Objectivist Esthetics, R.I.P.

[Ellen Stuttle]

16 hours ago, Jonathan said:

"The fact that one agrees or disagrees with an artist’s philosophy is irrelevant to an esthetic appraisal of his work qua art. One does not have to agree with an artist (nor even to enjoy him) in order to evaluate his work. In essence, an objective evaluation requires that one identify the artist’s theme, the abstract meaning of his work (exclusively by identifying the evidence contained in the work and allowing no other, outside considerations), then evaluate the means by which he conveys it—i.e., taking histheme as criterion, evaluate the purely esthetic elements of the work, the technical mastery (or lack of it) with which he projects (or fails to project) hisview of life..."

So you're still doing that - trying to pass off Rand's strictures on judgment of technical merit as her criteria of art.

Something has to classify as art before a judgment of technical merit becomes relevant.

I could agree with some of what you say if you were merely claiming that Rand's instructions on how to judge technical merit are problematic, but you attempt to substitute that paragraph for Rand's theory of what art is.  The substitution is invalid.

Ellen

[anthony]

16 hours ago, KorbenDallas said:

Where's Waldo? 

 

18 hours ago, william.scherk said:

 

 

A suggested title for this: "Subjectivity".** 

Walk around and under the installation and see how one's perception of reality - of people's bodies and surrounding buildings - shifts and distorts according to one's whim at any change of position. Like staying too long in a Hall of Mirrors, it would become boring or mind-blowing quickly. 

"'Installation art' may sometimes be eye-catching and entertaining, and is mostly dependent on large scale and strange, unpredictable locations for effect. It seldom stands alone however, as an artwork in itself. Imagine the same thing reduced down to table top proportions, you'd have a pretty paperweight for your desk. Imagine it again without the polished, reflective facade, it would be just a massive blob. 

A good sample of Post-Modernist art. First and directly on seeing it, it would elicit an awe-struck feeling from the immensity of its scale - aka: "The mathematical sublime", by Kant - exaggerated by the convex mirroring of all the surroundings/sky etc. The work emphasizes and appeals to the primacy of emotions, and that is the point of it.

**or, "The Collective Mind". (Yes! I like that).

[Ellen Stuttle]

And this:

3 hours ago, Jonathan said:

Here's Rand on art:

Quote

As a re-creation of reality, a work of art has to be representational; its freedom of stylization is limited by the requirement of intelligibility; if it does not present an intelligible subject, it ceases to be art.

So, demonstrate that a piece of music or architecture has complied with that requirement of intelligibility. Prove that the philosophical theory actually applies to reality,  rather than being completely made up and disconnected from reality

You take that sentence totally out of context, ignoring that Rand was talking about visual art, and you try to apply it to music, which she very clearly did not think was representational.

 

And this - 

3 hours ago, Jonathan said:

Hahaha! Kant was actually the father of Romantic Realism! Rand absorbed his notion of the Sublime, without knowing it, and made it her signature aesthetic style!

displaying out-of-context-extravaganza interpretation of both Kant and Rand.

I think there's plenty to critique in Rand's theory of art - but first you have to get it right.  What you produce is primarily ranting hot air.

Ellen

[william.scherk]

[Jonathan]

4 minutes ago, william.scherk said:

I just asked Kamhi why she uses scare quotes around the word "art" when referring to Garant's work. She removed the question from her blog.

Heh.

[william.scherk]

[Jonathan]

5 hours ago, Ellen Stuttle said:

So you're still doing that - trying to pass off Rand's strictures on judgment of technical merit as her criteria of art.

Something has to classify as art before a judgment of technical merit becomes relevant.

I could agree with some of what you say if you were merely claiming that Rand's instructions on how to judge technical merit are problematic, but you attempt to substitute that paragraph for Rand's theory of what art is.  The substitution is invalid.

Ellen

No, I’m not trying to pass anything off, but to connect it as having a great deal of relevance in informing us of Rand’s views. Her comments on "objective evaluation" are a part of her criteria, along with the entire context of her comments on what art is, as well as her comments on what disqualifies a work from being art, such as that it does not present an intelligible subject (that's subject, not merely subject matter, for others following along). Those comments inform us of her view on how to approach a piece of alleged art objectively. Meaning in art was of vital, defining importance to Rand. Her view was that art was required to present an intelligible subject, theme, meaning, sense of life, view of existence, etc. That which does not present that meaningful content “ceases to be art” by her theory. Otherwise, any man-made image could qualify as art, such as purely utilitarian anatomical or medical illustrations, or product drawings in technical installation manuals.

Rand’s view was that art must serve a very specific function of embodying and communicating meaning of significance or importance, and her outlined method of “objective evaluation” of art is an apt gauge of determining what is or is not art: If Rand’s followers can’t identify (and they can't) any artist’s subject, theme, meaning, metaphysical value-judgment or sense of life in any work of art (while being denied access to all “outside considerations”), then the works in question are no different than the abstract works which Rand and her followers reject based on the claim that they are unintelligible.

Look at it this way. What’s the first objection that O-vishes generally raise about abstract art? What’s the first question that they ask when I explain what I see and experience in specific abstract works? Generally, it’s something like, "Regarding your responses to the abstract works, do you have any idea if they even approximately correspond to what the artists had in mind? Or do you think the artists’ intentions are irrelevant?” That’s from Auntie Kamhi. It doesn’t matter that I can very reasonably explain what I experience, and very rationally connect it to the content of the images — the shapes and their relationships, the colors, textures, etc., and the effects that they have on me. Nope. That’s not enough. I’m required to show that my experience corresponded to what the artists had in mind. That's because Auntie (and those who raise the same objection) understands that Rand's criteria demands that the artwork communicate the artist's intended meaning.

Meanwhile, heh, Auntie doesn’t feel that she has to do the same with any works that she declares to be valid art by her criteria. In fact, she deletes the my posts at her website which ask her to do so. That’ll make the issue disappear!

 

Quote

You take that sentence totally out of context, ignoring that Rand was talking about visual art, and you try to apply it to music, which she very clearly did not think was representational.

That’s not true. She wasn’t talking about only visual art, but about art in general, all art. She goes on to talk about "reducing of language to grunts," of "literature to ‘moods,'” and of "music to noise.”

She shared Bissell’s mistaken method of comparisons and category errors. She believed that she could categorize music as “representational” if she just came up with something non-representational against which to contrast it, and she came up with “noise.” The logical error is evident when one realizes that both noise and music could fit into the same category of non-representational things. Her method would be like saying that structured geometric patterns are representational because random splatters of paint are not. Non sequitur. Likewise, music doesn’t become representational just because noise is not representational. It would still have to comply with the standard art meaning of “representational,” which is art that presents an immediately identifiable mimetic likeness of specific entities. Most music does not do that. Very few pieces of music include easily identifiable aural likenesses of things in reality. Even fewer rely on creating such likenesses as their primary means of expression.

Quote

displaying out-of-context-extravaganza interpretation of both Kant and Rand.

Nope. I nailed it. Rand’s art is the Kantian Sublime.

J

[Jonathan]

4 hours ago, anthony said:

 

A suggested title for this: "Subjectivity".** 

Walk around and under the installation and see how one's perception of reality - of people's bodies and surrounding buildings - shifts and distorts according to one's whim at any change of position. Like staying too long in a Hall of Mirrors, it would become boring or mind-blowing quickly. 

"'Installation art' may sometimes be eye-catching and entertaining, and is mostly dependent on large scale and strange, unpredictable locations for effect. It seldom stands alone however, as an artwork in itself. Imagine the same thing reduced down to table top proportions, you'd have a pretty paperweight for your desk. Imagine it again without the polished, reflective facade, it would be just a massive blob. 

A good sample of Post-Modernist art. First and directly on seeing it, it would elicit an awe-struck feeling from the immensity of its scale - aka: "The mathematical sublime", by Kant - exaggerated by the convex mirroring of all the surroundings/sky etc. The work emphasizes and appeals to the primacy of emotions, and that is the point of it.

**or, "The Collective Mind". (Yes! I like that).

Attaboy, Tony, let that silly Rand-poison course through your veins!

[Jonathan]

Question:

If Rand were to read the results of people being tested for their ability to identify artists' themes/meanings in a specific limited collection of visual works, and she was not shown the works, but was told that the tests revealed that none of her highly intelligent, adoring fans could identify artists' themes/meanings after looking at the works, would she likely conclude that:

1) The works qualify as art, but were revealed by the testing to be bad art.

2) The test revealed that the works were unintelligible, and therefore were not art.

If you choose 1, you're saying that you believe that Rand held that unintelligible works -- unintelligible even to her brilliant admirers who are of superior intellect and aesthetic tastes compared to all others -- can qualify as art. What leads you to that position? Wouldn't "bad art" at least have to successfully convey to viewers some sort of vague, muddled version of the artist's theme/meaning, rather than nothing at all?

J

[Jonathan]

"Just as modern philosophy is dominated by the attempt to destroy the conceptual level of man’s consciousness and even the perceptual level, reducing man’s awareness to mere sensations—so modern art and literature are dominated by the attempt to disintegrate man’s consciousness and reduce it to mere sensations, to the “enjoyment” of meaningless colors, noises and moods."

My bolding.

[anthony]

17 hours ago, Jonathan said:

Attaboy, Tony, let that silly Rand-poison course through your veins!

I don't believe you get the point. All you accept is art-for-art's-sake, coming off the collectivist-mystic mentality which "Art" was always associated with, from natural beauty, natural pheomena (Kant) and religious tradition.  

Way before I read Rand on art, I'd recognized that appreciating art and literature was for my own selfish sake. That does not have to entail becoming an 'expert' on art, per se - but I know about it and have learned more as I go. Technically, it's not exactly rocket science. Rand confirmed, explained and validated what I knew art was 'for'. She knew that it couldn't be divorced from objectivity, and that all areas of humanity feed off of art and affect it too. 

That all art is the product of conscious minds and above all for the purpose (and sometimes, affirmation) of a conscious mind - escapes your purview. Each work of art is 'end in itself' - metaphysically - a new "existent". It is - epistemologically and in value - a means to one's own end.

[Jonathan]

49 minutes ago, anthony said:

I don't believe you get the point. All you accept is art-for-art's-sake, coming off the collectivist-mystic mentality which "Art" was always associated with, from natural beauty (Kant) and religious tradition.  

Way before I read Rand on art, I'd recognized that appreciating art and literature was for my own selfish sake. That does not have to entail becoming an 'expert' on art, per se - but I know about it and have learned more as I go. Technically, it's not exactly rocket science. Rand confirmed, explained and validated what I knew art was 'for'. She knew that it couldn't be divorced from objectivity, and that all areas of humanity feed off of it and affect it too. 

That all art is the product of conscious minds and above all for the purpose (and sometimes, affirmation) of a conscious mind - escapes your purview. Each work of art is 'end in itself' - metaphysically- a new existent. It's - epistemologically - a means to one's own end.

You're just making shit up about me, assigning me views that I don't hold, and using tired, old Rand psychologizing jargon.

And still my challenge remains unanswered. You haven't objectively shown that anything has ever qualified as art by your own criteria. In the initial post on this thread, I included an old response to one of your suggestions that we should empirically test people's ability to identify meaning in abstract art. When I responded with the suggestion that the same testing should apply to all art, including the representational art that you accept as valid, suddenly you were opposed to testing, and claimed that my suggesting it was indicative of my psychological and philosophical shortcomings.

Funny stuff, that.

[Jonathan]

"There is no place for whim in any human activity—if it is to be regarded as human. There is no place for the unknowable, the unintelligible, the undefinable, the non-objective in any human product."

So, if Rand's admirers can't identify artist's subjects, themes or meanings in realistic, representational, romantic paintings when attempting to use her stated method of "objective evaluation" of art, but if they still categorized those works as art, wouldn't they have to be using something other than objectivity? Wouldn't they be indulging in a whim, which Rand flips out over in the above? There's no place for the unintelligible in any fricken human activity!

[anthony]

15 hours ago, Jonathan said:

"Just as modern philosophy is dominated by the attempt to destroy the conceptual level of man’s consciousness and even the perceptual level, reducing man’s awareness to mere sensations—so modern art and literature are dominated by the attempt to disintegrate man’s consciousness and reduce it to mere sensations, to the “enjoyment” of meaningless colors, noises and moods."

My bolding.

Congrats, on finding - two - references to "meaning" in AR's book! 

Here is the ambiguity, I think: Meaning is 1. a noun 2. an adjective.

"meaning", n. What is meant; with ~, significantly; hence, meaningless// "meaning" a. Expressive, significant, whence  ~ly adv.; well-meaning, having good intention.

"Meaningless" (AR) is then the result of an action carried out without clear intention, and therefore, with arbitrary, sensational, effects.

You can be assured, in her context of "intelligibility", Rand clearly meant only that the viewer can see enough to know the artist's INTENTION.I.e. Is his technique skilfull enough to make apparent the subject matter (etc.) in the work? What did he "mean" to paint? A ship? A tree? A portrait? Can you see it? If even his most sincere effort at realist art is technically unobservable, the art hasn't the most basic validity. 

The alternate "meaning" (commonly accepted) of an artwork implies there's something "significant" one must unearth - a message lying beneath the surface - and that the artist in his genius conceals 'something' which only the 'experts' can see, decode and know. Leaving aside that nothing small or large is randomly chosen and placed in a good work of art, and it helps teaching oneself those smaller nuances for one's art appreciation, the "hidden message" meme - transcending knowing - is just so much b.s. (But it sure lends a mystique and/or elitist gravitas for all the people who fall for it). 

And that brings in "abstract" art.

[anthony]

3 hours ago, Jonathan said:

You're just making shit up about me, assigning me views that I don't hold, and using tired, old Rand psychologizing jargon.

And still my challenge remains unanswered. You haven't objectively shown that anything has ever qualified as art by your own criteria. In the initial post on this thread, I included an old response to one of your suggestions that we should empirically test people's ability to identify meaning in abstract art. When I responded with the suggestion that the same testing should apply to all art, including the representational art that you accept as valid, suddenly you were opposed to testing, and claimed that my suggesting it was indicative of my psychological and philosophical shortcomings.

Funny stuff, that.

Where did I try to stop you? You're welcome to test away. I'd love to see the outcome! Your challenge only has meaning to you, since I claim art is not an "empirical" matter, it's objectively evident. One sees, or one does not. You've said before that you can tell abstract art has emotional connotations, and therefore, "meaning". If that were consistently proven true in an experiment using several volunteers, and I know it won't be, the fact remains emotion isn't "identity".

Funny. The biggest self-proclaimed realists and atheists, and some I know, will state that reality is what it is, and a fact they see/hear speaks for itself. 

Their total blind spot is that a "re-creation of reality" ~may~ not be what it is, and what they see ~might~ be wrong, an artwork doesn't "speak for itself", art is a mystery and who's to know "what is there", but the artist? Under it all, they attribute mystical premises to art. Many supposed realists aren't as realist as they believe.

To repeat the last post, you misunderstand "meaning".

[Jonathan]

4 hours ago, anthony said:

Where did I try to stop you?

Huh? WTF?

 

[Jonathan]

It's as if Tony heard that I had recently anointed Merlin King of the O-tards, and couldn't handle it.

Me: "OMG, no one could out-retard Merlin!"

Tony: "Hold my beer."

[anthony]

heh heh. Just concentrate on "meaning" for a while. I am sure you'll finally get the distinction, J!

Art isn't redolent with - imbued with - "meaning", it's an artist's re-creation of some part of "creation", done his own way. (And does anything existing in nature have "meaning"? Nah, it has "identity".)

Gawd, Kant and all of them did untold harm with their quasi-religiosity to art.

[william.scherk]

[anthony]

That's intelligible art William. If I'm ever to think of the 'Deep Swamp Creature' (in another thread), this ugly mutation might come to mind. It befits an ISIS sub-animal too.

[Jonathan]

14 hours ago, anthony said:

Art isn't redolent with - imbued with - "meaning",

So, you're saying that Rand didn't put meaning into her work, and Michelangelo didn't either.

 

14 hours ago, anthony said:

it's an artist's re-creation of some part of "creation", done his own way.

Some part of "creation"? I identify "some parts of creation" in abstract paintings, such as the colors of heat and energy, and the textures and geometric forms of rough, angular pressure. Or the soothing calmness of gently curving forms and unsaturated tones. And then you and other retarded Rand minions demand that my interpretations of the paintings must be empirically tested against what the artists intended.

Then I ask to see the empircal tests which demonstrate that any works which you accept as valid have successfully conveyed the artists' intentions (while viewers/listeners/readers have been denied access to "outside considerations"), and then your response is to mock the idea of empirical testing.

What an irrational mess Rand and her toadies have made of the field of aesthetics! How unfortunate that they can't apply Objectivism -- logic, objectivity, rationality -- to the field of art! So many contradictions, double standards, arbitrary assertions, and psychologizings.

[Jonathan]

Quote

And does anything existing in nature have "meaning"? Nah, it has "identity".)

Yes, quite a lot has meaning to normal humans.

Quote

Gawd, Kant and all of them did untold harm with their quasi-religiosity to art.

You've really got a Rand minion hardon for Kant, even though he has nothing to do with this discussion.

[Brant Gaede]

If Kant isn't the most evil man who ever lived--step aside Mao, Hitler, Vlad the Impaler--Objectivism collapses because Rand thought so?

Is Objectivism based on reason or authority?

--Brant

[Brant Gaede]

15 hours ago, william.scherk said:

Over 100 mil.

The artist died at 27 of a heroin overdose.

It may be art but there's no skill.

It had to be shilled to people with no taste but lots of money.

--Brant

[Jonathan]

If art needn't convey the artist's intended meaning according to Rand's theory, then why would an "objective evaluation" require identification of that meaning, and an appraisal of how well-crafted the meaning was? If she didn't see communication of the artist's meaning as being essential to art, then wouldn't she have excluded it from her definition of "objective evaluation" of a work of art? Wouldn't she instead have said that an "objective evaluation" would only require that a viewer identify the objects that the artist re-created likenesses of, and an appraisal of how well he artistically crafted those likenesses?