Michelle Marder Kamhi's "Who Says That's Art?"

[Ellen Stuttle]

Neither Rand nor Kamhi makes communication a requirement of art.

Do you mean "communication," or are you still arbitrarily injecting "discursive communication" into the discussion?

In that statement I meant "communication" inclusively.

Both Rand and Kamhi DO make communication a requirement.

They make intelligibility a requirement. Intelligibility doesn't equal communication.

Ellen

[anthony]

Neither Rand nor Kamhi makes communication a requirement of art.

Do you mean "communication," or are you still arbitrarily injecting "discursive communication" into the discussion?

In that statement I meant "communication" inclusively.

Both Rand and Kamhi DO make communication a requirement.

They make intelligibility a requirement. Intelligibility doesn't equal communication.

Ellen

Yup, it's an important distinction, intelligibility and communication. Mind meets mind, as I see it - but depending on the skill and mastery of the artist, prior to his vision of life -what is important to him - and dependent on the 'receptivity', awareness and mindset of the viewer, the latter might miss the point completely--and then perhaps find it unpalatable/boring, if he does get it.. At its best, the viewer will both understand and approve, although it is never a foregone conclusion. I repeat, I believe it's a selfish pursuit primarily, to create art. If "communication" with the unknown "viewer" takes precedence we could see didactic ( or unoriginal, derivative) art. Or art designed to 'shock' our sensibilities (being different only for the sake of being different) as a lot of modernism attempts.

If scientific testing and 'universal' consensus count for much(I don't think so) the experiment that would be revealing, would be to take maybe a dozen abstract-art aficionados, and in a controlled environment present each in isolation with some totally new, never-before seen abstract paintings. Their responses could make for an interesting comparison. I speculate there would more of the same generic, emotional responses, based only on aesthetic values: "This reflects calm". "This is energetic" (etc.). Or arbitrary ones: "This speaks of the condition of human kind and the state of the planet". Something like.

Some more excerpts from Kamhi, please Ellen. I like her sensible, down to earth delivery.

[Ellen Stuttle]

Meanwhile, I'm about 2/3 through reading Kamhi's book. She's swaying me toward her viewpoint on "abstract" painting and sculpture.

Ellen

I don't think that it really matters which way that you go, as long as you're consistent, which Kamhi is not. If one requires intelligible representations of things in art, and therefore one rejects abstract visual art, then consistency demands that music and dance must also be rejected.

J

[....] [...] music, dance and any other abstract art form that Rand gave them permission to accept as valid despite their not meeting her criteria.

What Kamhi requires of visual art is representational "imagery." I might quarrel with her meaning of that term, but I think it's plain enough as she uses it.

I quite disagree with your lumping of music and dance (I think you also include architecture) in a common category with "abstract" painting and sculpture.

I wonder where you got that way of categorizing. Was it from Kandinsky? Or some other source? Or did you come up with it on your own?

Here's a clue that you might have gotten it from Kandinsky:

arthistory.about.com link

Definition:

( noun ) - Abstract art can be a painting or sculpture (including assemblage ) that does not depict a person, place or thing in the natural world -- even in an extremely distorted or exaggerated way. Therefore, the subject of the work is based on what you see: color, shapes, brushstrokes, size, scale and, in some cases, the process (see action painting ). Abstract art began in 1911 with such works as Picture with a Circle (1911) by the Russian artist Wassily Kandinsky (1866-1944).

Kandinsky believed that colors provoke emotions. Red was lively and confident; Green was peaceful with inner strength; Blue was deep and supernatural; Yellow could be warm, exciting, disturbing or totally bonkers; and White seemed silent but full of possibilities. He also assigned instrument tones to go with each color: Red sounded like a trumpet; Green sounded like a middle-position violin; Light Blue sounded like [a] flute; Dark Blue sounded like a cello, Yellow sounded like a fanfare of trumpets; and White sounded like the pause in a harmonious melody.

These analogies to sounds came from Kandinsky's appreciation for music, especially that by the contemporary Viennese composer Arnold Schoenberg (1874-1951). Kandinsky's titles often refer to the colors in the composition or to music, for example "improvisation."

[...]

Ellen

[Jonathan]

I was talking about discursive communication from my initial question to you in post #214 about the "meanings" you attributed to those two paintings. (The question part is repeated below.)

You attributed discursive meaning to both:

"[...] mankind should be strong and bold, and pursue his passions."

"[...] peace and gentleness are important human qualities."

Yes, I gave discursive explanations of the meanings that I found in the paintings. That doesn't mean that the method of communication itself was discursive. The non-literary art forms -- visual art, music, dance, architecture, etc. -- are non-verbal. They are not discursive. On the occasions that they communicate intended ideas, values and meanings to certain individuals, they do not do so discursively. When people explain to others the meaning that they got out of a work of non-verbal art, they must do so discursively. In other words, they must translate the non-verbal meaning to verbal terms. But their doing so doesn't make the form of communication itself discursive. That which was communicated was communicated non-verbally.

It's like if we were to test your ability to understand a different language by having a person speak a sentence in that language, and then we asked you to tell us in English what you thought the sentence meant. Your telling us your interpretation in English would not make their communication to you an example of English communication.

I was asking all along about your attributing discursive meaning to those two paintings. I even then attempted to alert you that that's what I was asking about, and that maybe my meaning wasn't coming through to you. Obviously it wasn't. Maybe now, with the above post, it will.

I answered your question. My answer is that art forms can communicate non-verbally, and that human beings can indeed understand and then discursively identify/translate what was non-verbally communicated. Non-verbal communication is not a reliable form of communication, but it can be somewhat successful.

You seem to believe that such communication is impossible. If so, then I would suspect that you are taking Kamhi's approach of being limited to your own very limited personal experiences: you're revealing how little experience you have in witnessing others react to and analyze non-verbal art forms.

They make intelligibility a requirement. Intelligibility doesn't equal communication.

Heh. To Rand and Kamhi, intelligibility most certainly does equal communication. I think the problem here is that you're leaving out exactly what they think must be intelligible, which is the values and ideas that are important to the artist. To "intelligibly" "embody," "convey," and make "comprehensible" one's ideas and values IS to communicate. That's what communication means!!!

Ellen, you seem to be arguing for the sake of arguing. It's like if Kamhi were to say, "When approaching an intersection, a red light means cease moving," and if I were to then summarize her position as being that a red light means "stop," you would argue that her position was not that a red light means "stop," but that it means "cease moving," and that "stop" doesn't mean the same thing as "cease moving," even though "cease moving" is the definition of "stop." To make one's ideas and values intelligible to others is to communicate, just as to cease moving is to stop.

What Kamhi requires of visual art is representational "imagery." I might quarrel with her meaning of that term, but I think it's plain enough as she uses it.

Yes, by "imagery," she means that visual art must present identifiable likenesses of the visual forms of entities. And that's an irrational double standard since she arbitrarily doesn't require music to present identifiable likenesses of anything, yet she accepts music as a valid art form.

I quite disagree with your lumping of music and dance (I think you also include architecture) in a common category with "abstract" painting and sculpture.

Are you still imposing your own inappropriate definition of "abstract" onto the discussion? I already explained what "abstract" means here:

""Abstract' in the context of discussing art forms means that the image in question is not a representation of the form of actual or imagined persons, places, objects, or events. It means that the image is made up of abstracted attributes which are not an entity's visual essence."

And in the same post I quoted Kamhi's use of the term as an example:

"Second, that the emotionally meaningful forms of visual art consist of two- or three-dimensional representations of actual or imagined persons, places, objects, or events. They are not abstract."

Understand?

Kamhi's view of music is that it does not present identifiable aural likenesses or representations of "actual or imagined persons, places, objects, or events," but that it presents vaguely abstracted attributes akin to vocal inflection. That is what "abstract" means in the arts.

Similarly, Roger Bissell thinks that music does not present identifiable aural likenesses or representations of actual or imagined persons, places, objects, or events, but that it presents vague, virtual attributes and actions independent of entities. That is what "abstract" means in the arts.

Music's abstract nature is why Fred Seddon suspects that music is "aural wallpaper."

It's why Denis Dutton asked Torres: "By the way, exactly what reality is 're-created' in a Bach fugue?"

Its abstract nature is the reason that Torres has no rational answer to Dutton's question.

I wonder where you got that way of categorizing. Was it from Kandinsky? Or some other source?

I got it from Kamhi. I am using her meaning of the term. Music is an abstract art form by Kamhi's meaning of "abstract."

J

[Jonathan]

Yup, it's an important distinction, intelligibility and communication.

Tony, do you think that the difference between "stop" and "cease moving" is also an important distinction?

Mind meets mind, as I see it - but depending on the skill and mastery of the artist, prior to his vision of life -what is important to him - and dependent on the 'receptivity', awareness and mindset of the viewer, the latter might miss the point completely--and then perhaps find it unpalatable/boring, if he does get it.

But that's one thing that the Objectivist Esthetics does not address. It doesn't consider or offer any means of gauging or objectively measuring the viewer's competence to judge art, but, rather, just arrogantly assumes that anyone who calls himself or herself an Objectivist, or who promotes and defends Objectivist Esthetic theories, necessarily must be supremely qualified to judge all of the art forms, and cannot in any way be lacking in aesthetic competence or sensitivity.

It is the assumption that Rand made of her own level of aesthetic "receptivity," yet look at her foolish interpretations and appraisals of visual art. It's the assumption that Kamhi makes of her own level of aesthetic "receptivity," and is the entire irrational basis for her claiming that others are pretending to have deep aesthetic responses to art which does nothing for her (she just must be as receptive or more receptive than all others). It is the assumption that Torres makes of his own level of aesthetic "receptivity," yet look at his completely unwarranted appraisal of Capuletti's skill. It's the assumption that Roger Bissell makes of his own (and his wife's) level of aesthetic "receptivity," and why he therefore feels that I am being viciously insulting to him to suggest that I, a professional visual artist, might possibly have a level of visual aesthetic "receptivity" that exceeds his (and his wife's). To him, my even hinting at such a notion is nothing but a personal attack. To these people, there can be no merit to any questioning of the superiority of their aesthetic "receptivity."

If scientific testing and 'universal' consensus count for much(I don't think so) the experiment that would be revealing, would be to take maybe a dozen abstract-art aficionados, and in a controlled environment present each in isolation with some totally new, never-before seen abstract paintings. Their responses could make for an interesting comparison. I speculate there would more of the same generic, emotional responses, based only on aesthetic values: "This reflects calm". "This is energetic" (etc.). Or arbitrary ones: "This speaks of the condition of human kind and the state of the planet". Something like.

Ditto music, and all of the other art forms that Objectivism or that Kamhi accepts as valid. I think that Objectivish-types, including Kamhi, won't ever scientifically test anyone for their responses to any of the art forms that Kamhi and other Objectivish-types classify as valid, because I think they know deep down that they won't get the responses that they expect and require. Their position is really just bluff and bluster. They make assertions about the art forms without providing any proof, and if they actually went out to acquire proof, they'd end up getting the type of vague, "generic" responses that they don't accept as specific enough in regard to abstract visual art.

For several years now, I've been giving Objectivish-types the opportunity to offer their responses to realistic paintings, and I think it's quite hilarious how incapable they have been at it. Here's one of my favorites: None of the kids over at OO could tell the difference between very famous Romanticist paintings and abstract ones and ones created by children!

J

[Ellen Stuttle]

I was talking about discursive communication from my initial question to you in post #214 about the "meanings" you attributed to those two paintings. (The question part is repeated below.)

You attributed discursive meaning to both:

"[...] mankind should be strong and bold, and pursue his passions."

"[...] peace and gentleness are important human qualities."

Yes, I gave discursive explanations of the meanings that I found in the paintings. That doesn't mean that the method of communication itself was discursive. The non-literary art forms -- visual art, music, dance, architecture, etc. -- are non-verbal. They are not discursive. On the occasions that they communicate intended ideas, values and meanings to certain individuals, they do not do so discursively. When people explain to others the meaning that they got out of a work of non-verbal art, they must do so discursively. In other words, they must translate the non-verbal meaning to verbal terms. But their doing so doesn't make the form of communication itself discursive. That which was communicated was communicated non-verbally.

I confess to being flabbergasted. So you acknowledge that there isn't discursive communication going on, and yet you claim to be able to...what? read? detect? discursive meaning in something which doesn't have such meaning in it.

By what magic?

(Btw, I'm still wanting to see quotes from the painters about any "meanings" they intended.)

It's like if we were to test your ability to understand a different language by having a person speak a sentence in that language, and then we asked you to tell us in English what you thought the sentence meant. Your telling us your interpretation in English would not make their communication to you an example of English communication.

It would make it an example of discursive communication.

Am I to interpret your analogy as indicating that you think that abstract art is some kind of language, like sign-language?

I was asking all along about your attributing discursive meaning to those two paintings. I even then attempted to alert you that that's what I was asking about, and that maybe my meaning wasn't coming through to you. Obviously it wasn't. Maybe now, with the above post, it will.

I answered your question. My answer is that art forms can communicate non-verbally, and that human beings can indeed understand and then discursively identify/translate what was non-verbally communicated. Non-verbal communication is not a reliable form of communication, but it can be somewhat successful.

You seem to believe that such communication is impossible. If so, then I would suspect that you are taking Kamhi's approach of being limited to your own very limited personal experiences: you're revealing how little experience you have in witnessing others react to and analyze non-verbal art forms.

I've heard a fair amount of people reading verbal meanings into non-verbal art forms (musical as well as visual).

I think you're providing a good example.

If you'd said of the first painting, for instance, that it makes you feel inspired to be "strong and bold, and pursue [your] passions," fine.

But your claim that it means that "[...] mankind should be strong and bold, and pursue his passions" is reading into, not deciphering. (Unless you're going to tell me that the artist provided a sign-language-type code, but then I wouldn't call that "art." I'd call it cryptology.)

Ellen

PS: I'll get back to the "abstract" issue later. You're doing with Kamhi what you did with Rand, claiming that she thinks that all art forms have to be representational.

[Jonathan]

I confess to being flabbergasted. So you acknowledge that there isn't discursive communication going on, and yet you claim to be able to...what? read? detect? discursive meaning in something which doesn't have such meaning in it.

In post 234 I asked you if I would be communicating with you if I gave you a look of disapproval and you understood it to be disapproval, and I asked if you believe that communication can only happen through standardized "conventional signifiers."

In post post 241, you answered that you did not believe that communication can only happen through conventional signifiers. But you didn't answer the question about the look of disapproval being a means of communication.

So, do you not understand that non-verbal communication is a mode of communication? Do you not know that people can discursively explain the meaning that was communicated to them via a non-verbal means of communication?

By what magic?

No magic is necessary. Is today really the first day in your long life that you've heard of the concept of non-verbal communication?

(Btw, I'm still wanting to see quotes from the painters about any "meanings" they intended.)

We'll get to that eventually. In the mean time, I would suggest that you visit some galleries, listen to what fans of visual art have to say about what they're looking at, and listen to the artists describing their intentions.

It's like if we were to test your ability to understand a different language by having a person speak a sentence in that language, and then we asked you to tell us in English what you thought the sentence meant. Your telling us your interpretation in English would not make their communication to you an example of English communication.

It would make it an example of discursive communication.

Am I to interpret your analogy as indicating that you think that abstract art is some kind of language, like sign-language?

No, I'm saying that all visual art -- realistic as well as abstract -- is a form of non-verbal communication, like "body language," facial expression, vocal inflection, etc., all of which are means of communication despite not being discursive, and despite usually not being as reliable as discursive means.

The drawings of a blueprint are a means of communication despite their not being discursive. Do you understand that certain people would be able to look at blueprints of a machine and understand more about the machine and its functions than others would be able to understand from a discursive description of the machine? Are you not aware of the fact that a blueprint's ability to non-verbally communicate such information effectively is the reason that blueprints exist?

I've heard a fair amount of people reading verbal meanings into non-verbal art forms (musical as well as visual).

I think you're providing a good example.

How would you prove that people were "reading into" those art forms versus that they were successfully understanding what was intended to be non-verbally communicated? I mean, right now, you just seem to be in denial mode. You seem to be refusing to believe that non-verbal communication can actually communicate.

If my wife gives me a look of disapproval over something I've said, you seem to be asserting that it is impossible for her disapproval to have been communicated to me, or that it is impossible for me to translate her non-verbal look to the discursive term "disapproval."

If you'd said of the first painting, for instance, that it makes you feel inspired to be "strong and bold, and pursue [your] passions," fine.

But your claim that it means that "[...] mankind should be strong and bold, and pursue his passions" is reading into, not deciphering. (Unless you're going to tell me that the artist provided a sign-language-type code, but then I wouldn't call that "art." I'd call it cryptology.)

The painting didn't make me feel inspired to be strong and bold or to pursue my passions. Rather, it made me feel that strength and boldness and passion were important to the artist.

Have you never looked at a painting of, say, a mother and child, and thought that it communicated the fact that, even though motherhood may not have been important to you, the artist felt that motherhood was important, and more specifically, that raising and nurturing a child is immensely satisfying, rewarding and dignified, only to later discover that that was exactly what the artist intended the image to communicate?!!!

PS: I'll get back to the "abstract" issue later. You're doing with Kamhi what you did with Rand, claiming that she thinks that all art forms have to be representational.

Actually, I think Kamhi has double or even triple standards. Her criteria are arbitrary and shifting, and they're based on nothing but her personal lack of response. Her criteria are not rational, nor are they consistent across the art forms. She might indeed arbitrarily declare that one art form which she doesn't like, and which she doesn't want to qualify as art, must present identifiable likeness of things in reality, and in the next sentence she might arbitrarily declare that an art form that she does like, and which she wants to qualify as art, does not have to present identifiable likenesses of things in reality. She arbitrarily accepts one abstract art form while rejecting others. There's no rhyme or reason to her declarations other than that she personally doesn't like or get anything of depth out of the art forms that she rejects. In effect, she begins with a list of what she doesn't want to qualify as art and works backward from there, selectively constructing and applying criteria to achieve the result of eliminating what she wants eliminated.

J

[Jonathan]

Ellen, which of these two conflicting positions of yours is the one that you actually believe?

This one:

Who Says That's Art?

pg. 68

In conclusion, what's wrong with "abstract art"? My answer is: Nothing - if one is willing to regard it as merely decorative; that is, as having some visual interest or appeal owing merely to its color or design. But if one insists that it is an intelligible vehicle of meaning or emotional expression, I think it must be viewed as an essentially failed enterprise.

By what standard should it be considered a failed enterprise? Answer: By the standard of Kamhi's not getting any meaning or emotion out of it.

Again, see the examples. The failure she means is non-communication.

Ellen

Or this one:

Both Rand and Kamhi DO make communication a requirement.

They make intelligibility a requirement. Intelligibility doesn't equal communication.

Ellen

Thanks,

J

[anthony]

Yup, it's an important distinction, intelligibility and communication.

Tony, do you think that the difference between "stop" and "cease moving" is also an important distinction?

J

You're not quite wrong here J, but not quite correct either (according to Rand).

"The psycho-epistemological process of communication between an artist and a viewer or reader goes as follows:

the artist starts with a broad abstraction which he has to concretize, to bring into reality by means of the appropriate particulars; the viewer perceives the particulars, integrates them and grasps the abstraction from which they came, thus completing the circle.

Speaking metaphorically, the creative process resembles a process of deduction; the viewing process resembles a process of induction.

This does not mean that communication is the primary purpose of an artist: his primary purpose is to bring his view of man of existence; but to be brought into objective (therefore, communicable) terms." [Art and Sense of Life]

Note, "not...the primary purpose", which is highly significant I think.

Goes without saying that artist and viewer have to speak the same language (so to speak).

[Ellen Stuttle]

Ellen, which of these two conflicting positions of yours is the one that you actually believe?

They aren't conflicting.

You don't really think they are, do you?

Ellen

[Ellen Stuttle]

In post 234 I asked you if I would be communicating with you if I gave you a look of disapproval and you understood it to be disapproval, and I asked if you believe that communication can only happen through standardized "conventional signifiers."

In post post 241, you answered that you did not believe that communication can only happen through conventional signifiers. But you didn't answer the question about the look of disapproval being a means of communication.

So, do you not understand that non-verbal communication is a mode of communication? Do you not know that people can discursively explain the meaning that was communicated to them via a non-verbal means of communication?

A look of disapproval is not a statement. You are attributing statements to those paintings as their meaning.

I repeat that I doubt that even highly propagandistic art can be said to state in the fashion of the meanings you gave.

Consider Michelangelo's David. It's a sculpture of an identifiably male figure, a strong, healthy-looking male, intently focused.

If someone tells me the statue means that "[...] mankind should be strong and bold, and pursue his passions," I'll say just what I did about your attributing that meaning to the abstract painting: The attribution is reading into, not deciphering.

Ellen

[Ellen Stuttle]

Rand on Esthetic Judgment contrasted with Sense-of-Life Response

Before I go further, I'd like to provide the full text of the passage - from "Art and Sense of Life" - in which Rand contrasts esthetic judgment with sense-of-life response to art.

Jonathan frequently refers to a particular paragraph of this passage. I'll quote that paragraph separately in the next post.

"Art and Sense of Life"

First published in The Objectivist March, 1966

The Romantic Manifesto

1975 Signet Second Revised Edition

pp. 32-34

Now a word of warning about the criteria of esthetic judgment. A sense of life is the source of art, but it is not the sole qualification of an artist or of an esthetician, and it is not a criterion of esthetic judgment. Emotions are not tools of cognition. Esthetics is a branch of philosophyand just as a philosopher does not approach any other branch of his science with his feelings or emotions as his criterion of judgment, so he cannot do it in the field of esthetics. A sense of life is not sufficient professional equipment. An esthetician - as well as any man who attempts to evaluate art works - must be guided by more than an emotion.

The fact that one agrees or disagrees with an artists philosophy is irrelevant to an esthetic appraisal of his work qua art. One does not have to agree with an artist (nor even to enjoy him) in order to evaluate his work. In essence, an objective evaluation requires that one identify the artists theme, the abstract meaning of his work (exclusively by identifying the evidence contained in the work and allowing no other, outside considerations), then evaluate the means by which he conveys it - i.e., taking his theme as criterion, evaluate the purely esthetic elements of the work, the technical mastery (or lack of it) with which he projects (or fails to project) his view of life.

(The esthetic principles which apply to all art, regardless of an individual artist's philosophy, and which must guide an objective evaluation, are outside the scope of this discussion. I will mention only that such principles are defined by the science of esthetics - a task at which modern philosophy has failed dismally.)

Since art is a philosophical composite, it is not a contradiction to say: This is a great work of art, but I dont like it, - provided one defines the exact meaning of that statement: the first part refers to a purely esthetic appraisal, the second to a deeper philosophical level which includes more than esthetic values.

Even in the realm of personal choices, there are many different aspects from which one may enjoy a work of art - other than sense-of-life affinity. One's sense of life is fully involved only when one feels a profoundly personal emotion about a work of art. But there are many other levels or degrees of liking; the differences are similar to the differences between romantic love and affection and friendship.

For instance: I love the work of Victor Hugo, in a deeper sense than admiration for his superlative literary genius, and I find many similarities between his sense of life and mine, although I disagree with virtually all of his explicit philosophy - I like Dostoevsky, for his superb mastery of plot structure and for his merciless dissection of the psychology of evil, even though his philosophy and his sense of life are almost diametrically opposed to mine - I like the early novels of Mickey Spillane, for his plot ingenuity and moralistic style, even though his sense of life clashes with mine, and no explicit philosophical element is involved in his work - I cannot stand Tolstoy, and reading him was the most boring literary duty I ever had to perform, his philosophy and his sense of life are not merely mistaken, but evil, and yet, from a purely literary viewpoint, on his own terms, I have to evaluate him as a good writer.

Now, to demonstrate the difference between an intellectual approach and a sense of life, I will restate the preceding paragraph in sense-of-life terms: Hugo gives me the feeling of entering a cathedral - Dostoevsky gives me the feeling of entering a chamber of horrors, but with a powerful guide - Spillane gives me the feeling of hearing a military band in a public park - Tolstoy gives me the feeling of an unsanitary backyard which I do not care to enter.

When one learns to translate the meaning of an art work into objective terms, one discovers that nothing is as potent as art in exposing the essence of a man's character. An artist reveals his naked soul in his work - and so, gentle reader, do you when you respond to it.

Ellen

[Ellen Stuttle]

The Outside-Considerations Clause

Jonathan frequently taunts the Objectivish to identify artists' "metaphysical value-judgments" and the meaning of artworks without recourse to "outside considerations."

He apparently thinks that Rand believed, for instance, that one could judge Michelangelo's accomplishment in sculpting his statue of David from the story of David and Goliath without knowing what the statue is supposed to be a statue of and without recourse to any knowledge of the story.

But is that what Rand meant by the "no other, outside considerations" requirement, or was she thinking of such inappropriate "outside considerations" as whether or not one likes the work and what sort of opinion one might have of the artist?

"Art and Sense of Life"

The Romantic Manifesto

1975 Signet Second Revised Edition

pp. 33

The fact that one agrees or disagrees with an artist’s philosophy is irrelevant to an esthetic appraisal of his work qua art. One does not have to agree with an artist (nor even to enjoy him) in order to evaluate his work. In essence, an objective evaluation requires that one identify the artist’s theme, the abstract meaning of his work (exclusively by identifying the evidence contained in the work and allowing no other, outside considerations), then evaluate the means by which he conveys it - i.e., taking his theme as criterion, evaluate the purely esthetic elements of the work, the technical mastery (or lack of it) with which he projects (or fails to project) his view of life.

Ellen

[Brant Gaede]

One may argue about Rand and the objectivity--her objectivity--of esthetics, but what's important was she, unlike most, was able to powerfully express a verbal rationale--seems like rationality to some--for her own esthetic responses. Then we get to examine the right and wrong of it and use it as a backdoor way critically into her philosophy generally and find not so obvious defects hidden by the rhetorical power of her writing. What is common between her personal esthetics and Objectivism is not the interjection of morality per se, but morality as moralizing and her passion for that. Objectivity requires dispassionate evaluation or, in esthetics, you are not an esthetician but an advocate. You do not just describe but proscribe. Taken to an extreme you get "just" wars. She once opined at the Ford Hall Forum she'd like to see a "just war" with the Soviet Union. This is why Orthodox (Classical) Objectivism has gone all neo-con and might as well be "Onward Christian Soldiers." The irony is it's not to be found in Atlas Shrugged except for the little bit about Ragnar the pirate, the real-life today exemplar of which is Captain Paul Watson of Sea Shepherd, for even more irony.

What her great novel has in common with her subsequent philosophy is the almost constant moralizing. ITOE seemingly provided major relief from that which helps give Objectivism much more status as a philosophy than what it deserves. ITOE falls short not necessarily in the way Rand supposed--much more work in epistemology needs to be done--but in the lack of reference to scientific methodology and how that too informs ethics and politics. One reason, I suppose, is the necessary modification of her absolutist approach, which is not really secular but religious.

In Atlas Rand created a contrived, made up world for her heroes to operate in, although her villains ended up a lot more active and implicitly dominant. Post publication she had to deal with the real world so her orientation made a major shift. She went international. It was clumsy. It was not the world of Atlas Shrugged. That world, the world she could never leave nor did she ever want to, marginalized her. It was the world of absolutism from A to Z.

Reality is absolute. That's metaphysics. Epistemology has two components: methodology and result. The first is absolute, the second tentative with tentative having degrees of tentativeness from (a working) absolute to pure conjecture, speculation, imagination and artistic creation. All art does is more tightly focus on an aspect of reality that is not real as an object or creation except unto itself. It heightens reality that way experientially. The most intense form of this I know of outside, perhaps, a concert, is the dramatic play.

--Brant

[anthony]

Art, fiction in particular, isn't - and shouldn't be - explicitly moralistic per se. (With one arguably didactic novel we know, excluded).

It just 'shows' how other individuals see things in life: values that are good, great, or not so good, or wrong and false.

"...the viewing process resembles a process of induction". [AR]

Without art, imagine: one would have to take all induction only from one's own limited, personal observations and experiences - and/or, from other sources, which means from random experts and other authorities. The input would be severely curtailed by time restraints alone, and one needs a huge input, inductively, to arrive at rational principles and abstractions. But adding art's input, this amount widens dramatically, expanding a conceptual base faster. As concept creation is the core of a rationally selfish morality, this must be the link between art and morality, and the fundamental value of art.

[Jonathan]

Yup, it's an important distinction, intelligibility and communication.

Tony, do you think that the difference between "stop" and "cease moving" is also an important distinction?

J

You're not quite wrong here J, but not quite correct either (according to Rand).

"The psycho-epistemological process of communication between an artist and a viewer or reader goes as follows:

the artist starts with a broad abstraction which he has to concretize, to bring into reality by means of the appropriate particulars; the viewer perceives the particulars, integrates them and grasps the abstraction from which they came, thus completing the circle.

Speaking metaphorically, the creative process resembles a process of deduction; the viewing process resembles a process of induction.

This does not mean that communication is the primary purpose of an artist: his primary purpose is to bring his view of man of existence; but to be brought into objective (therefore, communicable) terms." [Art and Sense of Life]

Note, "not...the primary purpose", which is highly significant I think.

Goes without saying that artist and viewer have to speak the same language (so to speak).

She's saying that communication is a requirement of art.

J

[Jonathan]

Ellen, which of these two conflicting positions of yours is the one that you actually believe?

They aren't conflicting.

You don't really think they are, do you?

Ellen

Yes, your views are conflicting.

Kamhi said, "But if one insists that it is an intelligible vehicle of meaning or emotional expression, I think it must be viewed as an essentially failed enterprise."

She does insist that art must be an intelligible vehicle of meaning or emotional expression -- in other words, "communication," as you correctly described her position in post 209 -- and she believes that since she personally doesn't get any meaning or emotion out of abstract art, then no one does, and therefore it has failed to meet her requirement of communication.

J

[Jonathan]

A look of disapproval is not a statement. You are attributing statements to those paintings as their meaning.

I didn't say that a look of disapproval was a statement. In fact, I specifically said that it was a form of nonverbal communication, which can be understood and then translated into a verbal statement.

I think you'd do much better if you were to actually answer the questions that I've asked rather than evading them.

Let's try it again. If my wife were to give me a look of disapproval, and I understood it to be a look of disapproval, and I translated it to mean, in verbal terms, "she is disapproving of what I'm doing," and then I asked her why she was nonverbally communicating to me that she disapproved of what I was doing, and then she verbally confirmed that she indeed had been nonverbally communicating disapproval because she didn't like what I was doing and wanted to let me know that I should stop, would you stubbornly insist that her nonverbal look of disapproval did not actually communicate meaning to me, but that I was attributing meaning and "reading into" something which was not actually there?

J

[Jonathan]

Jonathan frequently taunts the Objectivish to identify artists' "metaphysical value-judgments" and the meaning of artworks without recourse to "outside considerations."

I don't "taunt" them so much as challenge them. And, more often than not, they are the ones who insist that art is to be judged without access to "outside considerations," by which they mean any historical or mythological knowledge or any other context to which the art refers. They forbid such things in their method of judging art, because they view the Objectivist Esthetics as forbidding them. Their view is that Rand held that a work of art is to be completely self-contained, and that it is to be judged only by "the evidence contained in the work." Viewers are to ignore or disregard titles, placards, statements of intention, knowledge of the artist, his times and ideas, and his other works. I agree that they have correctly understood Rand's notions of "evidence contained in the work" and "outside considerations."

Aynway, the "outside considerations" thing has turned out to not matter very much anyway, since the Objectivish generally can't identify anything resembling meaning or emotional expression in any work of art, be it abstract or highly realistic, even with the aid of external information.

He apparently thinks that Rand believed, for instance, that one could judge Michelangelo's accomplishment in sculpting his statue of David from the story of David and Goliath without knowing what the statue is supposed to be a statue of and without recourse to any knowledge of the story.

Yes, she did believe that art should be judged without knowing any historical or mythological context to which the work of art might refer, or which might have inspired it. It is the method that she and her officially sanctioned spokesmen (like Sures, for example) followed when analyzing and judging art. They actively avoided all such context and knowledge.

But is that what Rand meant by the "no other, outside considerations" requirement, or was she thinking of such inappropriate "outside considerations" as whether or not one likes the work and what sort of opinion one might have of the artist?

She meant both. Ellen, you appear to be focusing on the phrase "outside considerations" and overlooking the phrase "evidence contained in the work." Anything that was not contained in the work was an "outside consideration." Your personal likes and dislikes are an outside consideration, since they are not contained in the art. Knowledge of Vermeer's or Rodin's personal, social, economic or ideological context was an outside consideration, as was knowledge of whether or not any of the figures in their art were characters based on history or myth, since such "evidence" was not "contained in the work."

J

[Jonathan]

"Art and Sense of Life"

First published in The Objectivist March, 1966

The Romantic Manifesto

1975 Signet Second Revised Edition

(The esthetic principles which apply to all art, regardless of an individual artist's philosophy, and which must guide an objective evaluation, are outside the scope of this discussion. I will mention only that such principles are defined by the science of esthetics - a task at which modern philosophy has failed dismally.)

Ellen

Hahahahaha!

The issue of the aesthetic principles which apply to all art is the most difficult and most relevant issue of aesthetics, yet Rand sees it as somehow being outside the scope of her official presentation of her aesthetics, despite its being the required yet absent foundation to support any of her assertions of objectivity in aesthetic evaluations, and then she has the gall to accuse other thinkers of having failed dismally at something which she hasn't even begun to explore or address?!!! Hahahahaha!

What, we're just supposed to take her word for it that she could easily identify the aesthetic principles which apply to all art, and that those principles would form the currently lacking basis for her claims of objectivity in aesthetic judgments, but she was, what, just too busy to do so? She should get kudos for knocking others for failing to do what she hasn't even tried to do? Unlike them, she just knows for certain that she would succeed at the task because she's virtuous and objective where everyone else is icky and stinky and dumb? Heh.

J

[Jonathan]

Art, fiction in particular, isn't - and shouldn't be - explicitly moralistic per se. (With one arguably didactic novel we know, excluded).

It just 'shows' how other individuals see things in life: values that are good, great, or not so good, or wrong and false.

"...the viewing process resembles a process of induction". [AR]

Without art, imagine: one would have to take all induction only from one's own limited, personal observations and experiences - and/or, from other sources, which means from random experts and other authorities. The input would be severely curtailed by time restraints alone, and one needs a huge input, inductively, to arrive at rational principles and abstractions. But adding art's input, this amount widens dramatically, expanding a conceptual base faster. As concept creation is the core of a rationally selfish morality, this must be the link between art and morality, and the fundamental value of art.

You're very Kantian, Tony!

J

[anthony]

Yup, it's an important distinction, intelligibility and communication.

Tony, do you think that the difference between "stop" and "cease moving" is also an important distinction?

J

You're not quite wrong here J, but not quite correct either (according to Rand).

"The psycho-epistemological process of communication between an artist and a viewer or reader goes as follows:

the artist starts with a broad abstraction which he has to concretize, to bring into reality by means of the appropriate particulars; the viewer perceives the particulars, integrates them and grasps the abstraction from which they came, thus completing the circle.

Speaking metaphorically, the creative process resembles a process of deduction; the viewing process resembles a process of induction.

This does not mean that communication is the primary purpose of an artist: his primary purpose is to bring his view of man of existence; but to be brought into objective (therefore, communicable) terms." [Art and Sense of Life]

Note, "not...the primary purpose", which is highly significant I think.

Goes without saying that artist and viewer have to speak the same language (so to speak).

She's saying that communication is a requirement of art.

J

Mmm: you don't recognize a difference between secondary and primary, or purpose and outcome? OK.

But I'm amused by these looks of disapproval from the wife. Yeah, but one thing husbands have learned, is to anticipate when it's going to happen, and more, they'll sure know what expression it is when it does! Conversely, some stranger could look disapprovingly, and we might not know it - so he's not "communicating". Art intelligibility shouldn't be based on prior knowledge (an intimate familiarity) of the artist and his work.

[Jonathan]

A recent pouty mini-tantrum Facebook post from one of the co-centers of the universe:

https://m2.facebook.com/AristosOnlineReview

Good news about the Dahesh for art lovers! (We make an exception here to our current policy of no longer posting on this page due to lack of true interest on the part of those who "Like" us. Just one person out of 800+ made even a modest donation to our recent fundraising drive and too few ever click on our posts. We find that it's not worth the time and effort it takes to produce quality posts for free.) - Louis Torres, Co-Editor, Aristos

Oh no! They're not being paid for their extremely valuable opinions? Oh, jeepers. What's the world coming to when quality posts on social media aren't rewarded with massive wealth? And, yeah, it takes so much time and effort to write, "Here's a link to the finest, most daringly imaginative painting ever," or, "That's not art! That's not art! That's not art!"

Totally a typical Objectivish attitude of oblivious self-importance.

J

[Brant Gaede]

Barbara Branden liked Aristos, at least back in the day, but it never rang my bell.

--Brant

[Jonathan]

Mmm: you don't recognize a difference between secondary and primary, or purpose and outcome? OK.

I think that you're the one who doesn't recognize the difference. The fact that Rand rated communication as secondary in importance doesn't mean that it is not a requirement. In fact, it is her second requirement. It is the requirement that is second in importance to her.

But I'm amused by these looks of disapproval from the wife. Yeah, but one thing husbands have learned, is to anticipate when it's going to happen, and more, they'll recognize what expression it is when it does!

I'm not talking about having learned a specific person's specific expressions. Apparently you are limited to that, but I and others are not. I think maybe the problem here is that I'm basically talking to autistic-like people who don't grasp nonverbal communication, and when it's explained to them, they try to find a way to make it fit their capability of understanding by turning it into a something as close to verbal communication that they can handle.

Conversely, some stranger could look disapproving, and we might not know it - so he's not "communicating".

I don't doubt that you would not know it. But what if a stranger were to give you and me a look of disapproval, and even though you didn't grasp it, I did? Is it your view that since you didn't get it, then I didn't either? Since he did not communicate to you, then there was no communication?

Art intelligibility shouldn't be based on prior knowledge of the artist and his work.

No one has said that art should be based on prior knowledge of the artist or his work. No one has been talking about prior knowledge, but about nonverbal communication which is not based on prior knowledge. You're misunderstanding what's being discussed. You don't experience or understand nonverbal communication, and you apparently want to believe that you're normal and that therefore no one else can experience or understand it. And therefore you need to misidentify the conversation as being about something that you do experience or understand: prior knowledge of the artist and his work.

J