Peikoff

[Backlighting]

I just went to Peikoff's site to listen to his latest podcast.

After just 2 minutes I couldn't take it any longer and hit the stop button.

He sounds like he's severely constipated. Waterboarding would be more merciful than listening to him.

Anybody else feel that way?

[Backlighting]

I just went to Peikoff's site to listen to his latest podcast.

After just 2 minutes I couldn't take it any longer and hit the stop button.

He sounds like he's severely constipated. Waterboarding would be more merciful than listening to him.

Anybody else feel that way?

Not sure why my post appears 2x-Apparently did something wrong-my apologies.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

When I get some time, I will listen. I do hope any vocal anomaly that might be present is not caused by ill health.

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

When I get some time, I will listen. I do hope any vocal anomaly that might be present is not caused by ill health.

Michael

Something is really wrong there. I listened until the second question and didn't want to hear any more. I hope he simply had too much to drink. Peikoff at his best is bad enough.

--Brant

[BaalChatzaf]

When I get some time, I will listen. I do hope any vocal anomaly that might be present is not caused by ill health.

Michael

Something is really wrong there. I listened until the second question and didn't want to hear any more. I hope he simply had too much to drink. Peikoff at his best is bad enough.

--Brant

Dead on right. L.P. has a second rate intellect. On matters of science he is a blatant invincible ignoramus. On matters of politics and ethics anything said is opinion. One can agree or disagree since all ethical and political judgment is convention. He is also not a very good historian. Not of ideas. Not of events.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Chris Grieb]

Baal; Could you tell what you really think about Lenny.

[Jonathan]

Back in early July, I sent Peikoff the following question for his podcast. I've been visiting his site occasionally, and I may have missed it, but so far he doesn't appear to have answered it.

Dr. Peikoff,

Would you clarify the Objectivist positions on music and architecture? There appear to be contradictions. Ayn Rand said that a work of art must re-create reality, that it must be representational and intelligible, and that it cannot serve a utilitarian purpose, yet she also believed that music and architecture were art despite saying that music cannot tell a story, cannot deal with concretes, and cannot convey a specific existential phenomenon, and despite saying that architecture serves a utilitarian purpose and does not re-create reality.

J

[kiaer.ts]

Back in early July, I sent Peikoff the following question for his podcast. I've been visiting his site occasionally, and I may have missed it, but so far he doesn't appear to have answered it.

Dr. Peikoff,

Would you clarify the Objectivist positions on music and architecture? There appear to be contradictions. Ayn Rand said that a work of art must re-create reality, that it must be representational and intelligible, and that it cannot serve a utilitarian purpose, yet she also believed that music and architecture were art despite saying that music cannot tell a story, cannot deal with concretes, and cannot convey a specific existential phenomenon, and despite saying that architecture serves a utilitarian purpose and does not re-create reality.

J

Rand states that in music the recreated concrete is the emotion that is directly evoked, not the sound. (Rand also admits that architecture is unique in that it does not recreate reality and that it does serve a utilitarian purpose.)

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Ted,

It's here at several places, but also elsewhere on the Internet. Here is one example that is pretty informative. (Read the following two posts, also.)

As for the rest, Google the following in a single search, exactly as I wrote it:

peikoff "intellectual heir" bidinotto

You will find plenty of references.

Michael

[Jonathan]

Rand states that in music the recreated concrete is the emotion that is directly evoked, not the sound.

The point is that Rand is inconsistent. The reasons she uses to reject abstract visual art as a legitimate art form, if applied consistently, would also be grounds for rejecting music. If abstract arrangements of sounds can be said to "re-create emotions," then the same is true of abstract arrangements of shapes and colors. Millions of people experience emotions that are "directly evoked" by abstract art.

(Rand also admits that architecture is unique in that it does not recreate reality and that it does serve a utilitarian purpose.)

Yes, she admits that architecture does not fit her definition or requirements of art. The problem is that she categorizes it as art even though it contradicts her statements on what art is. And she identifies no standards by which she determines that other artistically expressive utilitarian objects do not qualify as art. She seems to have wanted to accept certain things as art and to reject certain other things regardless of whether or not they fit her definitions and requirements.

J

[Roger Bissell]

Rand states that in music the recreated concrete is the emotion that is directly evoked, not the sound.

The point is that Rand is inconsistent. The reasons she uses to reject abstract visual art as a legitimate art form, if applied consistently, would also be grounds for rejecting music. If abstract arrangements of sounds can be said to "re-create emotions," then the same is true of abstract arrangements of shapes and colors. Millions of people experience emotions that are "directly evoked" by abstract art.

(Rand also admits that architecture is unique in that it does not recreate reality and that it does serve a utilitarian purpose.)

Yes, she admits that architecture does not fit her definition or requirements of art. The problem is that she categorizes it as art even though it contradicts her statements on what art is. And she identifies no standards by which she determines that other artistically expressive utilitarian objects do not qualify as art. She seems to have wanted to accept certain things as art and to reject certain other things regardless of whether or not they fit her definitions and requirements.

J

Jonathan, you are absolutely right that Rand contradicted herself about architecture. And the contradiction is blatant. The tap dancing engaged in to try to explain this away is itself a rather entertaining artform.

I have argued in my "Art as Microcosm" essay that Rand's definition is fine, it is her argument that architecture does not re-create reality that is wrong.

As for music, it does not re-create emotion any more or any less than does literature. The old canard "music is the language of the emotions" has been around for far too long, and Rand's buying into it was an act of default, not of wisdom and insight.

Some music, like some literature, gives us the experience of things that seem to be engaged in goal-directed action. In music, it is melodic themes, which function (very generally) like characters in literature. The Blumenthals made this point in their 1974 lectures on music, which Rand attended.

She never went beyond her earlier "Art in Cognition", however. She let stand her vague comments on music and her contradictiory remark on architecture. Sad way to go out as an aesthetician, one whose writings held so much promise.

I'm still working on aesthetics, both the overall theory (revamping Rand's model) and its application to music. But honestly, it seems more like arguing about privatizing lighthouses or roads, when the country is galloping toward massive socialization and destruction of the economy. Maybe it's time to find a secure place in the woods somewhere...

reb

[kiaer.ts]

If you want to say that architecture is art I have no problem with it. But then you\'d have to include fashion and all sorts of design. Again, I have no problem with this. I'd suggest calling art that creation or aspect of a creation which provides pleasure through contemplation. There are clothing, shelter and food, which are utilitarian, and there are couture, architecture and cuisine which have artful forms. Those are utilitarian arts, while music, painting and drama are fine arts, with no essential utilitarian purpose.

[BaalChatzaf]

If you want to say that architecture is art I have no problem with it. But then you\'d have to include fashion and all sorts of design. Again, I have no problem with this. I'd suggest calling art that creation or aspect of a creation which provides pleasure through contemplation. There are clothing, shelter and food, which are utilitarian, and there are couture, architecture and cuisine which have artful forms. Those are utilitarian arts, while music, painting and drama are fine arts, with no essential utilitarian purpose.

What is that red glop on the plate beneath the slice of pie?

Ba'al Chatzaf

[kiaer.ts]

If you want to say that architecture is art I have no problem with it. But then you\'d have to include fashion and all sorts of design. Again, I have no problem with this. I'd suggest calling art that creation or aspect of a creation which provides pleasure through contemplation. There are clothing, shelter and food, which are utilitarian, and there are couture, architecture and cuisine which have artful forms. Those are utilitarian arts, while music, painting and drama are fine arts, with no essential utilitarian purpose.

What is that red glop on the plate beneath the slice of pie?

Ba'al Chatzaf

Those were simply the first three images I found with the search term haute cuisine, haute couture and experimental architecture. they are not meant as my favorites. And it looks like some sort of shepherd's pie on meat gravy.

[Greybird]

The reason, above all, that Rand classified architecture as an "art" — up-converted it, to borrow from current video products — should be blindingly obvious. It has, in my hardcover copy, 727 pages, and begins and ends with the words "Howard Roark."

I'd say that this rationalization, in light of the quality and brilliance of the work involved, ought to receive a pass. Still, it ought to be placed on the outer fringes of whatever "system" was in her head or came from her pen, along with her dictum about how a woman should not be elected President. Taking it as being indicative of the core of her esthetic theories would be a mistake.

"Love is exception-making," she had her brilliant creation of Gail Wynand say. To me, that applies here. Both in how she exalted what she wrote about at such length, and in what the result deserves.

[Jonathan]

Jonathan, you are absolutely right that Rand contradicted herself about architecture. And the contradiction is blatant. The tap dancing engaged in to try to explain this away is itself a rather entertaining artform.

Yeah, the tap dancing can be entertaining, but I was hoping that Peikoff would answer my question, and do so with something other than tap dancing. I was hoping that he'd show enough intellectual independence to publicly recognize Rand's obvious aesthetic contradictions and express his own views on how he might go about resolving them. Like other Objectivists, he's been quite passionate and vocal about the importance of not allowing contradictions to exist. I see my question to him as a perfect opportunity for him to deal with Rand's contradictions head-on and to show his audience how it's done. Perhaps I'll still get a response from him.

J

[kiaer.ts]

Yeah, the tap dancing can be entertaining, but I was hoping that Peikoff would answer my question, and do so with something other than tap dancing. I was hoping that he'd show enough intellectual independence to publicly recognize Rand's obvious aesthetic contradictions and express his own views on how he might go about resolving them. Like other Objectivists, he's been quite passionate and vocal about the importance of not allowing contradictions to exist. I see my question to him as a perfect opportunity for him to deal with Rand's contradictions head-on and to show his audience how it's done. Perhaps I'll still get a response from him.

Are you interested in a valid answer, or just in Peikoff's answer? The proper response is to accept that architecture, fashion, cuisine, and other areas are artistic, and can be treated by philosophical aesthetics, but to restrict the definition of "fine art" to those art forms with no essentially utilitarian aspect. The reality stays the same. We simply improve our conceptual tools to better address the reality we want to examine.

[Jonathan]

The reason, above all, that Rand classified architecture as an "art" — up-converted it, to borrow from current video products — should be blindingly obvious. It has, in my hardcover copy, 727 pages, and begins and ends with the words "Howard Roark."

I'd say that this rationalization, in light of the quality and brilliance of the work involved, ought to receive a pass. Still, it ought to be placed on the outer fringes of whatever "system" was in her head or came from her pen, along with her dictum about how a woman should not be elected President. Taking it as being indicative of the core of her esthetic theories would be a mistake.

"Love is exception-making," she had her brilliant creation of Gail Wynand say. To me, that applies here. Both in how she exalted what she wrote about at such length, and in what the result deserves.

And what about music, an art form which is non-representational and unintelligible by the standards Rand used to reject abstract painting and sculpture?

Anyway, I think that great architecture itself deserves an exalted status, and not just Rand's beautiful words about it. Architecture (and music) strongly affected Rand, as it does most other people, despite not fitting within the literary-based aesthetic box into which she tried to force all art forms. Clearly she was very moved by architecture as an art form prior to concocting her aesthetic rules which inadvertently denied its art status.

So, I think the solution is not to jettison architecture, music, dance, couture, abstract art or any other art form that doesn't comply with Rand's aesthetic statements, but to reevaluate which of her views are valid in the first place. Personally, I think that her thoughts on the necessity of direct mimetic representation, intelligibility and communication in art were established not as the result of an open philosophical inquiry into the nature of all art forms, but for the purpose of rejecting the art forms that she hated or otherwise arbitrarily decided that she didn't want to accept as art, while apparently neglecting to recognize how her rules would also apply to some of the art forms she loved and deemed to be acceptable.

J

[Jonathan]

Are you interested in a valid answer, or just in Peikoff's answer?

I'm interested in whether or not Peikoff is capable of giving a valid answer.

The proper response is to accept that architecture, fashion, cuisine, and other areas are artistic, and can be treated by philosophical aesthetics, but to restrict the definition of "fine art" to those art forms with no essentially utilitarian aspect. The reality stays the same. We simply improve our conceptual tools to better address the reality we want to examine.

But declaring that utilitarian objects can't be "fine art" ignores the fact that the utilitarian aspects of a work of art don't necessarily impede the artistic function or expression of the work. You haven't demonstrated that an object can't be "fine art" and utilitarian at the same time -- you haven't demonstrated that there is necessarily a conflict between art and utility.

J

Edited November 7, 2008 by Jonathan

[kiaer.ts]

Are you interested in a valid answer, or just in Peikoff's answer?

I'm interested in whether or not Peikoff is capable of giving a valid answer.

The proper response is to accept that architecture, fashion, cuisine, and other areas are artistic, and can be treated by philosophical aesthetics, but to restrict the definition of "fine art" to those art forms with no essentially utilitarian aspect. The reality stays the same. We simply improve our conceptual tools to better address the reality we want to examine.

But declaring that utilitarian objects can't be "fine art" ignores the fact that the utilitarian aspects of a work of art don't necessarily impede the artistic function or expression of the work. You haven't demonstrated that an object can't be "fine art" and utilitarian at the same time -- you haven't demonstrated that there is necessarily a conflict between art and utility.

J

I kind of suspected you were testing Peikoff. And while I don't count myself of a fan of his, I think he would be right to refuse to rise to the bait, unless he had something profound to say - in which case he might want to say it elsewhere.

As for art, I was thinking more about it on the bus, and here is a better explanation of what I mean.

We have a definition for a concept art that seems good, but one of the species of the concept, architecture, violates the definition. The proper epistemological move is to further differentiate the concept of art into a broader concept which includes music and literature as well as fashion and architecture, and also into two or more narrower concepts, erecting one concept to include architecture and other borderline cases and choosing a new more specific name for the other more restricted group which fits the previous definition but which excludes the anomolous exemplars.

So, before, we had the concept art, which was described as an end in itself, defined as a selective recreation according to metaphysical value judgments, and which was meant to include Music, Poetry, Painting, Literature, Drama and Archtecture.

Now, we retain the word Art, broadened to include "stylized creations meant to evoke appreciation," (a wider definition) under which we now subsume Music, Poetry, Painting, Literature, Drama and Archtecture as well as Cuisine, Couture, Illustration, Designer Goods such as fancy cars, vases, etc. And we subsume two more narrow concepts under this more widely defined concept named art, namely Fine Art which are those arts which are an end for themselves and Utilitarian Art which would include architecture and the other "crafts."

All that we are doing is realizing that the term art really had two valid senses, and we are differentiating those senses under two different names and definitions by stipulation, with one of the old senses subsuming the other.

Hence art and fine art would no longer be synonymous. And the two narrower concepts could grade into each other. One can make a vase which will likely never hold flowers. It would be a perhaps a borderline case between utilitarian art and the fine art of sculpture. This is not a problem for Objectivism, because concepts are tools, not straightjackets meant to restrict reality.

[Brant Gaede]

I believe in art. I believe in music. I believe in architecture. I believe in arty. Etc. I don't believe in tying my brain in a knot by arguing art and art not.

--Brant

[kiaer.ts]

I believe in art. I believe in music. I believe in architecture. I believe in arty. Etc. I don't believe in tying my brain in a knot by arguing art and art not.

Well, you're not getting paid to think. But human progress depends on the induction of new conceptual distinctions. Before Newton, velocity, acceleration and force were not properly differentiated. There's philosophy, wheteher natural or formal, and there's gossip, and there's precious little in between. But gossip too serves a purpose.

[BaalChatzaf]

Hence art and fine art would no longer be synonymous. And the two narrower concepts could grade into each other. One can make a vase which will likely never hold flowers. It would be a perhaps a borderline case between utilitarian art and the fine art of sculpture. This is not a problem for Objectivism, because concepts are tools, not straightjackets meant to restrict reality.

How would you classify the work of M.C. Escher?

Ba'al Chatzaf

[kiaer.ts]

How would you classify the work of M.C. Escher?

Fine art. It falls well within painting/drawing without utilitarian purpose. Why do you ask? If my use of illustration as utilitarian was confusing, I meant only that certain drawings that are done for a utilitarian purpose (medical and natural history illustrations, or the drawings of buildings such as were done for The Fountainhead) have artistic quality/merit. Also, one could count certain photographs as fine art, utilitarian, or even, perhaps, erect a third species of art for them.

Escher is in his own corner of figurative fine art because his work is geometrical, fractal, or self-referential. But it is well within "figuration," if that is the proper term for drawing and painting.

[Brant Gaede]

I believe in art. I believe in music. I believe in architecture. I believe in arty. Etc. I don't believe in tying my brain in a knot by arguing art and art not.

Well, you're not getting paid to think. But human progress depends on the induction of new conceptual distinctions. Before Newton, velocity, acceleration and force were not properly differentiated. There's philosophy, wheteher natural or formal, and there's gossip, and there's precious little in between. But gossip too serves a purpose.

You expect "human progrees" through esthetic theory?

--Brant