not it is, say, beautiful, then he must not merely have an immediate emotional response, but must volitionally apply logic and reason to the act of judging via a clearly defined objective standard of judgment. The viewer could not merely self-pre-certify that he has read Rand's work, has done a lot of thinking, has trained his emotions to be objective, and has decided to be the type of heroic being who loves knowledge and objective reality, and who therefore doesn't have any icky subjective thoughts whatsoever.

The belief that one can skip the process of applying objectivity in each individual case, and instead just claim to have some sort of overriding, preapproved objectivity license, is irrational and subjectivist. It's pure silliness.

Tony, reality is not altered by your subjectivist wish to believe that your subjective judgments are objective but "personal."

It really is hilarious that someone as irrational, subjectivist, and illogical as you is so attracted to Rand and Objectivism. You practice the opposite of her epistemology.

J

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One cannot make objective judgments of beauty when one has not identified clear objective standards by which to measure beauty. One cannot make objective judgments of the various art forms when one has neglected to identify clear objective standards by which to measure them. No objectivity is possible until those standards have been identified. The process of objectivity can't be used without them.

Rand wrote, at the time, that those objective standards were outside the scope of the discussion. She never returned to the issue. She never identified the standards and means of making objective aesthetic judgments.

The reality was that nothing was more relevant to the topic of discussion. Nothing should have been more pressing. In her aesthetics, it is THE issue. All of her pages and pages of self-congratulatory preening and condemnations of others were irrational, off-point garbage. All of that crap was what was actually outside the scope of the discussion. She was claiming to present a serious, objective work on the philosophy of aesthetics. All of it, everything that she wrote on the subject, is irrelevant speculation and whimsy without the missing means of objective aesthetic judgment.

Rand looked down her nose at others (whom she hadn't read) by saying that they failed miserably. She failed even more miserably, since she didn't even try to seriously deal with the issue. Good or bad, partial or complete, they at least delivered something. She delivered nothing. Zero. Null set. Nothing but cynical bitching about how others were inferior.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Brant Gaede said:

Subjectivity is a much broader topic than addressed by Rand which automatically makes her intellectualized rants doubtful if not bogus. Did she ever take von Mises on about the subjective theory of value (valuing)? I don't think so. She did champion von Mises, however--generally sanction.

I have not much interest in Orthodox Objectivism 101--been there; done that--or living within her philosophy--her philosophy not Objectivism--and seeing reality through her prisms. That way of doing business is worth investigating, not adopting.

Note that I am not debating whether Rand said this or that or whether your understanding of her on this topic is correct. My POV is 180 degrees different.

If you had properly referenced her quotes--article, book, page number--then your post would have scholarly legs and transcendent value. But anyone doing serious research has no use or time for less. It's as if your post never happened except for those interested in people trapped in a philosophy they think they understand but don't. They see trees all about them--seemingly wonderful trees some wonderful indeed--but not the true forest.

--Brant

Tony has a history of confusing Rand's comments on "subjectivism" with the idea of someone's having subjective thoughts.

Stupidly, he seems to believe that anyone who has a subjective thought automatically becomes a philosophical "subjectivist" who holds that reality is not firm, but is a swirling blah blah blah.

He doesn't have the capacity to distinguish between the two concepts, so just lumps them together.

Person: "I have a subjective preference for Mahler."

Tony the Randtard: "So you're a blindly emotional drooling beast who believes that reality will conform to the whims of your consciousness."

Person: "Yes. That's how I've survived all these years. When I'm hungry, I just blindly emotionally wish for food, and then reality conforms to my consciousness and places a steak right in front of me, and cooked exactly how I like it."

J

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Still hearing the fallacy and impossibility of subtracting one's self - taking yourself out of the equation - in order to be (supposedly) 'objective'.

That's where empiricism goes off the tracks, avoiding the fact of reality (as some philosophers have), that consciousness - and one's own consciousness - has a specific identity.

"Yet art is of passionately intense importance and profoundly ~personal~ concern to most men...[p.15 TRM. Rand's italics]

"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 art work supports or negates his own fundamental view of reality. [p.24, TRM]

---

"Visual harmony is a sensory experience and is determined primarily by physiological causes". [p.75, TRM] 

ie. "visual harmony" - beauty - in colors, lines and shapes (and perspective and composition), requires the scientists of aesthetics to research and any rules of aesthetics to establish. There is where empiricism is valuable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

and Brant,

1 hour ago, Jonathan said:

One cannot make objective judgments of beauty when one has not identified clear objective standards by which to measure beauty.

How interesting that you wrote that, because I said a similar thing in a post I intended for Brant Gaede. This is a good place for it.

                      ________________________________________________

To my previous post I would like to add, since this thread is really about aesthetics, what Mises and others mistakenly call subjective values ought be called "market values." The difference between objective values and market values has real significance in understanding the value of art.

The market value of a thing is determined by the collective evaluation of individuals participating in the market, and is almost always a mixture of those who make their evaluations objectively and those who make their evaluations subjectively. The market value of a thing, like a work of art, is only its, "economic," value as determined by the market, and may or may not reflect (and usually doesn't) its objective value, if it has any.

It is easy enough to discover what determines the market value of a work of art which will be a combination public sentiment and beliefs, gullibility of buyers, current fashion, and the influence of "the greater fool theory," of value of collectibles. If there is any objective evaluation of art from the market standpoint it is indetectably slight.

The aesthetic question is, "how is the objective value of a work of art determined?" It can certainly be evaluated as any other work is, in terms of the quality of craftsmanship of the artist, how well it accomplishes whatever the artist's intention was, but those are not particularly aesthetic qualities. Quite frankly, I do not know how a work of art can be objectively evaluated unless some objective standard that unambiguously identifies how a work of art ought to materially benefit those who use it is established, and how that benefit can be measured is determined. I do not believe any view of aesthetics to date, including Rand's, does either of those things.

I also doubt that such an objective standard can be established, much less a means for measuring it. If that is the case, art is like many other things, of real objective value only in relation to how an individual finds value in it. I do not mean an individual's subjective judgment but their objective judgment of what the art does for them when they use it, e.g. reads it, looks at it, watches it, or listens to it.

One reason I suspect this is true is because not everyone is able to appreciate art in the same way. A piece of music that is a source of real pleasure and inspiration to one individual is nothing but noise to someone who is tone deaf. This does no make the value of the art subjective. The pleasure and inspiration enjoyed by the music lover are objectively real, but only to that individual. I believe the same applies to all forms of art, and the objective value of any art can only be judged by the value that art is to the individual making the judgment.

Randy

Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, anthony said:

the scientists of aesthetics

Aesthetics is not a scientific concept, it is a philosophical concept. Science is no more able to study aesthetics than it is humor, both of which are characteristics of the human psychological nature, not physical nature.

I think the aesthetic nature can easily be explained, both in terms of its importance to the human mind and consciousness and in terms of its function. Essentially it is that aspect of human nature that makes the most sublime of human experiences possible, the bliss and ecstasy of a fulfilled life of romantic adventure.

Art has very little to do with aesthetics.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, anthony said:

Still hearing the fallacy and impossibility of subtracting one's self - taking yourself out of the equation - in order to be (supposedly) 'objective'.

Your wishing to hear it doesn't make it true. Fucking subjectivist.

More of your blubbering and constructing straw men and your evasions won't make the missing objective means of aesthetic judgment appear.

Bluffing and distractions aren't going to work, just like Rand's posing and condemning others for not delivering what she also didn't deliver didn't work.

Quit trying to sell your subjectivist bullshit, Tony. Put up or shut up. Deliver the missing means of objective aesthetic judgment.

You've got nothing. Even Rand's followers who are multiple times more knowledgeable and intelligent than you also have nothing. It's all bluff and bullshit.

The funny thing is that you're too stupid to know when to shut up. Your betters at least know when to exit the conversation with one lame excuse or another, or to use the last resort tactic of banning critics from their sites. 

J

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, regi said:

Perhaps not directly, but certainly conceptually:

"The free market represents the social application of an objective theory of values. Since values are to be discovered by man’s mind, men must be free to discover them—to think, to study, to translate their knowledge into physical form, to offer their products for trade, to judge them, and to choose, be it material goods or ideas, a loaf of bread or a philosophical treatise. Since values are established contextually, every man must judge for himself, in the context of his own knowledge, goals, and interests. [That would be what Mises mistakenly call subjective value.] Since values are determined by the nature of reality, it is reality that serves as men’s ultimate arbiter: [That would be what Rand means by objective value.] ... if a man’s judgment is right, the rewards are his; if it is wrong, he is his only victim." [Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal, p. 23]

Mises, like most of the Austrian school economists, misuses the term, "subjective," to mean whatever an individual mind does, blurring the fact that any mind, even the same mind, can engage in either objective or subjective reason. The difference between subjective and objective is the basis for one's reasoning, whether fact based on evidence and clear reasoning (based on objective reality) or based on feeling, emotion, faith, and whim (based on one's 'subjective' experience alone). Attempting to equate Rand's meaning with Mises' meaning of, 'subjective,' is just confusion.

Randy

Especially valuable post. Thanks.

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, anthony said:

 

---

"Visual harmony is a sensory experience and is determined primarily by physiological causes". [p.75, TRM] 

ie. "visual harmony" - beauty - in colors, lines and shapes (and perspective and composition), requires the scientists of aesthetics to research and any rules of aesthetics to establish. There is where empiricism is valuable.

Beauty is not limited to visual harmony just because it was the first and only thing that popped into Rand's visual-arts-ignoramus head. 

Disharmony and discord can be beautiful, as can contrasts and clashing elements, etc.

You're trying to follow Rand in doing philosophy of aesthetics via ignorant introspection.

You're being what Rand called a "subjectivist."

J

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, regi said:

The pleasure and inspiration enjoyed by the music lover are objectively real, but only to that individual. I believe the same applies to all forms of art, and the objective value of any art can only be judged by the value that art is to the individual making the judgment.

 

That's what "subjective" means. When your personal tastes, life experiences and context contribute to your evaluation of something, then your judgment is subjective. That's what the term "subjective" means.

J

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, regi said:

and Brant,

How interesting that you wrote that, because I said a similar thing in a post I intended for Brant Gaede. This is a good place for it.

                      ________________________________________________

To my previous post I would like to add, since this thread is really about aesthetics, what Mises and others mistakenly call subjective values ought be called "market values." The difference between objective values and market values has real significance in understanding the value of art.

The market value of a thing is determined by the collective evaluation of individuals participating in the market, and is almost always a mixture of those who make their evaluations objectively and those who make their evaluations subjectively. The market value of a thing, like a work of art, is only its, "economic," value as determined by the market, and may or may not reflect (and usually doesn't) its objective value, if it has any.

It is easy enough to discover what determines the market value of a work of art which will be a combination public sentiment and beliefs, gullibility of buyers, current fashion, and the influence of "the greater fool theory," of value of collectibles. If there is any objective evaluation of art from the market standpoint it is indetectably slight.

The aesthetic question is, "how is the objective value of a work of art determined?" It can certainly be evaluated as any other work is, in terms of the quality of craftsmanship of the artist, how well it accomplishes whatever the artist's intention was, but those are not particularly aesthetic qualities. Quite frankly, I do not know how a work of art can be objectively evaluated unless some objective standard that unambiguously identifies how a work of art ought to materially benefit those who use it is established, and how that benefit can be measured is determined. I do not believe any view of aesthetics to date, including Rand's, does either of those things.

I also doubt that such an objective standard can be established, much less a means for measuring it. If that is the case, art is like many other things, of real objective value only in relation to how an individual finds value in it. I do not mean an individual's subjective judgment but their objective judgment of what the art does for them when they use it, e.g. reads it, looks at it, watches it, or listens to it.

One reason I suspect this is true is because not everyone is able to appreciate art in the same way. A piece of music that is a source of real pleasure and inspiration to one individual is nothing but noise to someone who is tone deaf. This does no make the value of the art subjective. The pleasure and inspiration enjoyed by the music lover are objectively real, but only to that individual. I believe the same applies to all forms of art, and the objective value of any art can only be judged by the value that art is to the individual making the judgment.

Randy

Yeah, trying to establish objectivity in aesthetic judgments is a fool's errand. It's nothing more than an issue of Rand's (and her followers') wishing such judgments to be objective even though they are clearly not. She wanted and needed to believe that her every thought, including her aesthetic judgments, was objective. Her wanting and needing it doesn't make it true.

Aesthetic responses are subjective. Even if we allow, for the sake of argument, the idea that it might be possible that some day someone will discover objective means of aesthetically judging the various art forms, that would not change the reality that Rand, during her lifetime, never applied those objective means (since they didn't yet exist), and therefore none of her aesthetic judgments could ever be considered to be objective, even if some of them happen to turn out to coincide with future objective judgments. Objectivity, to Rand, was a specific process, and she did not follow that process in regard to any works of art, since the vital element -- the objective means of measuring each of the art forms -- remained unidentified and therefore unavailable to use. All of her aesthetic tastes were, and will remain forever, subjective.

J

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