Art and Subobjectivity


PalePower

Recommended Posts

This is one of my favorite Kandinskys, Improvisation V:

350844249_3c0de20853_o.jpg

The first time that I saw it I didn't recognize that it wasn't pure abstraction or that I was probably looking at horsemen of the Apocalypse behind a red-robed, blue Jesus making an appearance at the Last Judgment.

J

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 720
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

edit: While I’m at it—architecture and photography is not art, either.

This is where Victor's and my views my split. I am not sure about architecture, I haven't really thought of it. However, photography can be an art, you just have to alter the state of the photograph. For example, l_fe3e181470625c4ad706658b66b2dde7.jpg

That is a picture of me, taken with the camera on my computer, then altered using technology in my computer. Does this qualify as art? If not, why not?

Also, I would suggest that objects included in a photograph can add a metaphysical value judgement. If there is a metaphysical value judgement and it is a selective recreation of reality, or is altered after the fact, how does it not fit the bill?

Edited by Jeff Kremer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Drawing and teaching art.

When I went to art school, traditional academic education had become a controversial subject in the debate over what an art education should cover. In the second half of the 20th century, the preponderance of art schools rejected the “traditional approach” in their programs, creating only confusion and chaos in students' minds with the advancement of modernist madness.*(1.1) A group of students--including myself--expressed an intense frustration with the education we were receiving. As a student, I truly felt I had an opportunity to have an impact on the restructuring of the curriculum. My own education came to a dead-end, however, and I had to teach myself how to draw and paint.

Eventually, I went on to teach a drawing and painting class.

Teaching was a great experience for me. Teaching adult classes, I emphasized studying the human form, working from life and eye-hand cordination. I taught drawing and anatomy - the two most important subjects that every artist should know as well as the "two-times table". In my class, most of the time was devoted to understanding and solving the problems of form and proportions, tonal (value) relationships. The students were also required to study composition, human anatomy, perspective and the technology of art materials - all of the ABC's for mastering an artist's skill.*(1.2) The benefits that were gained from this exercise are colossal. It trains your visual memory, intensifies your ability to see proportions and foreshortenings, and coordinates your eye.

As I have always told my students, the importance of good drawing skills cannot be overstressed enough. To quote Nicolas Poussin: "Drawing is the skeleton of what you do and color is its flash."*(1.3)

-Victor

NOTE FROM ADMINISTRATOR:

Please see here for initial identification.

* Plagiarized from "Why we must keepthe traditions alive" by Igor Babailov. The original passages read as follows:

(1.1)

Traditional academic education has become a touchy subject in the contemporary debate over what an art education should be. In the second half of the 20th century, the majority of art schools rejected the traditional approach in their programs, creating not only confusion and chaos in students' minds, but a diminished appreciation of fine art in viewers' eyes.

(1.2)

Teaching at the Florence Academy was a great experience for me as well. Naturally, I was compairing it to the Surikov Academy, and the similarities in the educational approach were apparent. Both schools emphasize studying the human form, working from life and copying the Old Masters. Drawing and anatomy - the two most important subjects that every artist should know as well as the "two-times table" - are highlighted in both programs. In these courses, most of the hours are devoted to understanding and solving the problems of form and proportions, tonal (value) relationships and chiaroscuro. The students are also required to study composition, human anatomy, perspective and the technology of art materials - all of the ABC's for mastering an artist's skill.

(1.3)

The benefits to be gained from this exercise are enormous. It trains your visual memory, intensifies your ability to see proportions and foreshortenings, and coordinates your eye. As I always tell my students, the importance of good drawing skills cannot be overemphasized. In the words of Nicolas Poussin, "Drawing is the skeleton of what you do and color is its flash."

OL extends its deepest apologies to Igor Babailov.

Edited by Michael Stuart Kelly
Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Art according to Objectivist philosophy" is her cognitive definition.

Ellen,

I am having a bit of difficulty expressing what I see, so please bear with me. This is very important. The problem I am seeing has been the root of many, many disagreements and if it is not dealt with, all it will produce is more disagreements.

"Art according to Objectivist philosophy" is Rand's cognitive definition—under Objectivism. It is also her stated cognitive definition. However, I think I showed how she also had an implicit cognitive definition of art that was the same one that everybody uses. At least she did this with modern art and decorative art. I will look later, but I have no doubt that in her fiction, her roll of villain artists are called "artists" who produced "artworks."

When I say the Objectivist definition of art is normative, I am switching perspectives to look at it from the position of the standard definition, not from the position of Objectivism. From Objectivism, I agree that Rand is merely stating what is (cognitive).

I believe you will agree with me that if there is only "one true art," it cannot be the Objectivist version and the standard version at the same time. I must look at one from the perspective of the other to see which is valid if I am to call either the "one true art" (which is what I believe she was aiming at, just as she was aiming at Objectivism being the "one true philosophy").

One has to be superior to the other in terms of having more human value, since both definitions are "cognitive" from their respective perspectives. Once you make a comparison like that, you have entered the realm of the normative.

I know this seems still a bit "shaky" or "forced," and it still does so to me somewhat. I am not completely comfortable with this formulation. I am groping for the right words but I do know that there is a rabbit in these woods and I intend to get him.

Here is what I object to:

1. Rand used the word "art" at times to mean what everybody else does (and she continued to do so throughout her writings).

2. Rand stated conditions for an Objectivist definition of art based on "metaphysical value judgments," etc., and decreed things like the need for painting to be representational, photography is not art, etc.

3. Rand then claimed that the Objectivist definition of art was superior to all other definitions (even that it was based on "survival value," etc.), much in the same manner that she stated that the Objectivist philosophy was superior to all other philosophies.

4. Rand called the written works of Kant "philosophy," yet did not extend this same standard to the artwork she claimed that was based on Kant's philosophy, even as she used the term "art" to describe it.

5. I would have to look up the following, but I am almost certain that Rand even claimed at times that Kant's ideas were not philosophy. I am pretty sure I read this in a few places.

In the case of art, when she said something was not art, she was stating clearly that it was not art under the Objectivist concept of art, not that it was not art as other people have traditionally defined the term. And she continued to use the normal definition of art at times, so in this manner she "sanctioned" the traditional definition (to use the jargon).

Likewise, when she said that something was not philosophy, she meant "Objectivist philosophy." The same was true for rights, for businessmen, etc.

I have been calling this "normative" because she set up Objectivism as superior to all other types of thinking. She has actually made such comparisons (especially using life as the standard). Then not only did she try to show that it was superior, she tried to obliterate the concepts of all other types of thinking as if they did not exist by usurping the words Objectivism had in common with them, claiming things like:

Modern art is not art;

The divine right of kings is not a right;

An altruistic businessman is not a "real" businessman;

The philosophy of nihilism is not philosophy;

and so forth. (These last two are paraphrased from the contexts where they appeared.)

If you remove the adjectives, you get:

Art is not art;

The right is not a right;

A businessman is not a businessman;

The philosophy is not philosophy;

and so forth.

The only way I can make sense of this is to realize that there are two different definitions for each term operating.

I just had a thought. Maybe instead of cognitive and normative, which is problematic for several cases I have already been thinking about, she tried to impose the Objectivist concept of these things as the species instead of letting "Objectivist" be the differentia, while usurping the "species word" exclusively for the Objectivist version.

Art as given in Objectivism then becomes the same thing as all art.

Rights as given in Objectivism then become the same thing as all rights.

Businessmen as given in Objectivism then become the same thing as all businessmen.

Philosophy as given in Objectivism then becomes the same thing as all philosophy.

But the fact remains that there is such a thing as Impressionistic Art, where "Art" is the species and "Impressionistic" is the differentia (presuming, of course, that "Impressionistic" is properly defined to mean something). Using this criterion, you get Romantic Art, Classical Art, Baroque Art, Modern Art, Post-Modern Art, etc.

You have one species and separate differentia. That's the way definitions are made under Objectivism.

There can be no such thing as Objectivist Impressionistic Art, if nothing else than for historical reasons (Ojbectivism did not exist back then). But under this "shifting concepts for the same word" manner of thinking, "Objectivist" suddenly becomes a fundamental characteristic of art. So when you say Impressionistic Art, you are actually saying Objectivist Impressionistic Art.

There are enough philosophical points in common to fudge this one a bit (especially as Impressionism was mainly representational), but there is nothing to fudge with at all when we come to Modern Art or Post-Modern Art. Objectivist Post-Modern Art is practically a contradiction in terms, and as Post-Modern Art under this thinking would implicitly include "Objectivist" in the species, it simple cannot be art. The species is always more important than the differentia for resolving any contradiction.

I am arriving at this approach as I am writing it. I am growing to like it a lot. I still have not completely discarded the cognitive/normative thing, though. It has merely become more restrictive (so far).

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok, last post for tonight.

"Art according to Objectivist philosophy" is Rand's cognitive definition—under Objectivism. It is also her stated cognitive definition. However, I think I showed how she also had an implicit cognitive definition of art that was the same one that everybody uses. At least she did this with modern art and decorative art. I will look later, but I have no doubt that in her fiction, her roll of villain artists are called "artists" who produced "artworks."

Now, I am far from a Rand expert, but it seems to me that Rand, while calling her villain artists "artists", was portraying a completely different concept. A concept that she considers incorrect. However, she called it by the name it was given. The way I see it she was not sanctioning the use of the word, merely identifying the concept.

I just had a thought. Maybe instead of cognitive and normative, which is problematic for several cases I have already been thinking about, she tried to impose the Objectivist concept of these things as the species instead of letting "Objectivist" be the differentia, while usurping the "species word" exclusively for the Objectivist version.

Art as given in Objectivism then becomes the same thing as all art.

Rights as given in Objectivism then become the same thing as all rights.

Businessmen as given in Objectivism then become the same thing as all businessmen.

Philosophy as given in Objectivism then becomes the same thing as all philosophy.

And that is where you lost me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now, I am far from a Rand expert, but it seems to me that Rand, while calling her villain artists "artists", was portraying a completely different concept.

Jeff,

This is precisely what I have been saying all along. It does not matter what her evaluation of the concept under Objectivism was at this level. The fact is that she used the same word for different concepts.

On the other thing (species, differentia), you have to read ITOE.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jeff,

Modernism [as I’ll call it from here on in, as I will not dignify it with the accompanying word ‘art’] is nothing more than "a high sounding nothing", to quote Metternich's famous expression. This ‘nothing’ needs a perpetual choir of apologists and elucidators--the noisier the better--to ensure that the swarm of pretentious bamboozled patrons that visit modern art exhibitions, and buy the ludicrously expensive catalogues, keep doing so.*(1.1) Jeff, of course you are ‘lost’ trying to apply modernism to the map of concepts in your mind. These people are living in a state of perpetual contradiction because the whole engine behind the modernist philosophy is not based on reality.

I have stressed that the word ‘art’ means—at the root---‘skill.’ The only skill exercised by the Modernists, however, is the one applied to marketing and public relations--because without the sustain of a huge network of deferential and submissive art critics, cynical art dealers, powerful museums and institutions that have great interest in its promotion. This glorified “high sounding nothing” of modernism would have disappeared long ago--destroyed by its own barrenness, while actual art would thrive as it does fulfill a human need of the mind.*(1.2)

-Victor

edit: A picture is worth a thousand words.

http://pc.blogspot.com/2006/06/jackson-pol...ctor-pross.html

NOTE FROM ADMINISTRATOR:

Please see here for initial identification.

* Plagiarized from Understanding (?) Art by Claudio Lombardo. The original passage reads as follows:

(1.1)

Since modern art is no more than "a high sounding nothing", to use Metternich's famous expression, this nothing needs a perpetual choir of apologists and elucidators, the noisier the better, to ensure that the crowds of pretentious fools that visit modern art exhibitions, and buy the ridiculously expensive catalogues, keep doing so.

(1.2)

The only skill exercised by the modern "masters" is the one applied to marketing and public relations, because without the support of a huge network of subservient art critics, cynical art dealers, powerful museums and institutions that have great interest in its promotion, this glorified high sounding nothing would have disappeared long time ago destroyed by its own sick nature.

OL extends its deepest apologies to Claudio Lombardo.

Edited by Michael Stuart Kelly
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Michael, I can't sit at a computer screen for long enough to answer lengthy posts all in one sitting. Computer work soon sets my neurological problems a jangle. But I do agree with you that what we're thrashing around is important. So I'll reply bit by bit to your discussion.

"Art according to Objectivist philosophy" is her cognitive definition.

Ellen,

I am having a bit of difficulty expressing what I see, so please bear with me. This is very important. The problem I am seeing has been the root of many, many disagreements and if it is not dealt with, all it will produce is more disagreements.

"Art according to Objectivist philosophy" is Rand's cognitive definition—under Objectivism. It is also her stated cognitive definition. However, I think I showed how she also had an implicit cognitive definition of art that was the same one that everybody uses. At least she did this with modern art and decorative art. I will look later, but I have no doubt that in her fiction, her roll of villain artists are called "artists" who produced "artworks."

When I say the Objectivist definition of art is normative, I am switching perspectives to look at it from the position of the standard definition, not from the position of Objectivism. From Objectivism, I agree that Rand is merely stating what is (cognitive).

I believe you will agree with me that if there is only "one true art," it cannot be the Objectivist version and the standard version at the same time. I must look at one from the perspective of the other to see which is valid if I am to call either the "one true art" (which is what I believe she was aiming at, just as she was aiming at Objectivism being the "one true philosophy").

One has to be superior to the other in terms of having more human value, since both definitions are "cognitive" from their respective perspectives. Once you make a comparison like that, you have entered the realm of the normative.

OK, first, what do you mean by "the same one that everybody uses" and "the standard definition"?

There is no "same" definition of art I've ever been aware of that "everybody uses." The issue of defining "art" has been debated and debated, with many different definitions proposed and with some people concluding that no unifying definition is possible.

A second point is that there are a number of different general senses of the word "art" in the English language and in the cognate word in various other languages. The distinction between "decorative arts" and the "art" (including there the full range, not just the visual arts) which conveys a "meaning," which has an "aboutness," is standard, and all theories of esthetics have some difficulty assessing the borderline between the two. This is no different than the situation with Rand. Another use of "art" is "art" as in a refined skill needing discernment and judgment, e.g.: the art of medicine, the art of doing science, etc., "the art of living consciously," for instance, see the subtitle of your own forum. Again, for Rand to use "art" in those senses is no different from any other esthetician who's trying to define the crucial ingredient operative in what's sometimes called "the fine arts" to distinguish the category.

A third point is that Rand isn't alone among estheticians -- or the public at large -- in thinking that "modern art" is a fradulent category and not "really" art. I've heard a great many "just folks" express that opinion, in whatever words they have in their vocabulary with which to express it, ranging from fairly incoherent to articulate. At the Symmetry conference in Budapest in 2003, the conference before the one this last summer, there was a physicist who's written on art and art history as a special interest who waxed even more denunciatory on the subject than I think even Rand could have managed.

Thus, Rand's referring to "decorative arts" which don't fall under her definition doesn't weigh against her definition being "cognitive." Nor does her excluding "modern art" necessarily do that either.

Ellen

___

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ellen,

You wrote:

"A third point is that Rand isn't alone among estheticians -- or the public at large -- in thinking that "modern art" is a fradulent category and not "really" art. I've heard a great many "just folks" express that opinion, in whatever words they have in their vocabulary with which to express it, ranging from fairly incoherent to articulate. At the Symmetry conference in Budapest in 2003, the conference before the one this last summer, there was a physicist who's written on art and art history as a special interest who waxed even more denunciatory on the subject than I think even Rand could have managed."

BINGO! It is not merely some Ayn Rand Ortho-stance. Large pockets of the populace are confounded as to the purported legitimacy of modernism. What other age would we hear the “common man” utter a resolved - but uncertain- expression such as: “I don’t know if it’s art, but I know what I like.”

Oh, god bliss the common man and common sense!

The defining characteristic of Modernism in painting is to acquire a polar-opposite, the antithesis of what“academic art” embodies—such as skill and technique and then subsequently rejection of all parameters of fine painting. Thus all subject-matter was abolished --substituted was the dribbling of paint on canvas—art for art’s sake. So take everything that a representational painting encompasses, strip away all of the defining components and you have modernism in painting.

There is your anti-art--in painting. There is your defining characteristic.

-Victor

Edited by Victor Pross
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On the same page:

Ellen: A second point is that there are a number of different general senses of the word "art" in the English language and in the cognate word in various other languages. The distinction between "decorative arts" and the "art" (including there the full range, not just the visual arts) which conveys a "meaning," which has an "aboutness," is standard, and all theories of esthetics have some difficulty assessing the borderline between the two. This is no different than the situation with Rand. Another use of "art" is "art" as in a refined skill needing discernment and judgment, e.g.: the art of medicine, the art of doing science, etc., "the art of living consciously," for instance, see the subtitle of your own forum. Again, for Rand to use "art" in those senses is no different from any other esthetician who's trying to define the crucial ingredient operative in what's sometimes called "the fine arts" to distinguish the category.

Victor: Many philosophers had been led to “despair of the possibility of defining ‘art,’” as the esthetician George Dickie has noted. W.E. Kennick further argued that “traditional aesthetics” rests on a mistake—the mistake of trying to define art. Since art has no definite function, he claimed, it cannot possibility be defined. Of course I disagree with this. Ayn Rand made it clear what purpose art serves—which I have elaborated on elsewhere. Without a firm and rational definition at the tiller, it is no wonder that increasingly sundry objects and “events” have been put forward --including the men's urinal--and accepted as art precisely because of this lack of a valid definition.

****

Ellen: A second point is that there are a number of different general senses of the word "art" in the English language and in the cognate word in various other languages. The distinction between "decorative arts" and the "art" (including there the full range, not just the visual arts) which conveys a "meaning," which has an "aboutness," is standard, and all theories of esthetics have some difficulty assessing the borderline between the two. This is no different than the situation with Rand. Another use of "art" is "art" as in a refined skill needing discernment and judgment, e.g.: the art of medicine, the art of doing science, etc., "the art of living consciously," for instance, see the subtitle of your own forum. Again, for Rand to use "art" in those senses is no different from any other esthetician who's trying to define the crucial ingredient operative in what's sometimes called "the fine arts" to distinguish the category.

Victor: In its original and broadest sense, the term art (derived from the Latin ars, artis) dates back to antiquity and it is synonymous with the Greek term techne—which refers to the concept “skill” or “technique”. Like all concepts, this idea -- art -- did not occur in a vacuum as if it were some cerebral construct divorced from real experience. The term has a long genesis dating back to the ancient Greek concept of “mimetic arts.” It developed out of long tradition of surveying similarities between the existing art forms as well as differences between them and other products and activities—and the idea of “skill” is primary to the conception of art and it is embedded in the term. The abandonment of objective representation in the visual arts was the most profound of modernism’s departures from this tradition. This is art history 101.

:turned:

Edited by Victor Pross
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I lied, that wasn't my last post for tonight. I hope this is though because I'm having one helluva time trying to sleep.

Basically I am chiming in to agree with Victor.

Earlier, Michael gave the the example of Osama Bin Laden being anti-human, but still being human. This, however, is a bad example. If Osama Bin Laden was anti-all humans, he would kill himself or kill indiscriminantly. That includes his own people, and people he has no feeling for whatsoever. Bin Laden kills a certain type of human though. A human that he considers bad because of certain traits. This turns the word "human" into a normative concept into a cognitive one. Osama Bin Laden, hating the normative concept of the word "human", is the very antithesis of that concept. Therefore, he is not human in the way it is used when someone says that "Osama Bin Laden is anti-human". This means that being anti-human as Osama is, he is not human. (Emphasis that those are using the normative definition of the word "human" not the cognitive ones)

Now, applying this to art, if we define art as a cognitive concept the way Rand does and Rand says that Modern art (modernist paintings as Victor calls it) is an anti-art (cognitive definition), then if it is the antithesis of everything that distinguishes the cognitive definition of art it is not art. This is for the same reason that if Osama Bin Laden is anti-human (normative definition) and is the antithesis of everything that is human (normative definition) then Osama Bin Laden is not human (normative definition).

Sorry if everyone was way past that. I just had to put that out there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Continuing to MSK. I'll again quote the passage of yours I just talked about (in post #183), and comment from a different angle.

"Art according to Objectivist philosophy" is her cognitive definition.

Ellen,

I am having a bit of difficulty expressing what I see, so please bear with me. This is very important. The problem I am seeing has been the root of many, many disagreements and if it is not dealt with, all it will produce is more disagreements.

"Art according to Objectivist philosophy" is Rand's cognitive definition—under Objectivism. It is also her stated cognitive definition. However, I think I showed how she also had an implicit cognitive definition of art that was the same one that everybody uses. At least she did this with modern art and decorative art. I will look later, but I have no doubt that in her fiction, her roll of villain artists are called "artists" who produced "artworks."

When I say the Objectivist definition of art is normative, I am switching perspectives to look at it from the position of the standard definition, not from the position of Objectivism. From Objectivism, I agree that Rand is merely stating what is (cognitive).

I believe you will agree with me that if there is only "one true art," it cannot be the Objectivist version and the standard version at the same time. I must look at one from the perspective of the other to see which is valid if I am to call either the "one true art" (which is what I believe she was aiming at, just as she was aiming at Objectivism being the "one true philosophy").

One has to be superior to the other in terms of having more human value, since both definitions are "cognitive" from their respective perspectives. Once you make a comparison like that, you have entered the realm of the normative.

In the earlier exchange with you I picked up your phrasing "art according to Objectivist philosophy" in order to communicate, but being more precise I don't actually accept that description of Rand's definition of "art." Let's see if I'll get the wording of her definition right quoting from memory (it's been quoted in at least one of the earlier posts, but I'm not peeking ;-)):

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

Yes?

The first part of that is something which doesn't depend on any familiarity with Objectivism to understand (or not understand; as I've said, I don't find it intelligible as stated, but the unintelligibility I see has nothing to do with Objectivism). In that first part she's saying something that no more depends on a knowledge of her particular philosophy than does her use of "rational animal" as her definition of "man." She's attempting to identify the essential feature of the particular phenomenon she's talking about. The second part, "metaphysical value judgments," does need explanation specifically in terms of her terminology to be understood. Nevertheless, I wouldn't say that what she's trying to present is a specifically Objectivist definition; instead, she's trying for her best shot at a universally accurate definition.

This doesn't mean, however, that I don't agree with you that she ends up wielding her definition with moralizing effect. I also agree that she ends up using it as a criterion of what is and isn't art. That is, having enunciated her definition, she then does things of the following form (she explicitly did this in one of the passages you quoted in an earlier post): If it isn't "a selective re-creation of reality," it isn't art. In doing that, she's turned things backward. Instead of using the proper procedure of continuing to test the definition's adequacy by asking if it encompasses new examples of the category she's talking about, she disqualifies any examples which don't fit her definition.

There's a tricky wicket there in using a meaning of a term to say that some other example to which the term is applied isn't really an example. I was thinking earlier tonight of the word "field," which has useful analogies to Rand on "art." "Field," like "art," has several different meanings: e.g., the physical property called a "field" in physics; the expanse of vegetation called a "field" in talking about landscapes; by extension the "field" of stars on a flag; or for instance one might "field" a fly ball, there using the word as a verb. All of these different usages refer to actual phenomena, each of which would have a somewhat different definition. But now suppose that there's a psychologist, Roger Callahan say, who comes along and calls a method of treatment "Thought Field Therapy," riding on the physics meaning of "field." A physicist would be justified in saying that the word is being improperly used. Now that's the sort of procedure Rand talks as if she's engaged in when she says that the stuff called "modern art" is usurping, fraudulently using, the designation "art." But in order for her to be legitimate in saying this, she first has to have established that she truly has correctly described the category of phenomenon to which she's referring. But she doesn't perform that procedure; she doesn't go through the testing and re-testing, asking whether "selective re-creation of reality" was a good way of describing the phenomenon. Instead she proceeds to use her definition as her litmus test for what qualifies. So in that sense, yes I understand what you mean when you say she ends up using what started as a cognitive definition for a normative function.

Ellen

___

Edited by Ellen Stuttle
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jeff,

It can be very challenging putting on the philosopher’s cap to rationally define art. It may be difficult to come to a conclusion as to what art is—but listen to the common wisdom of the common to guide you as to what it is not. This has always been by yard stick when I got lost in the Ivory tower of floating abstractions and modernist pedagogy. This is, I know, a rather supercilious post…or maybe its not. :wink:

-Victor

Edited by Victor Pross
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pause on the first sentence there, "Rand coined a term once for a concept that tries to obliterate another concept, 'anti-concept.'" The inclusion of "for a concept" is incorrect. She wasn't saying that an "anti-concept" is a type of "concept."

Here exactly is what she did say:

(Rand)

An anti-concept is an unnecessary and rationally unusable term designed to replace and obliterate some legitimate concept [my emphasis]."

The notion "anti-concept" is another example of bad rhetoric on the part of Rand. Let's have a look at some examples of what she calls "anti-concepts": "polarization", "extremism", "duty", and "simplistic". Now why shouldn't these be valid concepts? Rand gives for example the following argument for "polarization":

One of today's fashionable anti-concepts is "polarization". Its meaning is not very clear, except that it is something bad - undesirable, socially destructive, evil - something that would split the country into irreconcilable camps and conflicts. It is used mainly in political issues and serves as a kind of "argument from intimidation": it replaces a discussion of the merits (the truth or falsehood) of a given idea by the menacing accusation that such an idea would "polarize" the country - which is supposed to make one's opponents retreat, protesting that they didn't mean it. Mean - what? [] The use of "polarization" as a pejorative term means: the suppression of fundamental principles. Such is the pattern of the function of anti-concepts.

In effect Rand says: many people think that polarization is a bad thing, that is quite wrong, however, and therefore it is an invalid concept, an "anti-concept"! This is of course a non sequitur, if you look up the term in the dictionaries, you'll find neutral definitions which describe a perfectly valid concept. Rand could have said: polarization is a good thing, we should debate the fundamental principles! But instead she did something similar to the tactic of the PC police: if a term has negative connotations you don't like, you just declare the term invalid and replace it by a new term (which unavoidably in the course of time gets the same negative connotations, as these don't depend on a particular word, but on that what is designated by that word). So Rand declares the perfectly adequate concept "polarization" invalid, as it has for many people negative connotations, and she disagrees with them. The same applies to the other examples given. It is part of her method to use disqualifiying labels like "irrational", "evasion", "evil", etc. as rhetoric devices, not to mention "anti-concepts" like "anti-art" or even "anti-concept" itself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Aren't definitions always used as a litmus test for what things are or are not?

I hope not, since they shouldn't be. ;-) It's the definition that always needs testing for adequacy by reference to the actualities of the world, not the other way around.

Ellen

___

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What?

In the case of new things, say I define a tree as x, then y comes along which is fundamentally different than x, I have to change x to fit y because somebody wants it to be that way instead of accepting it as something different completely?

That doctrine seems kinda backwards and subjective to me. If a tree is a tree, and something is found that is similar yet fundamentally different to a tree, should we find a new definition for tree that encompasses it? Or should we just define that new thing?

Edited by Jeff Kremer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

RCR,
Thank you Soze, for posting Kandinsky's thoughts; they are not what I'd have expected, and provide a certain new insight into the refrigerator magnets currently decorating my mustard colored cooling box.

You're welcome. Is your fridge the color that they call "harvest gold"? I'm pretty sure that's precisely the hue that Kandinsky had in mind when he described a certain sickly shade of yellow as being what most people would associate with the pungency of urine or the staleness of old, faded newspaper. :-)

Actually, yes; I think "harvest gold" describes it well (I rent, so I have no control over these things right now).

:-)

Btw, Victor is right about some of the views that drove the artists and theorists who came up with abstract art. Some of their belief systems were pretty loopy, and if you read more of Kandinsky you'll definitely run into it. But what I like about Kandinsky more than the others is that, despite some of his self-contradictions and spiritual views, he seemed to be very open, honest and almost scientific in experimenting and pondering possible solutions to the puzzle of why color, form and composition moved him so deeply.

I agree that many of the "modern artists" have some pretty terrible views on what their craft is all about, but the brush stroke doesn't apply to all of them all of the time, as I think your Kandinksky quotes demonstrate nicely.

RCR

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And ultimately it is the artwork itself that should be judged, not the theory behind it. Some painters are full of nonsense theories about their art, but yet can produce excellent paintings. Similarly, you may or may not like Wagner's music, but you can't argue that it is bad while he was an fanatical antisemite (just as one of Rand's heroes, Henry Ford, for that matter).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And ultimately it is the artwork itself that should be judged, not the theory behind it. Some painters are full of nonsense theories about their art, but yet can produce excellent paintings. Similarly, you may or may not like Wagner's music, but you can't argue that it is bad while he was an fanatical antisemite (just as one of Rand's heroes, Henry Ford, for that matter).

"Ultimately", yes I agree. However, I would caution that the artist and the art can not be completely seperated, that is the nature of artistic creation (the business man and the business is a different story). It seems very likely to me, for example, that the "artist" who espouses nonsensical artistic theory, is going to end up creating crap art; it isn't a necessary or forgone conclusion, but likely. As has been mentioned already, the "author" in *Atlas Shrugged* is a nice example of this. Is it inconceivable that someone who *thinks* the way she does could create a great novel? No. However, it seems to me very unlikely.

RCR

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So why is there a dislike for Ayn Rand's definition of art? What do you think a better but equally restrictive definition of art would be? Do you think that a definition of art should be restrictive? What are key elements in any definition of art?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Previous stuff on photography:

On photography as a "re-creation of reality":

http://rebirthofreason.com/Forum/GeneralForum/0784.shtml#19

The second image that I linked to in post 19 above is missing and I don't have a replacement -- not a big deal, it was just a close-up of the figures.

http://rebirthofreason.com/Forum/GeneralFo...0784_1.shtml#25

And, obviously, don't miss the discussion on architecture in the above thread.

On the alleged limitations of photography:

http://rebirthofreason.com/Forum/ArticleDi...s/1145.shtml#11

http://rebirthofreason.com/Forum/ArticleDi...s/1145.shtml#15

The link to the photo that I referred to in post 15 above is broken, so here's a new link:

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/73/212794949_c4a5801970_o.jpg

J

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So why is there a dislike for Ayn Rand's definition of art? What do you think a better but equally restrictive definition of art would be? Do you think that a definition of art should be restrictive? What are key elements in any definition of art?

You talkin' to me?

RCR

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