Architecture -- art or not?? (2006)


Roger Bissell

Recommended Posts

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

Well, if you say architecture is not art but creative design, where would that leave Rand?

Maybe she gave us a definition not of art but creativity.

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 251
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

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

Painting a bird is different from a flute imitating a bird chirping. The former is art, the latter not art. A melody comes from sounds which are placed in (a logical) order. It re-creates the already existing sounds to emphasize, tone down or almost whatever that person wants. Fallingwater follows its natural surroundings albeit given thought. What has been created by randomness has been given structure by the architect or any artist whatever the case may be. For him, he thinks in this manner, "Let me bring out the shapes that I see, take out this rock or that and also bring in other materials which I think will emphasize the already existing ones as well." You see, he is not contented by chaos and chances created by nature. Again, not in opposition to what nature has given but an improvement in its qualities that can only be done by man's thinking mind.

Edited by David Lee
Link to comment
Share on other sites

A melody comes from sounds which are placed in (a logical) order. It re-creates the already existing sounds ...

And a painting re-creates the already existing sights - I don't see the difference.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is such a silly discussion, and it's all the result of Rands hopelessly inadequate definition of art:

Art is a selective re-creation of reality according to an artist’s metaphysical value-judgments.
.

What Rand meant by "re-creation of reality" is quite clear when we consider some art forms: a painting should represent a scene from reality: a landscape, a portrait, a still life etc. - according to Rand an abstract painting is not art. In sculpture she's even more restricting:

Compared to painting, sculpture is more limited a form of art. It expresses an artist’s view of existence through his treatment of the human figure, but it is confined to the human figure.

And she means it:

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

That may be fine for a novelist, but she discards all abstract painting and sculpture that does not represent a human figure. And with architecture and music Rand's definition really becomes useless. Instead of trying to find meanings in "recreating reality" such that architecture and music also become art according to Rand's definition, that definition should just be put in the waste basket, it is typically a definition by non-essentials and on top of that a definition that excludes many examples of what generally is considered to be art. Contrived interpretations that stretch the definition of "re-creation of reality" will only dilute the meaning of art so much that the products of almost any human activity can be called art (like for example scientific theories, technological products, any computer program). And all that only to save a definition that was bad to begin with.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Painting a bird is different from a flute imitating a bird chirping. The former is art, the latter not art.

Well, that's too bad for composers like Rameau, Vivaldi, Beethoven, Liszt, Saint-Saëns, Delius, Vaughn Williams, Messiaen and many others who wrote music that imitates bird sounds...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Painting a bird is different from a flute imitating a bird chirping. The former is art, the latter not art.

Well, that's too bad for composers like Rameau, Vivaldi, Beethoven, Liszt, Saint-Saëns, Delius, Vaughn Williams, Messiaen and many others who wrote music that imitates bird sounds...

What???? What kind of bird produced Fur Elise or the Moonlight Sonata? The Four Seasons? Gee... if one says/wrote "Quack! Quack!" or "Tweet-tweet" these are imitations. Would these be called art specifically music/literature? No, those are figures of speech under onomatopoeia. Come on. If Beethoven said that he could re-arrange the chirps to his style, then that is Art.

Could you please post a sample of those 'bird calls' here? Surely, those would have been useful in studying notes, tempo, fine tuning the instruments, etc. but those are not Art in themselves!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Roger:

"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."

Roger,

I don't mean to be contentious. But for me as a representational painter, the art of painting means literally re-creating reality, or portraying things from reality (plus integrated with my emotions and thoughts). I don't have any problem with Rand's definition of art for visual artists; and have found her to be incredibly insightful.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What???? What kind of bird produced Fur Elise or the Moonlight Sonata? The Four Seasons?

I didn't say that they did that in all their compositions... Did you never hear the nightingale, quail and cuckoo in Beethovens Pastoral Symphony (Szene am Bach)? The nightingale in Granados' "Quejas, o la maja y el ruiseñor"? The wood trush in Messiaen's Oiseaux exotiques? The goldfinch in Vivaldi's flute concerto from 1729? The cuckoo in Delius "On hearing the first cuckoo in spring"?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In all this discussion, am seeing that the supposed definition of art is rarely being given - she wrote "SELECTIVE re-creation" of reality... wouldn't this make for some differences in viewing the definition? for one, it most emphatically does NOT mean copying, or 'mimosis', or imitating... it means taking the essence of the objects, according to what the artist considers as the essence, and in accordance with the artist's sense of life - and utilizing THAT as the presentation in the work [again according to whether the sense is that from the eye, the ear, or the hand]...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In all this discussion, am seeing that the supposed definition of art is rarely being given - she wrote "SELECTIVE re-creation" of reality... wouldn't this make for some differences in viewing the definition? for one, it most emphatically does NOT mean copying, or 'mimosis', or imitating... it means taking the essence of the objects, according to what the artist considers as the essence, and in accordance with the artist's sense of life - and utilizing THAT as the presentation in the work [again according to whether the sense is that from the eye, the ear, or the hand]...

Thank you for that anonrobt. As for dragonfly, I looked this up on youtube as you suggested that I listen to it:

Beautiful! It moves me...

Getting back the topic at hand, I don't suppose any bird would have this kind call or squawk - or which specific time line do you speak of? As far as I can discern, there were no incongruent parts i.e. all the parts were music.

Okay, again for the sake of argument I have a nightingale by my side "trained" to squawk on cue using the tune of my piano. I, as the musician, incorporated its "noise" and thus have made it into a melody most suitable to me as an audience and performer at once.

The composer may had in mind a bird or the music is dedicated to a bird but it certainly does not imitate a bird at least none that I've ever heard of. Therefore, this piece and others like it as you have there in your example are what I call musical art not imitations.

Edited by David Lee
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The composer may had in mind a bird or the music is dedicated to a bird but it certainly does not imitate a bird at least none that I've ever heard of. Therefore, this piece and others like it as you have there in your example are what I call musical art not imitations.

In Granados' piece the imitation is rather stylized, the piano is of course not the most suitable instrument to imitate birdsong, but for example in Beethoven's Pastoral symphony the imitations of bird sounds are realistic and unmistakable, anyone will recognize the call of the cuckoo.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Painting a bird is different from a flute imitating a bird chirping. The former is art, the latter not art.

Well, that's too bad for composers like Rameau, Vivaldi, Beethoven, Liszt, Saint-Saëns, Delius, Vaughn Williams, Messiaen and many others who wrote music that imitates bird sounds...

What???? What kind of bird produced Fur Elise or the Moonlight Sonata? The Four Seasons? Gee... if one says/wrote "Quack! Quack!" or "Tweet-tweet" these are imitations. Would these be called art specifically music/literature? No, those are figures of speech under onomatopoeia. Come on. If Beethoven said that he could re-arrange the chirps to his style, then that is Art.

Could you please post a sample of those 'bird calls' here? Surely, those would have been useful in studying notes, tempo, fine tuning the instruments, etc. but those are not Art in themselves!

A side note: what's onomatopoeia for one person or group might not seem so for another. See, e.g.,

http://www.coolslang.com/in/Japan/PeraPera.php

I do think that even when a composer tries to imitate bird calls and the like, she or he is still making art. In generally, the imitation is not exactly like the actual bird call -- a bird or a even person wouldn't be fooled. At best, a well executed composition of these recalls some aspects of the original call... Of course, the imitation plays a role in the total composition -- as opposed to when naturalists of old, without the benefit of recording devices, wrote out what they heard as the melody of this or that bird. In the latter case, the naturalist is aiming not at producing a work or art, but capturing the actual bird song. (Of course, one can speculate that there might be no difference in the end product, though this is no different than a novelist writing the same sentence for his novel that a journalist writes for her report. Most would likely call the former art while the latter would journalism -- even though some of the parts were the same.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A side note: what's onomatopoeia for one person or group might not seem so for another. See, e.g.,

http://www.coolslang.com/in/Japan/PeraPera.php

I do think that even when a composer tries to imitate bird calls and the like, she or he is still making art. In generally, the imitation is not exactly like the actual bird call -- a bird or a even person wouldn't be fooled. At best, a well executed composition of these recalls some aspects of the original call... Of course, the imitation plays a role in the total composition -- as opposed to when naturalists of old, without the benefit of recording devices, wrote out what they heard as the melody of this or that bird. In the latter case, the naturalist is aiming not at producing a work or art, but capturing the actual bird song. (Of course, one can speculate that there might be no difference in the end product, though this is no different than a novelist writing the same sentence for his novel that a journalist writes for her report. Most would likely call the former art while the latter would journalism -- even though some of the parts were the same.)

Ah yes, after reading mangas and enjoying anime, how could I forget!

Bingo Dan! A person could only attempt to imitate but not imitate and this is what I was hoping dragonfly would recognize after so many emphasis from moi. However, with the right instrument e.g. bird whistles, one could be "fooled" as you say. Given a flute (or other musical instruments) however, would make the sounds clearly distinguishable and thus, would be far from imitation because obviously, the musician adds his own style.

Dragonfly did mention the word stylized which is one of the basics in art. This is why, even if I could successfully copy the Leonardo's Mona Lisa or play Bach seamlessly, I, as the artist would try to modify it to my sense of life and thus, it would be my art - even if no one else notices the slight difference in shade or tempo. It becomes mine. Mine! Mine I say! Lol.

Kidding asides, it's like a person memorizing something as opposed to a person learning something. Which of the two would be of higher value? This is similar to the appreciation of arts where as opposed to imitation or copying, an additional order has been added. Similarly, if a writer copies the work of another without permission, he would not automatically be a novelist but rather a plagiarist. Journalism, while it has its merits cannot be called an art in itself because it presents things as they are and it does not lend itself readily to

"style" for it would be colored with opinions and thus, would not become readily usable as its primary purpose is.

Edited by David Lee
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do think that even when a composer tries to imitate bird calls and the like, she or he is still making art.

Indeed. Contrary to David's claim in post # 27 that a visual imitation of a bird is art, but an aural one is not, a composer's inclusion of identifiable imitations of bird calls would be a means of satisfying Rand's requirement that art must have objectively "intelligible subjects." In other words, it is not music's inclusion of bird calls and similar imitations that prevent it from satisfying Rand's criteria for art, but its lack of them.

J

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do think that even when a composer tries to imitate bird calls and the like, she or he is still making art.

Indeed. Contrary to David's claim in post # 27 that a visual imitation of a bird is art, but an aural one is not, a composer's inclusion of identifiable imitations of bird calls would be a means of satisfying Rand's requirement that art must have objectively "intelligible subjects." In other words, it is not music's inclusion of bird calls and similar imitations that prevent it from satisfying Rand's criteria for art, but its lack of them.

J

I'm crying foul here. Dragonfly said "painting of bird" which I classified as art.

Imitation from the Oxford Dictionary

• noun 1 the action of imitating. 2 a copy.

Edited by David Lee
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm crying foul here. Dragonfly said "painting of bird" which I classified as art.

I never said anything about painting birds.

Imitation from the Oxford Dictionary

• noun 1 the action of imitating. 2 a copy.

And the same dictionary also gives an example:

— PHRASES imitation is the sincerest form of flattery proverb copying someone or something is an implicit way of paying them a compliment.

Does "copying" here mean "making an exact clone"? Of course not. The same dictionary gives for "copy": "a thing made to be similar or identical to another", so a copy doesn't have to be an exact copy, it can also be something similar.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm crying foul here. Dragonfly said "painting of bird" which I classified as art.

I never said anything about painting birds.

Imitation from the Oxford Dictionary

• noun 1 the action of imitating. 2 a copy.

And the same dictionary also gives an example:

— PHRASES imitation is the sincerest form of flattery proverb copying someone or something is an implicit way of paying them a compliment.

Does "copying" here mean "making an exact clone"? Of course not. The same dictionary gives for "copy": "a thing made to be similar or identical to another", so a copy doesn't have to be an exact copy, it can also be something similar.

Ooopps, I apologize Dragonfly and Newberry as well and all members of OL. I was responding to Newberry at that time. Okay, last one, I'm growing tired of this but Good Spar nonetheless. I know what you're denoting and actually, I agree. Of course, an exact copy of an object accurate to its quark component cannot be done. For example, there is only one Mona Lisa and only one. If I took a photograph, could I claim that it is the actual Mona Lisa? No. To be precise, I can claim that it is a photograph of the Mona Lisa. Another, if I painted one myself, could I claim it to be of similar value or price in money? No. I can only sell it for a lower price even if it could be said to be "better drawn". That's imitation for you. It can only be appraised for a lesser value than the authentic one.

This is my claim: If one wants to attain a higher value than the original, what does one do? Of course, re-creates that thing and fashion it to his liking and thus, making another original i.e. not imitation. and that is what Art is all about which is basically, "making originals" that cannot be equaled by imitation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Imitating doesn't necessarily mean making an exact copy. One can imitate someone's voice, manners, way of speaking, so that other people recognize who is being imitated, while they still can hear and see that it is not the real thing.

I agree -- and I'd have to read further back into the discussion to try to see why this became something to disagree over.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 5 years later...

Architecture is not an art. A building is more for utilitarian purpose than it has got to do with "selective re-creation" by an Architect to represent his sense of life

It's not an art if the architect is not an artist.

If he wants his work to be considered as "art" then he must think of it as such and say so.

Art is a tricky concept. There's potential art in most human endeavor. The art of law. The art of driving a car. The art of making a statue. This puts art into what we more purely think of as art. The art of writing a novel results in art in a novel results in art. The art of designing a building puts art into a building results in?--Fallingwater, by Frank Lloyd Wright.

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Architecture is not an art. A building is more for utilitarian purpose than it has got to do with "selective re-creation" by an Architect to represent his sense of life

By Rand's definition and criteria, architecture is indeed not art, nor is music or dance. However, photography can qualify as art by her criteria.

The Objectivist Esthetics is messy. It's full of contradictions and double standards. It is not the result of applying Objectivist epistemological method to the field of aesthetics.

J

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Architecture is not an art. A building is more for utilitarian purpose than it has got to do with "selective re-creation" by an Architect to represent his sense of life

By Rand's definition and criteria, architecture is indeed not art, nor is music or dance. However, photography can qualify as art by her criteria.

According to Rand's meaning of "selective recreation," and her theory of the nature of music and dance, both music and dance are art forms in that (according to her theory) they selectively re-create sense of life emotions, hence an aspect of reality.

She thought of photography as merely recording not re-creating reality. I think she might have thought differently on that one if she'd known more about technical possibilities of photography.

Ellen

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is beautiful, Adam - but what makes it art? It's man-made, yes, else beauty as the single criterion for art would be every leaf and many a tree, animals and many landscapes, I have seen.

For the man-made, there's also a proliferation of beauty. A Ferrari, a modern appliance, pieces of furniture, a building -etc.

My favourites are bridges, from Roman times up to those amazing suspension bridges. Craft, design, form and ingenious artfulness - purposeful - but I can't call them art.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now