Objectivist Esthetics, R.I.P.

[Jonathan]

19 hours ago, anthony said:

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.

I don't think that anyone cares what your subjective reaction to the painting is.

Why don't you give an objective evaluation instead? Follow the method that Rand gave:

"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 his theme 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) his view of life..."

I don't think that I've ever seen an Objectivist, Student-of-Objectivism, Neo-Objectivist, Objectivish-type, Randian, Rand-Minion, or anyone else, follow her stated method. Why is that?

Once you've landed on what you think is the artist's theme (abstract meaning), then demonstrate that it actually was his theme, rather than that you mistook the meaning either due to your aesthetic inability or to his.

[anthony]

6 hours ago, Jonathan said:

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

 

 

 

No, I'm not saying that. But that's closer. I'm saying "meaning" is epistemological - not intrinsic to things ("entities"), man-made things included. A "meaning" is at first 'in your head' (or Michelangelo's or whomever) as a concept. If you're good enough, you can transfer "meaning" to another's mind by art and literature.

What we're witnessing by the abstract artists is the attempt to deny and go around the processes of consciousness. "After all, why should there be an "intelligible" picture? Why must we be dictated to by old artistic standards and structures? And, "the meaning" exists IN the abstract painting (only if you are enough educated and "visually aware" to grasp it) and evoking sensations/feelings are all that ever mattered in art".

Related to them, the Post-moderns are also in a sort of 'deconstructionist' mode, i.e. So you ask for 'reality' and "intelligibility"? Here it is - reality, in our coarse, sniggering, cynical or nihilistic versions.

They are both in childish revolt against the mind and reality - the PModernists predominantly attack "value", and the abstractionists against "identity".

(Predictable that there are some hopeful signs of some art revival, I've picked up. People aren't fooled all the time by pretensions of art and some artists have painted themselves into a corner with no place left to turn. Fine artists with standards such as yourself shouldn't be displeased).

[anthony]

6 hours ago, Jonathan said:

 

 

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. 

 

Sensations.

[Jonathan]

36 minutes ago, anthony said:

Sensations.

No, I what I described followed Rand's path of sensations>percepts>concepts.

It's weird, though, that you disagree with Rand's statement that man is not "able to experience a pure isolated sensation."

But you probably weren't aware of that, or forgot about it. But now what? Now that you know, into what specific pretzel shape will you twist yourself in order to obey Rand but yet not retract your stupid statement? It'll be fun to see!

[anthony]

Nice try! Afraid not. As easy as it is to borrow the words, "I identify" - you've made no identifications.

You see those textures, colors, curving forms [in abstract art]- as - "soothing calmness". (Sure, and industrial design, interior decoration, etc. depend on just that mood enhancement. Which is why it's "design" and not "art". Sure, and realist artists use the same esthetic techniques of texture, form, line, etc.... to stylize their realist, representational artworks ).

But you've described taking the sense-data and jumping straight to a feeling.

You'll know full well in O'ism, that "I identify" is one's identification and integration of real existents.

Easy to say, a la Rand, that you're following a conceptual process, "sensations>percepts>concepts". Except, "soothing calmness" isn't a concept, it's an emotion.

 

 

 

[Jonathan]

5 minutes ago, anthony said:

You see those textures, colors, curving forms - as - "soothing calmness". (Sure, and industrial design, interior decoration, etc. depend on just that. Which is why it's "design" and not "art". Sure, and realist artists use the same esthetic techniques of texture, form, line, etc.... to stylize their realist, representational artworks ).

Um, huh? You're saying that, "sure," non-representational images can indeed convey states such as "soothing calmness," but when I identify it, I'm not identifying it?!!!

Quote

But you've described taking the sense-data and jumping straight to a feeling.

You don't appear to understand the words that you're using.

I've described perceiving shapes, colors and textures, and then explaining the concepts that they convey, such as heat, pressure, energy and movement, calmness, etc., and then the emotional effect that those concepts evoke.

 

Quote

You'll know full well in O'ism, that "I identify" is one's identification and integration of real existents.

Attributes and actions are real, physical existents. I've described the effects of identifying the relationships of attributes and actions.

 

Quote

Easy to say, a la Rand, that you're following a conceptual process, "sensations>percepts>concepts". Except, "soothing calmness" isn't a concept, it's an emotion.

"Soothing" is an emotional description, but "calmness" is not. The statement, "That is calm," is not an emotion.

In one of Rand's accounts of what she saw in one of Capuletti's works, she reported seeing "solemn calm."

Now what, Tony the Tard? Was she wrong? Was she not truly "identifying" but merely emoting?!!!

Oops, the retard was hoist by his own petard once again!

 

[anthony]

You are a big laugh, J.

Disingenuously, you try to justify the arbitrary shapes and lines of abstract art, which depicts no referents to reality - ie. is Subjective - by the Objectivist method. Ouch.

Then you let your sensations and free associations fill in the blanks. 

Yeah, a curve is an "attribute" of an existent -- when it IS an existent. Not a curve alone. Attributes refer to an entity, see? Or will you now report the ability to discern an entity in the abstract art? Then we're into psychic space.

An emotion, btw, is the valid consequence of cognition and value-judgment, and I guess Rand did hers on Capuletti first.

Fail. 

[Jonathan]

38 minutes ago, anthony said:

Disingenuously, you try to justify the arbitrary shapes and lines of abstract art, which depicts no referents to reality - ie. is Subjective - by the Objectivist method. A little bit of learning is a dangerous thing...

Your, and all other Rand-minions', evaluations of art are subjective, since none of you has followed her required method of "objective evaluation" of art.

 

Quote

Then you let your sensations and free associations fill in the blanks.

That's what you do. That's what Rand did. That's what Kamhi and Bissell and Pigero do. None of you follows Rand's method of "objective evaluation" of art. 

 

Quote

Yeah, a curve is an "attribute" of an existent -- when it IS an existent.

Not a curve alone. Attributes refer to an entity, see? Or will you now report the ability to discern an entity in the abstract art? Then we're into psychic space.

Yes, I can "discern" entities from attributes, just as Rand did in her descriptions of the buildings' aesthetic effects in The Fountainhead:

"The building stood on the shore of the East River, a structure rapt as raised arms. The rock crystal forms mounted in such eloquent steps that the building did not seem stationary, but moving upward in a continuous flow -- until one realized that it was only the movement of one's glance and that one's glance was forced to move in that particular rhythm. The walls of pale gray limestone looked silver against the sky, with the clean, dulled luster of metal, but a metal that had become a warm, living substance, carved by the most cutting of all instruments -- a purposeful human will. It made the house alive in a strange, personal way of its own, so that in the minds of spectators five words ran dimly, without object or clear connection: '...in His image and likeness...' "

"Its lines were horizontal, not the lines reaching to heaven, but the lines of the earth. It seemed to spread over the ground like arms outstretched at shoulder height. Palms down, in great silent acceptance. It did not cling to the soil and it did not crouch under the sky. It seemed to lift the earth, and its few vertical shafts pulled the sky down."

See, you have her permission to identify meaning in abstract forms!

Quote

An emotion, btw, is the valid consequence of cognition and value-judgment, and I guess Rand did hers on Capuletti first.

Oh, you guess that, do you? Well, if you guess it, then it must be true! No need to verify it! Let's just give Rand the benefit of the doubt about everything, and deny that same benefit to everyone else! That's the objective way to do philosophy! Everything that she ever said was true and objective, so let's just guess that we'll accept it, and not have any critical thinking involved!

 

[anthony]

10 hours ago, Jonathan said:

I don't think that anyone cares what your subjective reaction to the painting is.

Why don't you give an objective evaluation instead? Follow the method that Rand gave:

"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 his theme 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) his view of life..."

I don't think that I've ever seen an Objectivist, Student-of-Objectivism, Neo-Objectivist, Objectivish-type, Randian, Rand-Minion, or anyone else, follow her stated method. Why is that?

Once you've landed on what you think is the artist's theme (abstract meaning), then demonstrate that it actually was his theme, rather than that you mistook the meaning either due to your aesthetic inability or to his.

The theme? The mindless primitive. Backed up with some effectively appropriate esthetics: in primary colors, crudely daubed rather than fine brushstrokes. Misarranged features, blanked, zombie eyes and screeching or cackling mouth. Well achieved, technically, by an artist with a sick sense of life and horrible view of existence.

[anthony]

6 hours ago, Jonathan said:

 

 

Yes, I can "discern" entities from attributes, just as Rand did in her descriptions of the buildings' aesthetic effects in The Fountainhead:

"The building stood on the shore of the East River, a structure rapt as raised arms. The rock crystal forms mounted in such eloquent steps that the building did not seem stationary, but moving upward in a continuous flow -- until one realized that it was only the movement of one's glance and that one's glance was forced to move in that particular rhythm. The walls of pale gray limestone looked silver against the sky, with the clean, dulled luster of metal, but a metal that had become a warm, living substance, carved by the most cutting of all instruments -- a purposeful human will. It made the house alive in a strange, personal way of its own, so that in the minds of spectators five words ran dimly, without object or clear connection: '...in His image and likeness...' "

"Its lines were horizontal, not the lines reaching to heaven, but the lines of the earth. It seemed to spread over the ground like arms outstretched at shoulder height. Palms down, in great silent acceptance. It did not cling to the soil and it did not crouch under the sky. It seemed to lift the earth, and its few vertical shafts pulled the sky down."

See, you have her permission to identify meaning in abstract forms!

 

 

1

Jeez. You do realise that writers do and always have described an existent, by some or many of its attributes?

"Her hair was ..., her lips were shaped ..., her eyes the color of...," - etc.

Conversely, of course you also know that the artist has to present an existent (e.g. her face) for view, 'all in one go', so to speak. He doesn't have the luxury of separating/isolating attributes and properties from existents. 

Are you are mixing up your genres again? You must know from Rand's RM, that the mental processes in fiction and visual art are different.

[Jonathan]

12 hours ago, anthony said:

The theme? The mindless primitive. Backed up with some effectively appropriate esthetics: in primary colors, crudely daubed rather than fine brushstrokes. Misarranged features, blanked, zombie eyes and screeching or cackling mouth. Well achieved, technically, by an artist with a sick sense of life and horrible view of existence.

You skipped the part where you objectively verify all of the above. Without that, all that you've done is give your subjective free associations and your angry Randian psychologizings.

[Jonathan]

11 hours ago, anthony said:

Jeez. You do realise that writers do and always have described an existent, by some or many of its attributes?

"Her hair was ..., her lips were shaped ..., her eyes the color of...," - etc.

Conversely, of course you also know that the artist has to present an existent (e.g. her face) for view, 'all in one go', so to speak. He doesn't have the luxury of separating/isolating attributes and properties from existents. 

Are you are mixing up your genres again? You must know from Rand's RM, that the mental processes in fiction and visual art are different.

Holy shit. You took a turn into downtown Dopeville.

The point was not about writing.

It was about architecture.

See, the idea behind my quoting Rand there was that, in her esthetic theory, she categorized architecture as an art form. And she wrote a famous novel in which architecture as an art form was a major part. Architecture is not representational, but is abstract. It uses the relationships of forms, shapes, colors, and textures to achieve its aesthetic effects. It does not use immediately identifiable mimetic likenesses of thing in reality.

In the Romantic Manifesto, which is a book that Rand wrote which presented her theory of art, she referred readers to The Fountainhead (that''s the famous novel that I mentioned in the above paragraph) as the source for more information on her views on architecture as an art form.

In the two sections that I quoted from The Fountainhead, Rand describes the aesthetic effects of the fictional buildings that she envisioned. Those buildings are made up of non-representational forms -- planks, slabs, sheets, platforms, steps, pillars, pilasters. And she sees human attributes in those abstract forms, and motion and action and attitude.

Do you understand now?

[Jonathan]

12 hours ago, anthony said:

The theme? The mindless primitive. Backed up with some effectively appropriate esthetics: in primary colors, crudely daubed rather than fine brushstrokes. Misarranged features, blanked, zombie eyes and screeching or cackling mouth. Well achieved, technically, by an artist with a sick sense of life and horrible view of existence.

Your subjective speculations and wild psychologizings are bad enough, but at least get the simple, objectively observable facts straight. The image does not contain primary colors.

 

[anthony]

1 hour ago, Jonathan said:

You skipped the part where you objectively verify all of the above. Without that, all that you've done is give your subjective free associations and your angry Randian psychlogizings.

Leave it or leave it. I'm not setting up to scientifically 'prove' what's in some artist's mind. And seeing you're invoking her, she did not state that one must "demonstrate" one's conclusions. That's your addition.

The assessment was for *my* purpose as I've always done - I.e. The individual, for whom Rand laid out her theory: a surprise to you!  Can you understand that concept? Art for the individual, not the mystic collective. Rand clearly did not intend to train art teachers primarily, although the philosophic base is there to become proficient in art if one chooses. 

If I was at all interested in that picture I'd examine it further - but I think it's a close assessment. You could of course render your judgment?

Feel free.

I am well over explaining to you the differences between empirically and - objectively. You still think "objectivity" equals "empiricism", and it informs your misinterpretations and errors of Objectivism for years.

For you then, art is a science experiment - enjoy. ;)

 

[anthony]

1 hour ago, Jonathan said:

 

The point was not about writing.

It was about architecture.

See, the idea behind my quoting Rand there was that, in her esthetic theory, she categorized architecture as an art form. And she wrote a...

Do you understand now?

 

Oh. Right. So that is why, after the excerpt, you wrote: "See, you have her permission to identify meaning in abstract forms!"

You mixed your genres, and that's the end of it. And, after misapplying "attributes" to abstract art.

I'm going to call you Smoky Joe from now, J. 

You've never lost an argument which you couldn't wiggle your way out of with a word-storm.

That's enough from me for now.

[Jonathan]

1 hour ago, anthony said:

Leave it or leave it. I'm not setting up to scientifically 'prove' what's in some artist's mind. And seeing you're invoking her, she did not state that one must "demonstrate" one's conclusions. That's your addition.

The assessment was for *my* purpose as I've always done - I.e. The individual, for whom Rand laid out her theory: a surprise to you!  Can you understand that concept? Art for the individual, not the mystic collective. Rand clearly did not intend to make art teachers, although the philosophic base is there to become proficient in art if one chooses. 

If I was not averse to that picture I'd examine it further - but I think it's a close assessment. You could of course render your judgment?

Feel free.

I am well over explaining to you the differences between empirically and - objectively. You still think "objectivity" equals "empiricism", and it informs your misinterpretations and errors of Objectivism for years.

For you then, art is a science experiment - enjoy. ;)

 

Moron, you're the one who brought up empirical testing. I simply replied by saying that, yes, we should empirically test all art, including not just abstract works, but also representational ones that you accept as valid. And then you started getting upset and calling me an empiricist who doesn't understand the difference between empiricism and objectivity. You're seriously fucked in the head.

And now you're bitching about the idea of being challenged to objectively prove what you assert was in an artist's mind! Why are you here? What do you imagine that you have in common with Objectivism? You hate and reject it. You don't practice it. In fact, your personal method of "thinking" is the exact opposite. What you've done is glommed onto Rand's mistakes and personal deviations from the rationality, logic, and objectivity to which she aspired.

[Jonathan]

40 minutes ago, anthony said:

And seeing you're invoking her, she did not state that one must "demonstrate" one's conclusions. That's your addition.

Indeed, Rand did not state that one must verify one's conclusions about a work of art and its creator's intentions. She neglected to recognize that objective, logical necessity. Elsewhere in her writings she addressed the folly of people claiming to read others' minds. She was quite inexperienced in the philosophical field of aesthetics, and there were many obvious, rudimentary issues that escaped her. Went right over her head. She didn't apply her own stated epistemological principles to the field of aesthetics, but instead seemed to be just kind of full of herself. 

Plus she seemed to savor the idea of keeping for herself some magical powers which she could use to condemn and punish others, and her aesthetics was the crystal ball that she believed allowed her to know others better than they knew themselves based only on a work of art that they created. It's glaringly anti-Objectivist. It's the mindset of witch trails.

And the fact that you are attracted to that mindset, and find so much joy in practicing it, is not surprising. Conversing with you is like stepping back in time and talking with a stupid, petty, misanthropic witch trial jurist.

[Jonathan]

40 minutes ago, anthony said:

Oh. Right. So that is why, after the excerpt, you wrote: "See, you have her permission to identify meaning in abstract forms!"

Yes, moron, that's exactly why I wrote it!!! In the quotes, Rand identifies meaning in abstract forms! 

[Jonathan]

Here's the post in which the Moron initially suggested empirical testing:

"To know better, this intuitive insight should be empirically tested in several double-blind experiments, using unknown artworks by unknown artists. Claimants would state what they 'see', against the artist's testimony of what he 'meant', or at least what he was feeling at the time. (If he meant anything beyond a nice design)."

 

I simply agreed and suggested expanding his idea to all art equally, at which point the Moron accused me of being an empiricist who doesn't understand objectivity.

Seriously fucked up in the head.

[Ellen Stuttle]

On October 20, 2017 at 2:03 PM, Jonathan said:

I don't think that anyone cares what your [Tony's] subjective reaction to the painting is.

Why don't you give an objective evaluation instead? Follow the method that Rand gave:

"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 his theme 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) his view of life..."

I don't think that I've ever seen an Objectivist, Student-of-Objectivism, Neo-Objectivist, Objectivish-type, Randian, Rand-Minion, or anyone else, follow her stated method. Why is that?

Once you've landed on what you think is the artist's theme (abstract meaning), then demonstrate that it actually was his theme, rather than that you mistook the meaning either due to your aesthetic inability or to his.

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.  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.

Ellen

[Ellen Stuttle]

2 hours ago, 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.

Ellen

 

On October 18, 2017 at 5:40 PM, Jonathan said:

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.

Repeat, Rand's strictures on technical evaluation presuppose that a work has been classified as art.  I semi-agree with your statement about the importance of meaning in Rand's view, but not fully, since she did classify as art some literary works which she thought were fairly unintelligible.

Regarding the last sentence of the paragraph, is there any basis on which you would say of any type of man-made image that it couldn't qualify as art?  Or, reverse the direction, do you have any criteria which a man-made image must meet - beyond being a man-made image - in order to qualify as art?

As to the first question raised by O-vishes, I haven't a comprehensive sample, but I haven't seen examples of the particular question you quote from Kamhi.  I've seen challenges to the actual presence in the artwork of what you report as discerning in it - and you've sometimes phrased what you claim to discern in ways that I challenge also.

On music, I think you make an awful hash of what Rand thought, and confuse her views with Roger Bissell's, and make comments which aren't recognizing the nature of music and the differences between music and visual art - in general not producing anything helpful to a case for "abstract" painting and sculpture.

Re Kant and the Sublime, you missed a number of boats on his thesis, but I don't have time for the subject now - or, for that matter, more than a little time for posting at all.   Just indicating that I think you continue to argue in ways which produce confusion not light on the subject of art.

Ellen

[Jonathan]

15 hours ago, Ellen Stuttle said:

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

 

No poisoning, Just identifying reality. Tony's reaction was subjective.

[Jonathan]

15 hours ago, Ellen Stuttle said:

Repeat, Rand's strictures on technical evaluation presuppose that a work has been classified as art.

No, her strictures only presuppose that a work has been alleged to be art. She was a bit sloppy in the field of aesthetics, and didn't bring her usual clarity and precision of language. Example: She wrote that if a work does not present an intelligible subject, then it "ceases to be art."  Does that mean that she thought that anything could qualify as art up until the moment that someone recognized that it doesn't present an intelligible subject, at which point it "ceases to be art" and magically turns from art into non-art? Of course not. That would violate her Objectivist epistemology. ("If a tree falls in the forest, but Auntie Kamhi isn't there to screech 'Not art!' does the tree still cease to be art?")

Heh, in the branches of her philosophy where Rand was more careful and precise, she wouldn't have said something as sloppy as "If a frog doesn't have feathers and a beak, then it ceases to be a bird." Instead, she would have simply said that it doesn't qualify as a bird, and never has.

Rand's sloppiness in the field -- such as that which I just mentioned, along with glaring contradictions, and absent or dispersed arguments -- is the reason that we need to consider several of her statements from a variety of locations to inform us of what she was trying to say. She muddled it.

I don't know if you saw it, but this previous post of mine gets to the core of the unmuddling:

"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?"

That last sentence is key. Intelligible, meaningful content was the defining characteristic of art to Rand. It was the differentia in her definition of art. My opponents in this discussion are focusing only on her definition's genus.

 

Quote

I semi-agree with your statement about the importance of meaning in Rand's view, but not fully, since she did classify as art some literary works which she thought were fairly unintelligible.

Thete's a big difference between "fairly unintelligible" and "unintelligible."

 

Quote

Regarding the last sentence of the paragraph, is there any basis on which you would say of any type of man-made image that it couldn't qualify as art?  Or, reverse the direction, do you have any criteria which a man-made image must meet - beyond being a man-made image - in order to qualify as art?

Rand's view was that, in order to qualify as art, it had to be created according to the creator's metaphysical value judgments, and only those judgments, and had to be created only for pure contemplation. It could serve no other purpose. It could not be "utilitarian," such as advertising imagery or technical manual illustrations.

In Rand's world, artists walk or chew gum, never both at the same time. (Except artists who are architects; they qualify as artists while creating work which she accepts as art despite specifically saying that it "does not re-create reality," and which she admits serves utilitarian purposes.)

 

Quote

On music, I think you make an awful hash of what Rand thought, and confuse her views with Roger Bissell's, and make comments which aren't recognizing the nature of music and the differences between music and visual art - in general not producing anything helpful to a case for "abstract" painting and sculpture.

No, Rand classified music as a valid art form. She therefore believed that it was a "re-creation of reality" and that it met her requirement of being representational, since she stated that, "As a re-creation of reality, a work of art must be representational."

I'm not confusing her views with Roger's. He learned from her, and borrowed her ploy of trying to make music representational by contrasting it with noise. "Oh, look, noise is in the category of non-representational, so therefore that makes music, which has pattern and structure, representational! Never mind that pattern and structure alone aren't sufficient characteristics to qualify something as representation. Oh, and look over there! That cow isn't a horse, so therefore this goat is a horse!"

Quote

Re Kant and the Sublime, you missed a number of boats on his thesis, but I don't have time for the subject now - or, for that matter, more than a little time for posting at all.   Just indicating that I think you continue to argue in ways which produce confusion not light on the subject of art.

Ellen

Okay, bring it when ya got it. No hurry. Don't be a stranger.

J

[anthony]

17 hours ago, 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.  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.

Ellen

"Personal", as in individual, exclusive and private, to and in, one's life, experiences, thinking and emotions. That's about the closest I can come up with. 

Not to be confused with "subjective", as it usually is. But that particular, complex blend of thoughts and emotions from a specific artwork, for a specific individual, at a stage of his life is rarely or ever going to be exactly the same, and possibly unique, so - personal - to him/her. This gives rise to "subjective".

"... a phenomenon such as art has remained a dark mystery [compared with the sciences], with little or nothing known about its nature, its function in human life or the cause of its tremendous psychological power. Yet art is of passionately intense importance and profoundly ~personal~ concern to most men..." [p15, tRM]

Two fundamental questions Rand posed and replied to: Does art have an objective identity? Does art have objective value? And I think the prerequisite for "value" is that it has objective "identity". I.e., it is a real existent which a mind can perceive and identify. "Value" - the individual's, personal value in his life, his highest value - is derivative of the abstraction- "Man's life is the standard of value" (which is inarguable - lacking man and his life and mind, there cannot be value, perceived nor created).

Being of "subjective" nature and "subjective" value, of course means that an entity or whole class of existents is not fixed, can change, or go in and out of existence--and - one's consciousness decides at whim or feeling what it is to be, in value and identity, in any instant. Beauty is ugliness, ugly is beauty, reality is untrue, etc. etc, all follow when men depart from definitions and standards.

The noise about abstract art I think is a cover up. The biggest gripe with O'ist art theory lies in judgments of value, I think you recognize, Ellen. By what right, expertise, education and "perfect" knowledge, critics ask, does someone get to "judge" a picture? And if you do, where's the "proof". Who are you to "moralize"? Why are you so arrogant? (But objectivity is not having "ineffable" knowledge nor having "perfect" standards of value). 

Here, as Rand indicates, is the last, untouchable preserve (in the 21st C!) of mystique and mystery. Thou shalt not judge art. Everything and anything else in existence we can criticize, except that which is of most profound importance to the depths of one's mind, one's actions and one's emotional enjoyment. 

[Jonathan]

2 hours ago, anthony said:

"Personal", as in individual, exclusive and private, to and in, one's life, experiences, thinking and emotions. That's about the closest I can come up with. 

That's what "subjective" means.

And, yeah, I know the Rand's followers don't like to accept the idea that their own subjectivity is subjective. They want t believe that they are purely objective, so they try to substitute the word "personal" for "subjective."

Wanna know why Objectivism is fading away, and having less and less cultural influence? The reason is this type of kooky denial of reality. "I'm an Objectivist, so therefore my tastes, emotional reactions, and psychologizings of others are 'personal but objective.'"

Clownshow. Grade school approach to philosophy.

Quote

Not to be confused with "subjective", as it usually is.

You're the one who is confused. Obeying Rand destroyed your ability to be logical and rational.

Quote

"... a phenomenon such as art has remained a dark mystery [compared with the sciences], with little or nothing known about its nature, its function in human life or the cause of its tremendous psychological power. Yet art is of passionately intense importance and profoundly ~personal~ concern to most men..." [p15, tRM]

Two fundamental questions Rand posed and replied to: Does art have an objective identity? Does art have objective value? And I think the prerequisite for "value" is that it has objective "identity". I.e., it is a real existent which a mind can perceive and identify. "Value" - the individual's, personal value in his life, his highest value - is derivative of the abstraction- "Man's life is the standard of value" (which is inarguable - lacking man and his life and mind, there cannot be value, perceived nor created).

Being of "subjective" nature and "subjective" value, of course means that an entity or whole class of existents is not fixed, can change, or go in and out of existence--and - one's consciousness decides at whim or feeling what it is to be, in value and identity, in any instant. Beauty is ugliness, ugly is beauty, reality is untrue, etc. etc, all follow when men depart from definitions and standards.

The noise about abstract art I think is a cover up. The biggest gripe with O'ist art theory lies in judgments of value, I think you recognize, Ellen. By what right, expertise, education and "perfect" knowledge, critics ask, does someone get to "judge" a picture? And if you do, where's the "proof". Who are you to "moralize"? Why are you so arrogant? (But objectivity is not having "ineffable" knowledge nor having "perfect" standards of value). 

Here, as Rand indicates, is the last, untouchable preserve (in the 21st C!) of mystique and mystery. Thou shalt not judge art. Everything and anything else in existence we can criticize, except that which is of most profound importance to the depths of one's mind, one's actions and one's emotional enjoyment. 

Rand bluffed. She faked reality. And you prefer her fantasy to reality.  She declared that there were objective definitions and objective means of measuring/evaluating aesthetic phenomena, and then committed blatant contradictions to her definitions, practiced double standards, arbitrarily exempted certain art forms from her own rules, and said that delivering the actual objective means of aesthetic evaluation was "outside the scope" of the current discussion. She never delivered it. She ridiculed others for not delivering it (heh, and there's no evidence that she ever read their theories, and, in fact, the straw men that she angrily attacked strongly suggests that she had no idea what, say, Kant, Kandinsky, Mondrian, Frankenthaler, Rothko, Pollock, Warhol and many others thought or proposed philosophically), and she just arbitrarily declared that they were wrong and that she was brilliant and right and could really easily deliver the objective means, but she never did. It remains outside the scope of Objectivism. It's all bluff. It's unscholarly, messy, amateurish, self-contradictory, novice work.

J