Beethoven and malevolent sense of life

[anthony]

No, not really. My experience of art/artists/authors/playwrights/musicians falls

well outside the romanticist, Randian range - and still, at bottom, I've found them to be egoistical

perfectionists, one and all. They may want to let you explore things on your own, but you'd

better appreciate their works for the reasons they deem important!

A question: who does an artist create for?

[Jonathan]

No, not really. My experience of art/artists/authors/playwrights/musicians falls

well outside the romanticist, Randian range - and still, at bottom, I've found them to be egoistical

perfectionists, one and all. They may want to let you explore things on your own, but you'd

better appreciate their works for the reasons they deem important!

A question: who does an artist create for?

It depends. I think most artists create both for themselves and for others. But then there are Objectivish artists, who create primarily for Ayn Rand.

J

[PDS]

"The Dominique thing"? News flash: Dominique most certainly did ~not~ have a "heroic sense of life." She had a ~malevolent~ sense of life. Rand said so herself.

"It is of course impossible to name the sense of life of fictional characters. You might name the sense of life of your closest friend though I doubt it. You may, after some years, know the sense of life of the person you love, but nobody beyond that."

Guess who?

J

Phil Coates?

Close! Think of a person who is a little less self-important.

J

That doesn't narrow things down much.**

[**I am well aware that it is not fair to speak ill of the flounced.]

[caroljane]

"The Dominique thing"? News flash: Dominique most certainly did ~not~ have a "heroic sense of life." She had a ~malevolent~ sense of life. Rand said so herself.

"It is of course impossible to name the sense of life of fictional characters. You might name the sense of life of your closest friend though I doubt it. You may, after some years, know the sense of life of the person you love, but nobody beyond that."

Guess who?

J

Phil Coates?

Close! Think of a person who is a little less self-important.

J

Donald Trump is into epistemology? Who knew?

[Jonathan]

Dominique's sense of life is another idealist subcategory, which holds that it is so painful to endure the sight of a great person engaging in a futile attempt to achieve values, that one should undercut them and spare them and oneself the agony.

I don't see Dominique as having that view of existence. I see her as having the view that the specific society in which she lived which was filled with people who, at that moment in time, had the power to prevent achievement.

I think that Rand was right in saying that one's sense of life (including those of fictional characters) is too complex and personal for others to know without having a long-term, intimate relationship with them. The fact that a person responds one way or another to real threats or other negative stimuli in her immediate environment and time isn't a very reliable basis on which to attempt to judge her "sense of life" or her "fundamental view of existence." I think you'd also have to see her in an environment in which achievement was not being threatened by powerful external forces -- to see if she maintained the same attitude even when the threat was removed -- in order to begin to get an accurate impression of her "sense of life."

1. Is happiness possible to man?

2. Is man capable of achieving values?

3. Is man good?

4. Are life and values good?

Dominique was an implicit no on 1 and 2 and yes on 3 and 4. So she was a conflicted, pessimistic idealist. Malevolent sense of life in a man-worshipping idealist.

I don't think that's accurate. Dominique's view appeared to be that happiness is not possible to man in the current culture in which Dominique lived, and that man is not allowed, by the current culture in which she lived, to achieve values. Those were her views of the current culture, not of existence per se.

J

[Jonathan]

I also ~acknowledge~ that artists and art consumers differ in the consistency or monolithic nature of their senses of life. Some have "mixed" senses of life, just as some have mixed explicit philosophies. When people make inconsistent, mixed choices in their lives, including what they create or enjoy in art, they reveal the many-faceted parts of their souls.

Do you also acknowledge that two different individuals with very similar, if not the same, senses of life and philosophies can come to very different interpretations and evaluations of an artwork? Do you understand that a person who shares your philosophical ideas, values and attitudes can find different meanings than you do in a work of art while "pointing to" the content of the work just as you do? Do you understand that someone's disagreeing with your interpretation of a work of art or your evaluation of what you take it to mean is not necessarily an indication that they have "mixed" senses of life or "mixed" philosophies? Do you understand that you might be misinterpreting their tastes and choices as being "mixed" because you mistakenly assume that they must be interpreting a work of art as meaning what you take it to mean, when they're not?

Roger, your opinion that you can know something about others' souls based on the art that they create or enjoy -- that they're "revealing" their "mixed" souls -- is silly.

J

[Jonathan]

Donald Trump is into epistemology? Who knew?

Oooh! That's a good guess too, but now you've gone too low on the self-importance scale. The person I quoted had a self-importance level somewhere between that of Phil Coates and Donald Trump.

J

[caroljane]

Donald Trump is into epistemology? Who knew?

Oooh! That's a good guess too, but now you've gone too low on the self-importance scale. The person I quoted had a self-importance level somewhere between that of Phil Coates and Donald Trump.

J

Well, that just leaves Kanye West and Andrew Bernstein and Lindsay Perigo,. so if it isn't them I will have to give up.

[Jonathan]

Well, that just leaves Kanye West and Andrew Bernstein. so if it isn't them I will have to give up.

No, you're forgetting that there are two females in that category as well, Madonna and the person I quoted.

J

[caroljane]

I was going to say Madonna! But I mean, females ARE important and men so delightfully decorative...

yes, I read your quote. But didn't Rand make an exception for herself which is partly what this thread is about?

[Brant Gaede]

The Fountainhead is about the triumph of perfection or the redemption of perfectionism: he had it and she got it and Wynand--the perfect imperfectionist--had to fold his tent

to be more accurate, Roark is about integrity--and so is Dominique--Wynand is about betrayed integirty and Keating is about no integrity--Toohey--he's really about nothing at all

See what I was talking about? Brant's interpretation of the novel subjectively places emphasis on Roark's aesthetic integrity, and places practically none on his serious lapses of ethical integrity.

J

I may have missed some of this discussion--in fact I know I did--but from the mind of the author Roark suffered no lapses of any integrity at all. The worst may have been the "mistake" of doing any of Keating's work for him.

Objectively, of course, he was a bad, bad boy--sometimes. And what about that broad writing phony reviews for the struck Banner? Or remember that time she wanted not a workman but that workman to come back and set the marble? We all know what she really wanted--and so did he, but some of us ignorantly argue it was rape--pul-lease! Like if she had a gun she'd have shot him--to which I'd have to say, before (a victim) or after (Praying Mantis)?

--Brant

man--those guys were party animals--and all around them the world was going to hell, all because of Gail Wynand serving himself up to the likes of Ellsworth Toothey

--Brant

[Jonathan]

I was going to say Madonna! But I mean, females ARE important and men so delightfully decorative...

yes, I read your quote. But didn't Rand make an exception for herself which is partly what this thread is about?

Oh, sure, Rand believed that she could easily divine others' senses of life, including those of fictional characters, based on very little information, but that you could not (just a few paragraphs after the quote I provided, she went on to claim to know Scarlet O'Hara's sense of life). Rand thought that she could know, with just a glance, more about others than they knew themselves.

J

[Jonathan]

I may have missed some of this discussion--in fact I know I did--but from the mind of the author Roark suffered no lapses of any integrity at all.

Oh, but the author's intentions are not relevant. Objectivism says that we are to find the "artist's meaning" based only on the content of the art, without reference to "outside considerations," and the meaning that we find is the "artist's meaning" even if the artist didn't intend it. And not only that, but if the artist claims to have not intended the meaning that we've objectively determined that her art contains, we are to assert that it represents her true sense of life and view of existence, even though she may not have been aware of it (but only if we promote ourselves to Rand's self-appointed level of detecting others' senses of life and views of existence).

J

[Jonathan]

I wrote:

The fact that a person responds one way or another to real threats or other negative stimuli in her immediate environment and time isn't a very reliable basis on which to attempt to judge her "sense of life" or her "fundamental view of existence." I think you'd also have to see her in an environment in which achievement was not being threatened by powerful external forces -- to see if she maintained the same attitude even when the threat was removed -- in order to begin to get an accurate impression of her "sense of life."

Speaking of seeing Dominique in a different environment, notice that her attitude at the end of the novel changes. In other words, in a society in which the threatening forces have been rendered ineffective, she no longer has the view that achievement is not possible. So, we can't conclude that she had a malevolent sense of life, but that she may have had a benevolent sense of life but was judging the reality of the society of the time for what it was.

J

[Brant Gaede]

I may have missed some of this discussion--in fact I know I did--but from the mind of the author Roark suffered no lapses of any integrity at all.

Oh, but the author's intentions are not relevant. Objectivism says that we are to find the "artist's meaning" based only on the content of the art, without reference to "outside considerations," and the meaning that we find is the "artist's meaning" even if the artist didn't intend it. And not only that, but if the artist claims to have not intended the meaning that we've objectively determined that her art contains, we are to assert that it represents her true sense of life and view of existence, even though she may not have been aware of it (but only if we promote ourselves to Rand's self-appointed level of detecting others' senses of life and views of existence).

J

Gee, even your punctuation is sarcastic.

--Brant

[caroljane]

It is a tribute to the potency of Rand's fiction that male readers are polarised as Dagnyites and Dominiquans. Who'd you rather?

(There's a minority of Lillianists of whom I suspect Dennis H. to be a prominent member).

[Jonathan]

Gee, even your punctuation is sarcastic.

I wonder what my sarcastic punctuation says about my sense of life and fundamental view of existence.

Btw, am I a Gloomy Gus who is infected with a case of the Malevolent Universe Premise if I believe that no committee, public or private, will hire me? And then rather than going about my life productively dealing with those who will hire me, I commit the fraud of passing off my work as someone else's, in order to subvert property owners' right to not hire me, and I later initiate force by destroying their property over an aesthetic disagreement, what kind of Universe Premise would that represent?

How about if I've been a prisoner in a concentration camp for, say, five to ten years? Do I have a Malevolent Universe Premise if I recongnize the reality that my captors not only have the power to prevent me from being all that I can be, but are brutally exercising that power daily? If I think that happiness is not possible in the camp, am I in need of some serious introspection and sense of life correction?

J

[Jonathan]

It is a tribute to the potency of Rand's fiction that male readers are polarised as Dagnyites and Dominiquans. Who'd you rather?

(There's a minority of Lillianists of whom I suspect Dennis H. to be a prominent member).

Is Rand to blame, or is Kant? I've read both, and remember that Kant is responsible for most, if not all, of the evil in the world, so it's probably more likely that my being afflicted with the Sarcastic Universe Premise came from him.

J

[caroljane]

Gee, even your punctuation is sarcastic.

I wonder what my sarcastic punctuation says about my sense of life and fundamental view of existence.

Btw, am I a Gloomy Gus who is infected with a case of the Malevolent Universe Premise if I believe that no committee, public or private, will hire me?

J

Yes, but take heart. A private firm in Michigan has already indicated that it would hire you. Do an information interview, politely removing your bonnet at the door. You will see that goalie gloves are already part of the mandatory dress code; they are invaluable at dealing with opposing counsel.

Your qualifications and their needs might be a perfect fit. Win-win.

[caroljane]

It is a tribute to the potency of Rand's fiction that male readers are polarised as Dagnyites and Dominiquans. Who'd you rather?

(There's a minority of Lillianists of whom I suspect Dennis H. to be a prominent member).

Is Rand to blame, or is Kant? I've read both, and remember that Kant is responsible for most, if not all, of the evil in the world, so it's probably more likely that my being afflicted with the Sarcastic Universe Premise came from him.

J

This is your idea of a pickup line, even for fictional characters? Maybe Cheryl would fall for it but I am not even sure about that.

[Jonathan]

I don't think that one uses "pickup lines" with Dagny or Dominique. With Dagny, one stands heroically atop a mountain against a backdrop of golden rays of sunlight, while a few strands of one's blond hair touch one's sharply chiseled cheek bones. And you just slap Dominique.

J

[caroljane]

Another fictional architect speaks:

"He was dreaming. All men dream. His dream was of building beautiful homes for love to dwell in ....houses to keep people from the biting wind and the fierce sun and the loneliness of dark night...to create beauty that would last for generations and be shelter and friendliness and protection as well as beauty."

-LM Montgomery

[PDS]

Gee, even your punctuation is sarcastic.

I wonder what my sarcastic punctuation says about my sense of life and fundamental view of existence.

Btw, am I a Gloomy Gus who is infected with a case of the Malevolent Universe Premise if I believe that no committee, public or private, will hire me? And then rather than going about my life productively dealing with those who will hire me, I commit the fraud of passing off my work as someone else's, in order to subvert property owners' right to not hire me, and I later initiate force by destroying their property over an aesthetic disagreement, what kind of Universe Premise would that represent?

How about if I've been a prisoner in a concentration camp for, say, five to ten years? Do I have a Malevolent Universe Premise if I recongnize the reality that my captors not only have the power to prevent me from being all that I can be, but are brutally exercising that power daily? If I think that happiness is not possible in the camp, am I in need of some serious introspection and sense of life correction?

J

When you see a loose thread hanging on a seemingly valuable sweater, I bet you like to pull on it see what happens, don't you?

In seriousness, the core of your argument--which I don't dispute--is that Objectivists have largely bought the "stylized package" they have been sold by Rand in the area of aesthetics. Put another way, Rand's subjective preferences in art have been wrapped up with a post hoc theoretical justification (e.g., with Benevolent Universe premise), but are really no more than that. This is what makes so many of the statements made about art by Objectivists to be either comical, incomprehensible, or non-sensical. The perfect example of this is your argument on this thread as relates to abstract paintings vs. representational paintings.

Going back to my sweater metaphor, here seems to be the big question: do you think the "stylized package" Objectivists have bought extends beyond Rand's theory of aesthetics?

[anthony]

PDS,

Good observation and query. Aesthetics is the weakest link in the O'ist chain, but even there,

nobody seems to argue that it has no merit, at all. There are some strong arguments Rand made - otherwise we'd see her critics give up contesting them long ago, as 'strawman arguments,' not worth their time.

But no, the debates still rage - I think because they realize that to do so, would be a mutual-exclusivist fallacy of the main value of 'TRM'. Personally, I think she over-reached in part, 'post-hoc-ing' her preferences, as you say. But I'll continue to take out the good, and leave the weak behind.

[Jonathan]

Going back to my sweater metaphor, here seems to be the big question: do you think the "stylized package" Objectivists have bought extends beyond Rand's theory of aesthetics?

Yes, I think that the "stylized package" extends into the other branches of Objectivism, but that its effects aren't as severe or as damaging there as in the Esthetics. I think that Objectivism begins with Rand's aesthetic views and tastes, and sometimes errs because of it. I'd say that when Objectivism doesn't have an answer, or really can't make its case with evidence and logic, it usually resorts to bluffing and blustering largely from aesthetic grounds, or by aesthetic means.

J