Jonathan

Objectivist Esthetics, R.I.P.

Recommended Posts

22 hours ago, Jonathan said:

Nice try. Have you focused on any other thinkers when trying to distract from the subject at hand? No. You don't know any of their views. Nor do you really know Kant's, but Rand trained you to hate him anyway, so that's what you do. When you can't answer challenges against the Objectivist Esthetics, you resort to attacking Kant when no one is advocating for him (and you alternate those attacks with claims of axiomatic status to that which you can't prove, or to pretending that Rand didn't require what you're trying to eliminate or deny).

 

Not in the realm of aesthetics. Rand adopted his views without knowing it. It's clear that she didn't actually read his work. I think that what happened is that one of the followers in her "inner circle" went out looking to confirm Rand's uninformed opinions on Kant, just like you do, and misread his work with absolute hostility through freaky distorted Rand Goggles™.

We've seen the phenomenon a few times here on OL. Newberry, for example, had been fond of intellectually immolating himself in the past with posts wher

22 hours ago, Jonathan said:

...the words which make the statement benign, if not downright Objectivistically heroic.

An example was: "Every affection of the STRENUOUS TYPE (such, that is, as excites the consciousness of our power of overcoming every resistance [animus strenuus]) is aesthetically sublime, e.g., anger, even desperation (the rage of forlorn hope but not faint-hearted despair)."

I've bolded the words that Rand's acolytes don't see, or refuse to understand.

 

 

An example was: "Every affection of the STRENUOUS TYPE (such, that is, as excites the consciousness of our power of overcoming every resistance [animus strenuus]) is aesthetically sublime, e.g., anger, even desperation (the rage of forlorn hope but not faint-hearted despair)."

I've bolded the words that Rand's acolytes don't see, or refuse to understand.

 

2

The "Objectivistically heroic" utterance by Kant is meaningless in reality, but that you understand. No, an "affection" (sensation) "strenuous" or not, does not presuppose an individual acting in any specific way, e.g. "our power of overcoming every resistance".

In other words, Kant claims our "excited' consciousness and the will to act and overcome, is dependent on feeling strongly. (Anger, desperation, etc.)

Much like David Hume who said he wouldn't "scratch a finger to save the world" unless he felt an emotion.

An Objectivist "hero" or any rational individual, isn't a pawn of sensations. After recovering from the initial shock to his senses, he identifies and evaluates the cause before and only then (obviously) experiencing an emotion. Emotion is a consequence of values. What you find heroic in Kant's statement, is no more than the primacy of sensations and emotions, most appealing to sentimentalists. It seems he made a leap of faith over the self-evident fact that an individual must know what something IS, assess whether it's good or bad for him (and his values) and only then act/decide no need to act. Although perceiving, recognizing and evaluating (and the appropriate emotions) occurs so quickly in a consciousness, Kant had no excuse for overlooking a mind's perception and self-value. This nicely corresponds with his reduced-awareness, noumenal-phenomenal epistemology (Kant's Goggles) and explains the need for his sensationalist-emotionalist-Sublime, which, if you remember from Paul Guyer's analysis, prepares an individual in advance for the self-sacrifices he must make in his duty to others. 

You take such things very narrowly. A theory of art doesn't exist in a vacuum, for a systematic philosopher. With a comprehensive philosophy like Kant's (or Rand's), it's advisable to understand better his whole context, up to his ideas of planned and obedient society and ultimately including his faith in a supreme creator and moral arbiter - since one's self-sacrifices at cost to one's happiness (in this lifetime) necessitate an immortal soul and God - and how he made his parts connect. Cherry-picking "heroic" sounding lines out of Kant might lead to accepting anything else on faith.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm really not interested, not even slightly, in your nutjob tangle of misinterpretations of Kant. Or of any other thinker.

You're deflecting, and I'm not going to fall for the stupid distraction. It's sooooo fucking boring witnessing the lack of creativity and originality in your style of denying reality.

 

There are still no objective criteria of aesthetic judgment.

Nothing has been objectively proven to qualify as art by Rand's definition and criteria.

 

So, nothing qualifies as art, and even if it did, there are still no objective aesthetic means of judging it.

 

The Objectivist Esthetics, still quite dead.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Jonathan said:

I'm really not interested, not even slightly, in your nutjob tangle of misinterpretations of Kant. Or of any other thinker.

You're deflecting, and I'm not going to fall for the stupid distraction. It's sooooo fucking boring witnessing the lack of creativity and originality in your style of denying reality.

 

There are still no objective criteria of aesthetic judgment.

Nothing has been objectively proven to qualify as art by Rand's definition and criteria.

 

So, nothing qualifies as art, and even if it did, there are still no objective aesthetic means of judging it.

 

The Objectivist Esthetics, still quite dead.

You need it simple: Screwy thinking leads to screwy art and to screwy societies.

(Disprove my "misinterpretations of Kant", otherwise one more arbitrary assertion by you).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, anthony said:

You need it simple: Screwy thinking leads to screwy art and to screwy societies.

(Disprove my "misinterpretations of Kant", otherwise one more arbitrary assertion by you).

Borrrrring! Deflectinnnnnng!

 

There are still no objective criteria of aesthetic judgment.

Nothing has been objectively proven to qualify as art by Rand's definition and criteria.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, I went to the Bossypants Blog to comment on the "scurrilous hatchet job" of Award-Winning Critic Maligns Ayn Rand’s Theory of Art:

Quote

 

“But does she consider what ‘fundamental concepts and values’ (a key part of Rand’s theory that she ‘can get with’) are communicated by abstract painting or sculpture? Hardly.”

I’ve mentioned in the past on this blog that I’ve tested people who have been influenced by Rand, including you, Ms Kamhi, with realist representational artworks to which they hadn’t been exposed previously, and therefore about which they had been allowed no access to “outside considerations.” None of them has yet been able to identify the intended “artist’s theme” in any work. They do even worse with the abstract aural art form of music. So, the communication requirement that you seek to impose on abstract visual art is something that you might want to reconsider. You’ve only assumed that realist representational works would easily meet that criterion, but the reality is that nothing has ever been objectively demonstrated to qualify as art by your definition and criteria.

 

Auntie Kamhi took my comment down in less than half an hour. Heh.

Tony, see, this is the way that the pros do it! Don't just mentally blank it out, but actually physically erase it from your little corner of existence. Don't argue against the challenge, or offer up lame distractions and deflections. You have to believe that the issue has disappeared, and you can't do that if you're continuing to acknowledge its existence by arguing about it. Your mistake is commenting in a forum that you don't own and control.

J

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wrote:

On 1/17/2018 at 12:44 PM, Jonathan said:

Tony, see, this is the way that the pros do it! Don't just mentally blank it out, but actually physically erase it from your little corner of existence. Don't argue against the challenge, or offer up lame distractions and deflections. You have to believe that the issue has disappeared, and you can't do that if you're continuing to acknowledge its existence by arguing about it. Your mistake is commenting in a forum that you don't own and control.

...and Tony didn't respond!

Way to go, Tony! Congratulations on learning and being open to adapting to new and better strategies!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's time again for a reminder:

There are still no objective criteria of aesthetic judgment.

Nothing has been objectively proven to qualify as art by Rand's definition and criteria.

So, nothing qualifies as art, and even if it did, there are still no objective aesthetic means of judging it.

I've challenged all of the biggest loudmouths in O-land to objectively demonstrate that anything has ever met Rand's (or their own) criteria for art, yet none has ever done so. Usually, they whine like infants, claim that they're being severely abused, and delete my posts when they have the power to do so, or outright ban me. And still no answers to my challenge. Not even from the published royalty of Objectivish aesthetic thought -- Kamhi, Torres, Bissell, etc.

Objectivist Esthetics, dead and rotting in the grave.

J

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is interesting to a non artist like me, how some artist's paintings are worth more than others. I don't think monetary value correlates with artistic ability in a strict sense, but photographic (looking) paintings will not bring in the big bucks or praise, that less "realistic" paintings do. The fact that different schools and techniques come into style and then decline is interesting. Does anyone see any sense in the history of art from say, 1400 BP to the present?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Peter said:

It is interesting to a non artist like me, how some artist's paintings are worth more than others. I don't think monetary value correlates with artistic ability in a strict sense, but photographic (looking) paintings will not bring in the big bucks or praise, that less "realistic" paintings do. The fact that different schools and techniques come into style and then decline is interesting. Does anyone see any sense in the history of art from say, 1400 BP to the present?  

It depends on what you mean by "artistic ability." Is that measured in how realistically an artist presents his painting, writes his story or composes his song? Or is it more of an issue of how strongly his work impacts people emotionally/aesthetically?

Does anyone see any sense in recent art history, you ask. Yes. It's been a typical chain of discovery, experimentation and new inquiry.

J

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

J wrote: "Or is it more of an issue of how strongly his work impacts people emotionally/aesthetically?"

I would say yes to that, but if I were an art dealer I would look for the monetary value. If I were looking to hang something in my living room, or even my garage or work shop, then how I emotionally react to art or music would be the prime motive.

Is there a constantly improving world of art?

I just looked at an article by Tracinski about using loud, classical music to drive transients and bums out of the subway waiting areas and away from stores.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Peter said:

Is there a constantly improving world of art?

Yes. Like any other field, new ideas and means are always being invented. New knowledge is always being learned about how and why aesthetic elements affect humans, and used accordingly.

J

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Peter said:

I would say yes to that, but if I were an art dealer I would look for the monetary value.

Uh huh. Economically, what's true of all other products is also true of art. Monetary value is determined the same way.

J

Share this post


Link to post
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