Art, a Sense of Life and Selectivity:


Victor Pross

Recommended Posts

Art, a sense of Life and selectivity: the dance between concretes and abstractions

By Victor Pross

NOTE FROM MSK: This article was deleted for a while when the plagiarism issue exploded, but was restored on August 14, 2007 with identification of plagiarisms for the record.

We are all aware of Ayn Rand’s citing a painting of a beautiful women and the cold sore in her quest to illustrate a point. She argued that a painting of this cold sore would evoke a more intense response than would the reality of a woman with a cold sore. “That minor affliction”, she argued, “acquires a monstrous metaphysical significance” by virtue of being included in a painting.*(1.1) The principle of her argument is that particular details do assume greater significance in a work of art than they would possess in reality, because the viewer is aware that their presence is intentional, and that the artist must have considered them important,*(1.2) [“Art is selectivity”] and so Rand’s summery of this hypothetical painting is therefore negative.

It declares that a women’s beauty and her efforts to achieve glamour (the beautiful evening gown) are a futile illusion undercut by a seed of corruption which can mar them at any moment and that this is reality’s mockery of human beings.**(2.1)

In this short article, I would like to explore the Objectivist concept of a “sense of life” and “selectivity” and their ties to abstraction and concretes. While I am apprehensive of the conception of a given viewer “knowing” what an artist’s sense of life may be—corrupted or purified. But I am a strong advocate of the importance of “selectivity” (the over all idea of it) in art and the bridging of abstract themes to concretes. This includes literature as in the visual arts.

In the effort to explore this, let me cite an actual painting of mine and compare Rand’s Beautiful women. My painting is called Family Values. Let’s examine them side by side. From there, I would like to explore a question.

Here we go:

[1] FAMILY VALUES: suppose you saw two paintings side-by side. The first painting was a study of the macabre pathology of a generic family: father, mother, son and daughter stand frozen as if posing for a photograph. The parents are all smiles, but their dysfunction is nevertheless visible--as they are manifested physically. The mother is a steely eyed iron maiden, whose plastic smile looks as though it took considerable effort to achieve. The father is a yellow faced block head, literally. His smile is more genuine, but inane. The children look insolent and sullen and they, too, are grotesque caricatures of their emotional damage. At first glance, one would tend to conclude that some hideous accident had befallen the family, their faces discolored and deformed. But if one examines the portrait more closely, it becomes clear that the only real deformity present is not physical—it is psychological and philosophical. The abstract mental states were communicated visually as thus:

*the mother is wearing a crucifix.

*The father is a yellow block-head.

*The son is wearing an Earth First t-shirt and the daughter adorns various Nazi symbols.

[2]THE BEAUTIFUL WOMEN: Ayn Rand’s hypothetical example visualizes a beautiful women and the cold sore. She argued that a painting of beautiful women in a gorgeous gown--with a cold sore--would evoke a more intense response than would the reality of a woman with an actual cold sore. To repeat Rand’s argument: That minor affliction “acquires a monstrous metaphysical significance by virtue of being included in a painting. It declares that a women’s beauty and her efforts to achieve glamour (the beautiful evening gown) are a futile illusion undercut by a seed of corruption which can mar them at any moment and that this is reality’s mockery of man.*(1.3)

Here’s the question: is the painting of the beautiful women interchangeable with the Family Values painting?

I could very well agree with Rand’s summation of the painting of the beautiful women or disagree. It’s doesn’t matter, because it is beside the point. But do I agree with a viewer’s summation of my Family Values painting, which was:

“If I saw that painting, I would conclude that the artist's choice of subject was made in order to expose, pillory, and mock those irrational philosophies. If well-executed, the painting sounds like an insightful commentary on, and indictment of, those evil philosophies espoused by so many people.”

Why wouldn't we say that of the Beautiful Women painting?

The Beautiful women painting is offered up as an example of that which “attacks beauty and values” whereas the Family Values painting is an example of my attacking ugliness, corruption and modern philosophical erosion, and I do so in a rather visceral manner, visually speaking. The beautiful Women painting flaunts ugliness as a given. Family values mocks ugliness. These are two different things.

How do we know this? By our emotional responses? No. It doesn’t matter if our responses were exactly the same in viewing the two paintings—which could very well be revulsion. ["What an ugly family!" and "A beautiful women--with a cold sore! Argh!"]. In fact, I’m doubtful that a painting can be evaluated as “good” or “bad” on the bases of a sense of life response—an overall concept that I’m leery of in the Objectivist esthetics.

Ayn Rand draws a crucial distinction between ESTHITIC RESPONSE and what she terms ESTEHTIC JUDGEMENT. The former is a spontaneous emotional reaction—the latter is a function of intellectual appraisal. “Whether one shares or does not share an artist’s fundamental view of life,” Rand explains, “is irrelevant to an esthetic appraisal of his work qua art.”*(1.4)

The implicit meaning of any work of art is “This is life as I [the artist] see it”—and the meaning of one’s response to a work of art is “This is (or is not) life as I see it.” What an art work “expresses,” according to Rand, is not a emotion per see, but rather a concretized view of life---which has emotional significance for the artist, and has the power to elicit an emotional response in others.*(1.5)

**

PERSONAL CONCLUSION:

I believe many Objectivists make a crucial mistake in regard to the concept of a “sense of life” and its application to the arts. They incorrectly take their own emotions as “tool of cognition” and attribute their own negative response to a work of art and summarize that the artist must have an ugly sense of life---and sometimes this negative critique borders on making moral judgments. [This is common fair among the 'Orthodox Objectivists'].

For example, it may very well be good to criticize the Beautiful women painting if the artist created it with the express purpose to attack the good, to make a mockery of beauty-But just because this artist created the ‘Family Values’ painting—a painted that is, shall we say, “ugly” does NOT put me on par with the first artist! Family Values is attacking the ugly and the corrupt. The abstract meanings of the two paintings are exact opposites.

In keeping with what I derive from the Objectivist esthetics, I have sought to have every element of my painting enhance and relate to that work's central theme.***(3) In order to “objectivfy my values” (so to speak) I translated them into CONCRETES. That is, into forms appropriate to the nature of reality as perceived by the mind.*(1.6) Human cognition, Rand emphasizes, requires “dancing back and forth” between the abstract and the concrete. One must always ground one’s abstractions in real concretes, and one must always try to understand the abstract principles or concepts implicit in all concretes.*(1.7)

Consider again: the Beautiful women painting.

THE THEME: Our attempts at glamour are futile and laughable because they can be marred and undercut by something simple as a cold sore---or whatever other maladies this shit life has to offer. It’s the cold sore that would overshadow the beauty of this women and her stunning gown.

Let’s consider now the concretes used to communicate this theme.

THE CONCRETES: A beautiful women. A stunning gown. A cold sore. [and that’s all it took].

Now let’s consider the theme of Family Values: The philosophical erosion is a serious matter and is handed down from generation to generation thanks to evil and cowardice.

THE CONCRETES: Well, it’s a family where you have “generations.” The mother is, as I said, “a steely eyed iron maiden, whose plastic smile looks as though it took considerable effort to achieve” conveying that the cold “cerebral” philosophy has been imparted to the children and it has taken root. And the stupidity and cowardice is conveyed by the fact that the father’s face is yellow and the shape of his head is a block. The children: the boy attires an Earth First t-shirt, the daughter is draped in Nazi garb.

Conclusion: The “beautiful women” painting endorses corruption and ugliness as “the norm.” The Family Values painting—with a touch of macabre satire--damns human depravity in a very visceral manner. It is a ribald attack upon that which is bawdy and sordid in life--and this implicitly indorses its opposite. After all, that’s the purpose that satire can serve.

NOTE FROM ADMINISTRATOR:

Plagiary first identified here.

* Plagiarized from What Art Is: The Esthetic Theory of Ayn Rand by Louis Torres and Michelle Marder Kamhi. The original passages read as follows:

(1.1) (p. 49)

Rand now returns to the question of
why
the painting of a beautiful woman with a cold sore would evoke a more intense response than would such a woman in reality. That minor affliction, she argues, engaging once again in exaggeration, “acquires a monstrous metaphysical significance by virtue of being included in a painting."

(1.2) (p. 49)

Rand's rhetoric aside, the principle of her argument is no doubt valid: particular details do assume greater significance in a work of art than they would possess in reality, because the viewer is at least subliminally aware that their presence is
intentional
, and that the artist must therefore have considered them important.

(1.3) (p. 49)

Rand now returns to the question of
why
the painting of a beautiful woman with a cold sore would evoke a more intense response than would such a woman in reality. That minor affliction, she argues, engaging once again in exaggeration, “acquires a monstrous metaphysical significance by virtue of being included in a painting. It declares that a woman's beauty and her efforts to achieve glamor (the beautiful evening gown) are a futile illusion undercut by a seed of corruption which can mar and destroy them at any moment—that this is reality's mockery of man..."

(1.4) (pp. 57-58)

A work of art cannot be properly evaluated as "good" or "bad" on the basis of a sense-of-life response. She thus draws a crucial distinction between
esthetic response
(though she does not use that term) and what she terms
esthetic judgment
. The former is a spontaneous, emotional reaction to the work as a whole. The latter is a function of intellectual appraisal; it is a dispassionate evaluation of the success with which the artist projects his intended theme. Whether one shares or does not share an artist's fundamental view of life, Rand explains, " is irrelevant to an
esthetic
appraisal of his work
qua
art."

(1.5) (p. 44)

The implicit meaning of any work of art is "
This
is life as
I
[the artist] see it"; and the meaning of one’s response to a work is "
This
is (or is
not
) life as I see it." What an art work "expresses," according to Rand, is not a emotion
per se
, but rather a concretized view of life, which has emotional significance for the artist, and has the power to elicit an emotional response in others.

(1.6) (p. 46)

In order to objectify his values, the artist must translate them into concretes, into forms appropriate to the nature of reality as perceived by the mind.

(1.7) (p. 47)

Human cognition, she emphasizes, requires "dancing back and forth" between the abstract and the concrete. One must always ground one's abstractions in real concretes, and one must always try to understand the abstract principles or concepts implicit in all concretes.

** Plagiarized from "Art and Sense of Life" in The Romantic Manifesto by Ayn Rand. The original passage reads as follows:

(2.1) (TRM, p. 37)

It declares that a woman's beauty and her efforts to achieve glamor (the beautiful evening gown) are a futile illusion undercut by a seed of corruption which can mar and destroy them at any moment—that this is reality's mockery of man...

*** Plagiarized from Summary of Peikoff's Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand by Luke Setzer. The original passage reads as follows:

(3)

Integration:
every element of the artist's product must in some way enhance and relate to that work's central theme.

OL extends its deepest apologies to Louis Torres and Michelle Marder Kamhi, Leonard Peikoff the heir of Ayn Rand and Luke Setzer.

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

  • 4 months later...

Victor Pross, Art, a sense of Life and selectivity

"Ayn Rand draws a crucial distinction between ESTHITIC RESPONSE and what she terms ESTEHTIC JUDGEMENT. The former is a spontaneous emotional reaction—the latter is a function of intellectual appraisal. “Whether one shares or does not share an artist’s fundamental view of life,” Rand explains, "is irrelevant to an esthetic appraisal of his work qua art.""

Louis Torres and Michelle Marder Kamhi, What Art Is: The Esthetic Theory of Ayn Rand (pgs 57-58)

"She thus draws a crucial distinction between estetic response (though she does not use that term) and what she terms esthetic judgment. The former is a spontaneous, emotional reaction to the work as a whole. The latter is a function of intellectual appraisal; it is a dispassionate evaluation of the success with which the artist projects his intended theme. Whether one shares or does not share an artist's fundamental view of life, Rand explains, " is irrelevant to an esthetic appraisal of his work qua art.""

----------------

There's probably more in this article, but this one was easy to locate.

--Dan Edge

(Note from MSK: Thank you, Dan. Duly edited. A small correction to add the coauthor Michelle Marder Kamhi has been made since this post is being used as a reference link.)

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

Dan,

Thank you for uncovering this plagiarism.

Practically the same paragraph was used in another article by Pross on OL: Art and a Sense of Life dated June 30, 2006.

NOTE: Actually What Art Is: The Esthetic Theory of Ayn Rand has two authors, Louis Torres and Michelle Marder Kamhi. I have corrected your post to include Kamhi since it is a reference link.

Michael

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