Architecture -- art or not?? (2006)

[Roger Bissell]

Rand defined art as re-creation of reality, yet she stated in "Art and Cognition" (reprinted in The Romantic Manifesto that one of the arts, architecture, did not re-create reality, and that another one of the arts, music, re-created reality in a way that she was unable to objectively specify.

When Binswanger was putting together The Ayn Rand Lexicon just before Rand died, he asked her about this inconsistency when showing her the entries for the letter "A," and her request was that he not include an entry for architecture in the Lexicon. Yow! To compound the travesty, Binswanger retained an entry for "visual arts," which explicitly included architecture. Double-yow!! #-o )

Talk about sweeping errors under the rug!

But what was the error, really? I see it differently. I think Rand was wrong in saying that architecture does not re-create reality, and I argue such in my "Art as Microcosm" essay in Journal of Ayn Rand Studies vol. 5, no. 2 (spring 2004). It's also posted at my website as a PDF file, which you are welcome to download, read, and send comments if you like. Here is the URL:

Art as Microcosm

And please don't hold it against me that I favorably quoted the guy who wrote that atrocious article over on you-know-who's forum. <blech> (The emoticon for "sick" doesn't work.)

REB

[Roger Bissell]

In somewhat of a snit a while ago, I posted the following remarks on the Rebirth of Reason list:

I wish Ayn Rand were still around. I'd love to have had the chance to convince her that she needn't have told Harry Binswanger to dump the entry for "architecture" from the Ayn Rand Lexicon.

Incredible, isn't it, what lengths some people will go to to "save the phenomenon" -- in this case, Rand's definition of "art," which supposedly did not apply to architecture. And how anyone can think her categorizing architecture as an art 10 years earlier in "Art and Cognition," while simultaneously saying that architecture doesn't re-create reality, was just an "error of knowledge" is beyond me.

I mean, how can the most rational woman in the world look right at her own definition of "art," then look right at her own sentence including architecture as an art, then look right at her own sentence saying architecture doesn't re-create reality, all in the opening portion of her essay, and not realize that something is drastically wrong! She evaded! (Though I'm sure it's Nathaniel Branden's fault, not hers. Everything else seems to be. Harumph.)

Robert Malcom then weighed in with the suggestion that Rand was simply including architecture as art with regard to her view that art is for the purpose of contemplation (rather than utilitarian purposes), and that that was why she didn't see any conflict in continuing to regard architecture as one of the forms of art.

But I wasn't having any of that. So, I wrote in reply:

No, I don't think Rand's ERROR about architecture being art but not being re-creation of reality was due to her using "art" in two different senses.

But Robert, suppose we were to grant your premise that Rand was in fact using "art" on the same page with two different meanings: (1) art is re-creation of reality and (2) art is non-utilitarian, for contemplation only. It is clear from that page of "Art and Cognition" that Rand held that (1) architecture is NOT a re-creation of reality, and that (2) architecture IS utilitarian -- and yet, my friends, that architecture still, somehow, IS ART, in spite of satisfying NEITHER of those attributes of art.

This is not just a confusion by readers (such as myself) due to Rand's carelessly mixing together two different definitions of art. That would be bad enough, considering what a careful thinker and writer she is held to be. No, it is worse than that. It is a blatant contradiction. She held architecture to be art in defiance of BOTH of the meanings she attributed to "art", OK?

And no, I am not a "Rand-hater" or an "anti-Objectivist." I'm just sick and tired of people making excuses for her ERRORS, as though she never made a mistake (other than to trust the Brandens, don't you know). And this is not the only ERROR Rand ever made and didn't 'fess up to. It's just one of the ones that aggravates me the most.

REB

P.S. -- Comments are welcome. Also see some related comments I made in reply to Jonathan earlier today on the "modern art" thread.

[tndbay]

good spotting, roger.

therefore we should ask the question afresh without reference to historical error.

why is this called for? well, if 'art is the recreation of a metaphysical world view', more or less, then absolutely everything a person Chooses to do is art, objectively and absolutely. an individual is the architect of his own dreams- and usually does it with some kind of style.

furthermore, if anything utilitarian must be dismissed from the realm of art, then that must mean that contemplation is itself of no utility.

so, what is art, really? it's not always a recreation. art can also be a tool of discovery rather than exposition. an artist may do what he does purely for himself to learn from it. that may be to create - not re-create.

i'll propose 'semiotic neologism' to start you off, eh? let's play Find the Flaw!

(i've since posted a definition of Art elsewhere that appears to be fully consistent with all aspects of reality i've tested it against.)

[Ralph Hertle]

Roger:

I was just writing a masterful reply to your

philosophically timely question. Its the type of question

that is discovered to need an answer before there can

be any progress on the issue being discussed.

I hit a keyboard key at the lower left, somewhere around

the <shift> or <ctrl> keys, and my text just dissappered.

Gone. I can't find it the text on the site.

Who can tell. I may have accidentally hit the <delete>

key. I don't recall.

Can't the text on the site be made undisappearable? That

is, until a piece is specifically double deleted or saved.

And, ranting, why can't accidentally deleted text be

automatically saved to a file or Norton Protected file?

Match.com has a radio button that will enable one's text

when submitted to be automatically CCd to the submitter's

email location. That would be nice. My fallible writer

would even wan't to recieve copies of errors.

My loss. I'm really disappointed.

I'm sorry. Now, maybe you'll get a reply, and maybe you

won't. I must reconstruct the entire text.

Ralph Hertle

[Ralph Hertle]

Roger Bissell:

Ayn Rand's theory of aesthetics was a marvelous work in dealing with the classical forms af art as they are conventionally avalailable in the world. Her theory bases art in both metaphysics, romaticism, perceptible and plausible idealism, sytlization, characterization, cognitive and normative content, and realism. A longer list is needed. Her model for her theories was primarily literature. She was aware that cetain aspects of her theories did'nt extend to all of the arts. Her realistic and idealistic theories were, however, applicable to all the arts.

What she didn't say is that certain types of persons cannot understand the subleties of the demonstrations of the postulates of aesthetics nor of the nuances of intellectual emotions, aesthetic vocabularies, and means of creating works of art. Those individuals can't be philosophers of aesthetics, and possibly can't be artists. That's due to what a person is given and what mental means a person creates. Their role is to experience, identify and to enjoy.

Let's give Ayn Rand a break here, for she needed to explore the ideas of more artists in order to draw the conclusions that are the next generation of aesthetic thought. She simply didn't get to some ideas that I now know could have been a part of a more advanced aesthetics of Objectivism. That doesn't detract from the solid marble of the theory of romantic realism that she provided.

You say, "I think Rand was wrong in saying that architecture does not re-create reality."

I agree with you on that point. Not as a single absolute, but rather in the sense that there was so much to be said on the point that Rand left the remark as a challenge to those who could solve the question. In her last Ford Hall Forum speech she said to the audience, "...and now its up to you." Future philosophers can base their ideas upon their own resources, the facts of reality, and upon the base of Objectivism and all true science.

For example, what if there was not a single type of recreation? What if literature and the arts that dealt primarily with word concepts in their making had one sub-type of recreation, and the arts that were primarily non-verbal another subtype?

The dogmatists of Objectivism complain that Ayn Rand said the last word and that she can't be argued with. She did say what she said and all that she meant. That's fine. However, we exist, and we will advance philosophy and aesthetics. Objectivism is a closed system based upon what Ayn Rand wrote, however, the concept of a closed system means that the principles of the science are universal and they are causes. Closed means being caused by principles.

Closed doesn't mean barring other participants. That's a Platonic notion of social separation as the Platonic means of separating concepts. Concepts that are socially separated by Platonists are validated by consensus. Social separation to the Platonists is what scientific definitions made by the principles of genus and differentia are to the Aristotelians. A closed system means governed by principles not consensus.

Pythagoras said that, "The universe is caused by scientific concepts or scientific principles". Not the number concretes that the Platonists later falsely gave him by falsely translating the AG concept of "magnitude" to mean 'number' rather than "scientific principle". The Platonists were on the attack by means of conceptual distortions even then. Principles, like reality, nonetheless remain to be learned and to be discovered.

Aristotle said, in explanation, that a 'triangle' is a magnitude. By that he meant that the magnitude is a scientific principle that is validated in mind by a specific geometric demonstration. Now if a Platonist were to try to validate the concept of a 'triangle' by means of social acceptance of a consensus, that, Aristotle may have agreed, would have made his day. Phidias had the priveledge of such a review, Aristotle, no doubt thought.

Properly proved, the principles and identifications of a continued theory of Objectivist aesthetics may be created. Religious dogmatists and consensus advocates won't cause an advanced Objectivist aesthetics to happen: they don't think in principles.

Nor can works of art be socially created. I can see it now. Ayn Rand, when confronted with a photograph of the socially architectonic [Kant's term] parade of tens of thousands of dedicated Nazi troops created by Nazi architect, Albrecht Speer, could have thought, "well. . . . architecture isn't a matter of recreation, and nor is it an art." We don't know all of what her thoughts were.

That's for use to contemplate.

Question one. Are there more than one type of recreation subtypes that are appropriate to the several arts? Platonic imitation, e.g., copying of reality or other person's works, is not recreation. And, yet, the creation of a newly concretized new idea often is a recreation.

We can say that since, there can be no idea created by a group, e.g., no socially created form or work of art, there can be no concept of recreation for phalanxes or groups of people. There may be political or religious expression, a lot of hope, or dreaming by individuals in a group, however, there is no art. A crowd is not an object of contemplation.

Returning to the essential concept, the matter of architecture being an art, I say it is.

There are two basic categories for the arts: the Conceptual Arts, and the Formal Arts. This is my theory.

The Conceptual Arts are those in which the meaning of the work is gained by induction from realistically portrayed concretes, and they are appreciated in mind by the viewer's imagination.

Included are: novels, plays, motion pictures, paintings, photography, and sculpture, for example. We are talking artistic creations, and not documentaries or scientific representations or models.

The material or medium of the work is not an essential defining characteristic for a work of the Conceptual Arts. [Music has no permanent materials, and is directly perceptible.]

The representational characteristic of the work is not an essential defining characteristic for a work of the Conceptual Arts, although they are generally figurative or representational.

The Formal Arts are those in which the meaning is gained by direct perceptual experience from the physical properties of the medium that are arranged by the artist.

Included are: music. dance, architecture [including crafts and the design of manufactured products], and fashion apparel, for example.

The utilitarian characteristics of the work are not the essential defining characteristics for a work of the Formal Arts.

The types of concepts and principles that are the means of the creation of works in the several arts also govern the types of content and nuances of same that are the gist of the works.

This system is one basic means for the classification of the arts. There is no clash of what we know about all of the Fine Arts. The historic classifications stand wherever the context for those classifications continues to exist.

The issue of what a person contemplates becomes all important. In other words, what does a work say, what and how much of what is in a work that the viewer may appreciate, value, and enjoy.

There are more than one type of usefulness involved for works, e.g., practical utility is one thing, however, the use of aesthetic emotion [Rand's term] involved in music, for example, is another.

Architecture, has a spatial quality. It cetainly provides interesting visual experience. Additionally, the spatial experience of directly being in and around the forms [Aris. and Binswanger defn. of from] of the work that are concretized by the artist provides a directly appreciable means for aesthetic emotions. This is a broader interpretation of a practical purpose for a work.

[Thanks to Binswanger for that differentiation regarding the Platonic and Aristotelian concepts of Form. There are times when total roadblocks to thought are done away with by a clarification.]

According to this method of evaluation the classifications of the arts are determined not by their permanent materials, rather by what they say.

How they say what they say is a matter for geniuses and philosophers. I mean that why one is thrilled by a work is a matter that I will be happy to learn.

Ralph HertleEmail me

[Brant Gaede]

Regarding architecture: Do esthetic theories matter one whit to an architect as opposed to estheticians?

--Brant

[Reidy]

Esthetic theories matter to some architects and not to others. The first kind write books, articles and lectures, while the others just go about their primary job. In this respect architects are like artists, lawyers and scientists. Most don't take much interest in philosophy-of, but enough do to make these branches of theory interesting.

[anonrobt]

In somewhat of a snit a while ago, I posted the following remarks on the Rebirth of Reason list:

I wish Ayn Rand were still around. I'd love to have had the chance to convince her that she needn't have told Harry Binswanger to dump the entry for "architecture" from the Ayn Rand Lexicon.

Incredible, isn't it, what lengths some people will go to to "save the phenomenon" -- in this case, Rand's definition of "art," which supposedly did not apply to architecture. And how anyone can think her categorizing architecture as an art 10 years earlier in "Art and Cognition," while simultaneously saying that architecture doesn't re-create reality, was just an "error of knowledge" is beyond me.

I mean, how can the most rational woman in the world look right at her own definition of "art," then look right at her own sentence including architecture as an art, then look right at her own sentence saying architecture doesn't re-create reality, all in the opening portion of her essay, and not realize that something is drastically wrong! She evaded! (Though I'm sure it's Nathaniel Branden's fault, not hers. Everything else seems to be. Harumph.)

Robert Malcom then weighed in with the suggestion that Rand was simply including architecture as art with regard to her view that art is for the purpose of contemplation (rather than utilitarian purposes), and that that was why she didn't see any conflict in continuing to regard architecture as one of the forms of art.

But I wasn't having any of that. So, I wrote in reply:

No, I don't think Rand's ERROR about architecture being art but not being re-creation of reality was due to her using "art" in two different senses.

But Robert, suppose we were to grant your premise that Rand was in fact using "art" on the same page with two different meanings: (1) art is re-creation of reality and (2) art is non-utilitarian, for contemplation only. It is clear from that page of "Art and Cognition" that Rand held that (1) architecture is NOT a re-creation of reality, and that (2) architecture IS utilitarian -- and yet, my friends, that architecture still, somehow, IS ART, in spite of satisfying NEITHER of those attributes of art.

This is not just a confusion by readers (such as myself) due to Rand's carelessly mixing together two different definitions of art. That would be bad enough, considering what a careful thinker and writer she is held to be. No, it is worse than that. It is a blatant contradiction. She held architecture to be art in defiance of BOTH of the meanings she attributed to "art", OK?

And no, I am not a "Rand-hater" or an "anti-Objectivist." I'm just sick and tired of people making excuses for her ERRORS, as though she never made a mistake (other than to trust the Brandens, don't you know). And this is not the only ERROR Rand ever made and didn't 'fess up to. It's just one of the ones that aggravates me the most.

REB

P.S. -- Comments are welcome. Also see some related comments I made in reply to Jonathan earlier today on the "modern art" thread.

There was a corollary to this which seemed to be overlooked when I wrote those words - namely that the word 'art' is/was being shiftingly used in two quite different concepts... one, to refer to 'fine arts', that which is for contemplative purposes - and two, to refer to aesthetics, an umbrella concept pf beauty and form, which is encompassed in 'crafts', that which is utilitarian - and the other arts of decorative, dance, etc... in that respect, as I pointed out, while there is indeed 'art' in the aesthetic sense in Architecture [well, at least in some of it], being utilitarian it is a 'craft', not 'fine art'...

[dan2100]

Regarding architecture: Do esthetic theories matter one whit to an architect as opposed to estheticians?

--Brant

The same might be asked of novelists, poets, painters, sculptors, dancers, composers, musicians, etc., no?

[Brant Gaede]

Regarding architecture: Do esthetic theories matter one whit to an architect as opposed to estheticians?

--Brant

The same might be asked of novelists, poets, painters, sculptors, dancers, composers, musicians, etc., no?

God bless the obvious. We don't have to argue.

--Brant

poke, poke

[dan2100]

Regarding architecture: Do esthetic theories matter one whit to an architect as opposed to estheticians?

--Brant

The same might be asked of novelists, poets, painters, sculptors, dancers, composers, musicians, etc., no?

God bless the obvious. We don't have to argue.

--Brant

poke, poke

True, but was this an attempt on your part to call into question the entire project of esthetics? Or do just mean people don't need to know, think about, or take sides in esthetics theory to create art? If the latter, this is little different than most people not knowing, thinking about, or taking sides in linguistics theories being able to use language and even use it well.

[Brant Gaede]

Regarding architecture: Do esthetic theories matter one whit to an architect as opposed to estheticians?

--Brant

The same might be asked of novelists, poets, painters, sculptors, dancers, composers, musicians, etc., no?

God bless the obvious. We don't have to argue.

--Brant

poke, poke

True, but was this an attempt on your part to call into question the entire project of esthetics? Or do just mean people don't need to know, think about, or take sides in esthetics theory to create art? If the latter, this is little different than most people not knowing, thinking about, or taking sides in linguistics theories being able to use language and even use it well.

No to the former and yes to the latter. However, much of what I've read qua esthetics I don't respect, much.

--Brant

[dan2100]

Regarding architecture: Do esthetic theories matter one whit to an architect as opposed to estheticians?

--Brant

The same might be asked of novelists, poets, painters, sculptors, dancers, composers, musicians, etc., no?

God bless the obvious. We don't have to argue.

--Brant

poke, poke

True, but was this an attempt on your part to call into question the entire project of esthetics? Or do just mean people don't need to know, think about, or take sides in esthetics theory to create art? If the latter, this is little different than most people not knowing, thinking about, or taking sides in linguistics theories being able to use language and even use it well.

No to the former and yes to the latter. However, much of what I've read qua esthetics I don't respect, much.

--Brant

Understood. I've read some esthetics I've respected, some I haven't, but I don't think I've read any esthetician who argues artists must know esthetics to produce art. (Granted, there's no reason an artist can't enter the field of esthetics and a esthetician can enter the field of art. E.g., some novelists have presented their theory of the novel -- people like Henry James, E. M. Forster, Milam Kundera, and, of course, Ayn Rand. It typically appears when they do this, they're nearly invariably presenting an esthetics that justifies or validates their art work.)

[anonrobt]

Regarding architecture: Do esthetic theories matter one whit to an architect as opposed to estheticians?

--Brant

The same might be asked of novelists, poets, painters, sculptors, dancers, composers, musicians, etc., no?

God bless the obvious. We don't have to argue.

--Brant

poke, poke

True, but was this an attempt on your part to call into question the entire project of esthetics? Or do just mean people don't need to know, think about, or take sides in esthetics theory to create art? If the latter, this is little different than most people not knowing, thinking about, or taking sides in linguistics theories being able to use language and even use it well.

No to the former and yes to the latter. However, much of what I've read qua esthetics I don't respect, much.

--Brant

Understood. I've read some esthetics I've respected, some I haven't, but I don't think I've read any esthetician who argues artists must know esthetics to produce art. (Granted, there's no reason an artist can't enter the field of esthetics and a esthetician can enter the field of art. E.g., some novelists have presented their theory of the novel -- people like Henry James, E. M. Forster, Milam Kundera, and, of course, Ayn Rand. It typically appears when they do this, they're nearly invariably presenting an esthetics that justifies or validates their art work.)

Duh - ye think they'd present one which would invalidate their own art work???

[dan2100]

Understood. I've read some esthetics I've respected, some I haven't, but I don't think I've read any esthetician who argues artists must know esthetics to produce art. (Granted, there's no reason an artist can't enter the field of esthetics and a esthetician can enter the field of art. E.g., some novelists have presented their theory of the novel -- people like Henry James, E. M. Forster, Milam Kundera, and, of course, Ayn Rand. It typically appears when they do this, they're nearly invariably presenting an esthetics that justifies or validates their art work.)

Duh - ye think they'd present one which would invalidate their own art work???

But I don't assume all artist-estheticians are all necessarily self-serving. And this can go another way too: someone might start with a theory of what art should be and then try to create art that fits that theory. Maybe Harold Bloom is an example of this; he wrote a novel that supposedly -- I haven't read it yet -- attempt to put into practice his views on literature.

My guess is most people who play both sides here probably walk down a "dialetical" path here: adjusting art to theory and theory to art. But this is just my guess. I hope the more intellectually honest and perceptive ones would correct their theory when it came up against art that didn't fit -- even if their own practice might track their particular theory. I've only read a handful of people doing both. (And I reckon we can look at all artists as implying some esthetic theory. Maybe this goes too far and it wasn't a point anyone here seems to have been arguing against.)

[Reidy]

Here you make a historical claim: artist-estheticians adjust their art and their theories to each other as they go along. This could be material for an academic study. It doesn't hold for Rand or (leaving aside the title question of this thread) FLlWright. Rand's career as an artist was behind her by the time she started laying out her theories. Wright wrote and lectured at length from the 1890s to the 1950s, and his ideas always applied to what he had already built. Someone who doesn't get bored easily might try Richard Wagner as a testcase.

[dan2100]

Here you make a historical claim: artist-estheticians adjust their art and their theories to each other as they go along. This could be material for an academic study. It doesn't hold for Rand or (leaving aside the title question of this thread) FLlWright. Rand's career as an artist was behind her by the time she started laying out her theories. Wright wrote and lectured at length from the 1890s to the 1950s, and his ideas always applied to what he had already built. Someone who doesn't get bored easily might try Richard Wagner as a testcase.

I don't know enough about Wagner to say, but, yes, I was only making a suggestion and not saying any particular artists were doing this. And I mainly brough it up to answer the implication that all artist-estheticians might merely be, in so far as they are estheticians, merely apologists for their art work.

I think other cases of a back-and-forth influence might be André Gide and Albert Camus. I think they both wrote novels and stories while writing explicitly about esthetics. However, I haven't studied them in enough detail to see if they changed both their theories and their art in light of each.

[psychoanaleesis]

Given Rand's definition of Art which is something that re-creates reality and is purely contemplative (of no practical use) then no, architecture is not art. However, you can just contemplate about a structure by standing before it and also, one can still find a certain "use" of a particular art just by merely applying it to any number of ways one can think of e.g. If Mozart's music really did enhance a child's brain development and was used as a "tool" for that purpose then would that music be invalidated as a form of art?

I think what Rand meant by of "non-utilitarian" is it could still be a source of contemplation when not in use by a person. That is to say, architecture's primary goal is to combine beauty and integrity but it just so happens that these have a byproduct which is of so obvious use that it cannot be ignored. A beautiful building uninhabited does not invalidate its beauty but precisely because it is beautiful, many seek to dwell in it.

Let's say Leonardo really did use his paintings to hide his "secrets" would his works then be not art? If one re-carves used the statue of David to have a hidden compartment, would it then cease to be art - to the owner and other people who do not know? If one dances in front of a mirror and contemplates the strength of his body but at the same time uses its techniques as an exercise would the dance be stuck out as an art form? To all these, I think not. Something is and will continue to be art as long as it expresses and fulfills and refines the purpose of its creator.

An Architect utilizes materials and shapes and combines/integrates these into a "form" reflective of the architect's values or perception of reality. He also takes into account of how this object could add more to himself and his life. He is thinking, that a building (basically a hollow sculpture) should not only be a thing of beauty for the eyes and/or touch but also in every other possible way we could experience it e.g. hearing how the sound reverberates from the inside and how would the cumulative effect be if he places walls here and there. Therefore, he thinks in the sense of living the art.

Edited March 17, 2010 by David Lee

[imurray]

Given Rand's definition of Art which is something that re-creates reality and is purely contemplative (of no practical use) then no, architecture is not art. However, you can just contemplate about a structure by standing before it and also, one can still find a certain "use" of a particular art just by merely applying it to any number of ways one can think of e.g. If Mozart's music really did enhance a child's brain development and was used as a "tool" for that purpose then would that music be invalidated as a form of art?

I think what Rand meant by of "non-utilitarian" is it could still be a source of contemplation when not in use by a person. That is to say, architecture's primary goal is to combine beauty and integrity but it just so happens that these have a byproduct which is of so obvious use that it cannot be ignored. A beautiful building uninhabited does not invalidate its beauty but precisely because it is beautiful, many seek to dwell in it.

Let's say Leonardo really did use his paintings to hide his "secrets" would his works then be not art? If one re-carves used the statue of David to have a hidden compartment, would it then cease to be art - to the owner and other people who do not know? If one dances in front of a mirror and contemplates the strength of his body but at the same time uses its techniques as an exercise would the dance be stuck out as an art form? To all these, I think not. Something is and will continue to be art as long as it expresses and fulfills and refines the purpose of its creator.

An Architect utilizes materials and shapes and combines/integrates these into a "form" reflective of the architect's values or perception of reality. He also takes into account of how this object could add more to himself and his life. He is thinking, that a building (basically a hollow sculpture) should not only be a thing of beauty for the eyes and/or touch but also in every other possible way we could experience it e.g. hearing how the sound reverberates from the inside and how would the cumulative effect be if he places walls here and there. Therefore, he thinks in the sense of living the art.

Very well said David.

[dan2100]

Given Rand's definition of Art which is something that re-creates reality and is purely contemplative (of no practical use) then no, architecture is not art. However, you can just contemplate about a structure by standing before it and also, one can still find a certain "use" of a particular art just by merely applying it to any number of ways one can think of e.g. If Mozart's music really did enhance a child's brain development and was used as a "tool" for that purpose then would that music be invalidated as a form of art?

I think what Rand meant by of "non-utilitarian" is it could still be a source of contemplation when not in use by a person. That is to say, architecture's primary goal is to combine beauty and integrity but it just so happens that these have a byproduct which is of so obvious use that it cannot be ignored. A beautiful building uninhabited does not invalidate its beauty but precisely because it is beautiful, many seek to dwell in it.

Let's say Leonardo really did use his paintings to hide his "secrets" would his works then be not art? If one re-carves used the statue of David to have a hidden compartment, would it then cease to be art - to the owner and other people who do not know? If one dances in front of a mirror and contemplates the strength of his body but at the same time uses its techniques as an exercise would the dance be stuck out as an art form? To all these, I think not. Something is and will continue to be art as long as it expresses and fulfills and refines the purpose of its creator.

An Architect utilizes materials and shapes and combines/integrates these into a "form" reflective of the architect's values or perception of reality. He also takes into account of how this object could add more to himself and his life. He is thinking, that a building (basically a hollow sculpture) should not only be a thing of beauty for the eyes and/or touch but also in every other possible way we could experience it e.g. hearing how the sound reverberates from the inside and how would the cumulative effect be if he places walls here and there. Therefore, he thinks in the sense of living the art.

That sounds similar to something I wrote on this subject a few years ago -- "Architecture: The Missing Art Form" -- in Full Context.

[Newberry]

Regarding architecture: Do esthetic theories matter one whit to an architect as opposed to estheticians?

--Brant

Brant, I know 3 practicing architects well, and aesthetic theory is integral to their creative process. Lots of artists don't talk or write about it. That said there is huge territory in which "talent" has free play: nuances, rhythms, balances, harmonies, etc. Art is pretty big world with a lot of variation and possibilities.

----

One puzzle for me about a general definition of art is it rarely seems a perfect fit when applied to different arts. The mediums of sounds, sights, touch, concepts and how they work with our minds are very different kettles of fish. Like what is a plot in a painting? or harmony in literature? or a traffic flow in music?

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

Regarding architecture: Do esthetic theories matter one whit to an architect as opposed to estheticians?

--Brant

Brant, I know 3 practicing architects well, and aesthetic theory is integral to their creative process. Lots of artists don't talk or write about it. That said there is huge territory in which "talent" has free play: nuances, rhythms, balances, harmonies, etc. Art is pretty big world with a lot of variation and possibilities.

----

One puzzle for me about a general definition of art is it rarely seems a perfect fit when applied to different arts. The mediums of sounds, sights, touch, concepts and how they work with our minds are very different kettles of fish. Like what is a plot in a painting? or harmony in literature? or a traffic flow in music?

Michael

After visiting Fallingwater and perusing many photographs of it, I'm of the opinion that if you, the architect, imagine your building is alive, you'll know how to design it. Maybe Wright thought that in a way with his emphasis on "organic" architecture.

[psychoanaleesis]

Regarding architecture: Do esthetic theories matter one whit to an architect as opposed to estheticians?

One puzzle for me about a general definition of art is it rarely seems a perfect fit when applied to different arts. The mediums of sounds, sights, touch, concepts and how they work with our minds are very different kettles of fish. Like what is a plot in a painting? or harmony in literature? or a traffic flow in music?

Michael

Hello NewBerry:

A concept for what you may be trying to convey are called a 'patterns' which is the mark of intelligent reasoning. It is a also a product of 'consistency' and 'coherency' coming from the same. However, there can be no plot in a painting unless a piece of literature is written as an attempt to describe it. 'Harmony' can be applied to all forms of art since it is the element which gives something a definitive structure that which is called 'integrity'. What do you mean by, "traffic flow in music"? It is better to properly place terms to their rightful media than to confuse one term for another and make yourself appear 'deep'- to others.

Something which does not have a definition is called 'randomness'. "Abstract paintings" can be broadly categorized into 'doodles' and 'blots'. Sounds without progression or composition is called noise and Amorphous lumps of clay are called 'blobs'. All these by their very nature are products of thoughtless spontaneity and therefore cannot be defined even by its creator(s) and thus cannot be called Art but is currently and perversely called 'Post-modern art'.

PS

Roger:

Did I just read that Rand just defined something using a negative? i.e. Architecture does not re-create reality? If it does not, then what is it according to her? I can't also believe that she exhausted her mental powers on trying (and given up?) to objectively define music as well.

Edited March 19, 2010 by David Lee

[Newberry]

David:

"What do you mean by, "traffic flow in music"? It is better to properly place terms to their rightful media than to confuse one term for another..."

Of course you are right, "It is better to properly place terms to their rightful media..."

My attempted point was that the concept of re-creation of reality is a little puzzling when applied to a field for example like music; a general definition of art doesn't always work well when applied literally and equally to visual, auditory, tactile, and conceptual media. Is painting a bird the same as flutes imitating chirping? What object or phenomenon in reality does a melody re-create? For that matter, what does Fallingwater re-create in reality? A similar problem exists with Roger's view of art being a microcosm. I don't see how painting is a miniature universe.

Michael

[Roger Bissell]

David:

"What do you mean by, "traffic flow in music"? It is better to properly place terms to their rightful media than to confuse one term for another..."

Of course you are right, "It is better to properly place terms to their rightful media..."

My attempted point was that the concept of re-creation of reality is a little puzzling when applied to a field for example like music; a general definition of art doesn't always work well when applied literally and equally to visual, auditory, tactile, and conceptual media. Is painting a bird the same as flutes imitating chirping? What object or phenomenon in reality does a melody re-create? For that matter, what does Fallingwater re-create in reality? A similar problem exists with Roger's view of art being a microcosm. I don't see how painting is a miniature universe.

Michael

Michael, you are a visual artist, and you say that you can't ~see~ how painting is a miniature universe???? If you can't, my god, who can?????

Well, I can. Every time I look at a painting -- at the image presented within the frame (if one is used) -- I see it as an imaginary world which I am to focus on, setting aside the surrounding environment, people, etc. Even if what's presented is only a small area, such as a part of a room, that painting is an aesthetic window to another world.

For me, music is ~exactly~ the same. I mentally and sensorially turn down my awareness of other sense data and focus on the sounds and hear them as happening in a sonic ~realm~, an auditory universe, in which certain things are happening. And I do this not only when I ~listen~ to music, but also when I ~perform~ it, and when I ~compose~ it.

As for architecture, I discuss this in detail in my JARS essay, "Art as Microcosm," which Michael Kelley was so kind to post elsewhere in this folder. So, please READ IT (if you haven't already)! (You will see that I don't even think the hard-core Randian partisans understand architecture properly in relation to Rand's definition of "art.")

I didn't put all the time and effort I did into it, culminating nearly 40 years of thoughts and writing about the matter, for thoughtful people such as yourself to continue going in circles, whether re-inventing or re-deconstructing the notion that "re-creation of reality" means portraying things ~from~ reality. It is only this superficial, non-fundamental interpretation of the phrase that allows both Randian skeptics and well-meaning but frustrated Randian partisans alike to claim that music and architecture do not re-create reality.

In closing, I'll say yet again that I shudder each time I think of that page in "Art and Cognition" where Rand says that art re-creates reality, architecture is an art, yet architecture does not re-create reality. Why? Um....because architecture "is in a class by itself." Yeah, right. Just like "welfare rights" are in a class by ~themselves~?? Sure! (Not.) But if you think that Rand's logical gaffe (one of her absolute grossest, IMO) invalidates her definition of "art," check your premises!

REB