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

[Francisco Ferrer]

Her whole great novel was a celebration of castrated men by castrating them through a strike.

Ayn Rand was surprisingly prescient in predicting the consequences of the increasing number of weak spineless emasculated liberal males in America. And this nation is presently reaping the economic and social results of abandoning the strength of American values.

Greg

Where in the published works of Ayn Rand can one find this "prescient" prediction of "the consequences of the increasing number of weak spineless emasculated liberal males in America"?

[moralist]

Where in the published works of Ayn Rand can one find this "prescient" prediction of "the consequences of the increasing number of weak spineless emasculated liberal males in America"?

Atlas Shrugged of course.

She aptly described the mental processes of the male liberal bureaucrat, and how they are so weak as to be incapable of actually making a decision. She then drove her point home when one of the government castrati got the bullet he deserved at the end of the book.

Greg

[Francisco Ferrer]

Where in Atlas does Rand say that the mental processes being described came from an emasculated bureaucrat? Where does the author state that the man who got a bullet was a castrato?

[Ellen Stuttle]

Ellen's position is that the two of you are just makin' shit up and "reading into" the image what's not actually there. Her view is that the high-level concepts that you describe as being conveyed in the image can't possibly be conveyed non-verbally, and can only be conveyed discursively.

So why are you guys claiming to be able to experience and understand something which is beyond what Ellen has identified as the limits of all of mankind?

I'm thinking that actually you understand what I was saying about your "Its meaning is..." statements, else why would you be going to such lengths of distortion?

Ellen

[Ellen Stuttle]

Some animals might communicate fairly complexly, but the claims of true language in non-human animals don't stand up, I think. In any case, if someone reasoned as I indicated, the reasoning would be faulty.

Ellen,

I think there are incredibly complex communications between animals, starting with swarm-making in lower life forms. But all communication in animals other than humans are calls to behavior patterns. I agree communication of high-level abstractions is foreign to them.

But it's not just concepts and logic.

The human race is the only species known to tell stories.

I wish Rand had dealt more with this storytelling aspect of epistemology. Or maybe not. Instead of explaining it, she did it superbly. She probably came out better that way.

Michael

I've started reading Denis Dutton's The Art Instinct. I haven't gotten to his material on story-telling, I'm just in the first chapter. Judging from things he's said so far, however, I expect he has thoughts on the specialness of human psychology in regard to story-telling, and he might have things to say on the storytelling aspect of epistemology.

(I think that Dutton is mistaken in using the idea "instinct" for a human characteristic - art-making - the ubiquitousness of which doesn't need "instinct" to explain. The nature of human mentality does the job. But, despite what I think is a basically wrong central thesis, I'm finding features of the book interesting.)

Ellen

[Ellen Stuttle]

Please give a direct link to your mother and child question. I'm not avoiding it. I haven't seen it, wherever it is. There are many more posts on this thread than I've managed to read.

http://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=14839&p=224528

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.

Your statement as to what it made you feel is important to the artist isn't equivalent to "Its meaning is that humans should...."

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?!!!

I'm not thinking of any specific painting, but I can imagine feeling that an artist feels positively about motherhood, but, again, this isn't the same as the "Its meaning is..." statement you attributed to the painting you said you see as feminine.

http://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=14839&p=224722

Do you not understand that a work of art is recognizable to people as a work of art, and that people generally understand that works of art usually contain something that is important in some way to the artist, and therefore when looking at a work of art, people understand that there is a context which involves the likelihood that what is presented in the art is probably in some way important to the artist?!!! With that in mind, do you really think that it's a big or impossible leap that an artist can nonverbally communicate that something is important to him, be it, say, heroic patriotism, sexuality, athletic health and bold masculinity, gentle nurturing motherhood, etc.?

I don't think it's a leap at all that an artist can communicate that something is important to him or her. Moral dicta and evaluative universals as an art work's "meaning," however, no. Art works don't refer. They present. They aren't linguistic ciphers.

Ellen

[anthony]

Please give a direct link to your mother and child question. I'm not avoiding it. I haven't seen it, wherever it is. There are many more posts on this thread than I've managed to read.

http://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=14839&p=224528

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.

Your statement as to what it made you feel is important to the artist isn't equivalent to "Its meaning is that humans should...."

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?!!!

I'm not thinking of any specific painting, but I can imagine feeling that an artist feels positively about motherhood, but, again, this isn't the same as the "Its meaning is..." statement you attributed to the painting you said you see as feminine.

http://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=14839&p=224722

Do you not understand that a work of art is recognizable to people as a work of art, and that people generally understand that works of art usually contain something that is important in some way to the artist, and therefore when looking at a work of art, people understand that there is a context which involves the likelihood that what is presented in the art is probably in some way important to the artist?!!! With that in mind, do you really think that it's a big or impossible leap that an artist can nonverbally communicate that something is important to him, be it, say, heroic patriotism, sexuality, athletic health and bold masculinity, gentle nurturing motherhood, etc.?

I don't think it's a leap at all that an artist can communicate that something is important to him or her. Moral dicta and evaluative universals as an art work's "meaning," however, no. Art works don't refer. They present. They aren't linguistic ciphers.

Ellen

"Artworks don't refer. They present". Yes, Ellen.

Back to that "communication as intention" meme which is so confusing-ambiguous. I won't presume that artists never once begin at and with a 'concept': Motherhood, patriotism etc.- and take it backwards from there to attempt a re-creation onto canvas... with 'meaning'. Only, my impression is it could be awkwardly contrived, rationalized art - and appear so. (Illustrations for magazine covers and 'propaganda art'). My sense (in past conversations with some artist colleagues or pals) is that artists operate the other way, are largely 'visual' first, and considering, later.

To a more instantaneous degree, I've had that feeling a good many times with a camera in hand, those times a ready-made picture (e.g. in its subject, content and lighting) almost seems to present itself, all ready to be taken. Like any decent photographer one 'shoots first and asks questions later'. At that stage I don't believe one is working out the image's 'meaning' or anticipating its effects on viewers, every fibre is concentrated on the task of simply capturing the reality before one; moments to live for..

Similar to an artist, who doesn't have to immediately know WHAT the "importance" is to him, he just knows something (a subject, a setting) IS important.

As a chronological secondary then, how that importance will connect with and resound in the viewer grows in importance as well. A later viewer will probably then embrace, or respond neutrally, or dismiss, that artwork's "metaphysical value-judgment" i.e. 'importance' - according to what are his own.

(Also an author: good novelists have something important to say as end in itself, mostly intent on getting an idea out of their system, so to speak, into words. Many admit to being largely unaware of their prospective reader in the heat of the creative process).

[Newberry]

Ellen in #384 wrote:

Jonathan, on 27 Jan 2015 - 5:33 PM, said: Would you give music without lyrics the same status as music with lyrics? An abstract painting is to music what a realistic painting is to music with lyrics.

"I don't have access to the emoticon menu on my tablet and wonder if I could find an emoticon anyway that would depict my astonishment at that question and statement. Many, many misplaced electrons."

Right on, Ellen. I think someone needs a little more immersion in sound waves before making such comments! ;-)

Here are some comparisons/parallels that I think seem more apt and more helpful as an overview to this controversy:

1. An abstract painting is to a (non-melodic, mood-evoking) tone poem what a realistic painting is to music with melody.

2. A realistic painting is to music with melody what a realistic painting with title and written description is to melodic music with descriptive program notes.

3. A realistic painting is to music with melody what a realistic painting with an accompanying poem is to melodic music with lyrics.

As a musician/theorist interested in (nay, fascinated with!) analyzing meaning and emotion in music, I consider music with lyrics to be like "training wheels" for understanding music without lyrics. (Or, as Peikoff might call it, "the antechamber.") Of course, this presumes a "good match" between music and lyrics, and it entails a huge amount of grunt-work, going through the melodies that have stood the test of time - whether from the past several centuries of "serious" music, or from the past decades of popular music, to see what recurring patterns of melody &c emerge from the research.

It's one thing to hypothesize that thus-and-such a melody is most appropriate for conveying a particular meaning or emotion, and quite another to find out whether that meaning/emotion in fact was (most often and most effectively) conveyed that way. Step 1: hypothesis. Step 2: look at LOTS of songs with words, classical and popular, identify patterns and evaluate whether they confirm the hypothesis. If so, throw away the training wheels and go to Step 3: look at LOTS of purely instrumental pieces, identify the patterns and see whether they too confirm the hypothesis. (Look for anomalies and counter-examples, too. I already have a lot of them in mind, for popular songs.)

If I weren't so deeply "immersed" in writing about Rand's file folder metaphor and critiquing the Objectivist theory of volition, I'd be working on this project right now. But if someone out there wants to jump on it and do it themselves, be my guest.

REB

Roger, this was an excellent post.

[Roger Bissell]

Thanks, Michael. I think it still is. :-)

REB

[Brant Gaede]

Or will be once I add my improvements and comments.

--Brant

second-hander

[moralist]

1. An abstract painting is to a (non-melodic, mood-evoking) tone poem what a realistic painting is to music with melody.

That idea hits the bullseye.

An abstract painting is atonal.

A realistic painting is a song.

Greg

[Newberry]

An abstract painting is atonal.

A realistic painting is a song.

Greg

Greg, nice brief summary, that is pretty much how the experience of music and painting feels to me.

[Newberry]

"Art works don't refer. They present."

Beautifully put Ellen.

[Brant Gaede]

"Art works don't refer. They present."

Beautifully put Ellen.

I'd say doesn't have to refer, but may, plus "present." I'd be interested in any art that doesn't present for I can't think of any as such. "Art" presents" is obvious enough on its face. There isn't any reason to even say it unless one wants to dump on "refer." After all, a statue refers to what is presented. Deeper, art could refer to the experience itself--what goes on in the mind of the recipient--but that's not the issue here. I guess music, sans lyrics, doesn't refer--that it only presents. Again, "art" is being used too broadly in these discussions. The disparate arts only add up to "art" individually and have to be addressed individually. "Art" leaves not much room for investigation and understanding. Music does. Literature does. Etc.

--Brant

[Jonathan]

Ellen in #384 wrote:

Jonathan, on 27 Jan 2015 - 5:33 PM, said: Would you give music without lyrics the same status as music with lyrics? An abstract painting is to music what a realistic painting is to music with lyrics.

"I don't have access to the emoticon menu on my tablet and wonder if I could find an emoticon anyway that would depict my astonishment at that question and statement. Many, many misplaced electrons."

Right on, Ellen. I think someone needs a little more immersion in sound waves before making such comments! ;-)

Here are some comparisons/parallels that I think seem more apt and more helpful as an overview to this controversy:

1. An abstract painting is to a (non-melodic, mood-evoking) tone poem what a realistic painting is to music with melody.

2. A realistic painting is to music with melody what a realistic painting with title and written description is to melodic music with descriptive program notes.

3. A realistic painting is to music with melody what a realistic painting with an accompanying poem is to melodic music with lyrics.

As a musician/theorist interested in (nay, fascinated with!) analyzing meaning and emotion in music, I consider music with lyrics to be like "training wheels" for understanding music without lyrics. (Or, as Peikoff might call it, "the antechamber.") Of course, this presumes a "good match" between music and lyrics, and it entails a huge amount of grunt-work, going through the melodies that have stood the test of time - whether from the past several centuries of "serious" music, or from the past decades of popular music, to see what recurring patterns of melody &c emerge from the research.

It's one thing to hypothesize that thus-and-such a melody is most appropriate for conveying a particular meaning or emotion, and quite another to find out whether that meaning/emotion in fact was (most often and most effectively) conveyed that way. Step 1: hypothesis. Step 2: look at LOTS of songs with words, classical and popular, identify patterns and evaluate whether they confirm the hypothesis. If so, throw away the training wheels and go to Step 3: look at LOTS of purely instrumental pieces, identify the patterns and see whether they too confirm the hypothesis. (Look for anomalies and counter-examples, too. I already have a lot of them in mind, for popular songs.)

If I weren't so deeply "immersed" in writing about Rand's file folder metaphor and critiquing the Objectivist theory of volition, I'd be working on this project right now. But if someone out there wants to jump on it and do it themselves, be my guest.

REB

Roger, this was an excellent post.

If you liked Roger's post, you might want to also check out the one where I identified Roger's position as being a category mistake:

In Case 4, you start with a visual art form which overtly mimics/imitates/represents reality: It creates a direct likeness of things in reality; and you finish with an art form which does not overtly mimic/imitate/represent reality: It creates an indirect likeness of things in reality.

In order for Case 3 to be a true and valid parallel, it would have to start with an example of aural art which overtly mimics/imitates/represents reality: One which creates a direct aural likeness of things in reality (such as birdsong, Steve Vai's laughing guitar, etc.); and it would have to finish with an aural art form which does not overtly mimic/imitate/represent reality: One which creates an indirect likeness of things in reality.

So, these would be the categories:

1) Realism (direct, identifiable likenesses, overt mimesis/imitation).

2) Abstraction (indirect, vaguely identifiable likenesses, non-mimesis/non-imitation)

Your mistake was in making traditional tonal music, which belongs in category 2, parallel to art forms that are in category 1. And it's the mistake that you continue to make. You are misidentifying music as belonging in category 1. It does not meet the criteria despite your wanting it to.

J

[Jonathan]

1. An abstract painting is to a (non-melodic, mood-evoking) tone poem what a realistic painting is to music with melody.

That idea hits the bullseye.

An abstract painting is atonal.

A realistic painting is a song.

Greg

You're repeating Roger's category mistake. Which makes sense, Greg, because you're always practicing one logical fallacy or another.

Are you guys familiar with Rand's notion of defining things by "essentials"?

A rational comparison, based on relevant essentials rather than on non-essentials, would be that a realistic/representational painting (which includes identifiable visual likenesses of things in reality) is the equivalent of a realistic/representational piece of music (which includes identifiable aural likenesses of things in reality).

And a non-realistic/non-representational/abstract painting (which does not include identifiable visual likenesses of things in reality) would be the equivalent of a non-realistic/non-representational/abstract piece of music (which does not include identifiable aural likenesses of things in reality).

Any piece of music which does not rely on readily identifiable realistic/representational aural imitations of things in reality is not art by Objectivist criteria. It is the equivalent of abstract paintings.

Further, abstract paintings are not "atonal." They are composed of colors and forms that go well together, or which visually harmonize. Their colors and forms are chosen for their ability to express emotions. They are not chosen based on an atonal formula.

You guys are getting everything twisted around and misidentified because you're reifying an inapt analogy. What you've done is to arbitrarily classify the things that you don't like based only on the fact that you don't like them. You don't like atonal music, and you don't like abstract visual art (well, other than architecture), so you treat them as being the same, and then you falsely analogize to the conclusion that the things that you do like -- music and realistic/representational paintings -- are the same. They are not. Music does not magically become realistic/representational just because you've arbitrarily and inappropriately compared it to a realistic/representational art form. Music's characteristics in reality do not become parallel to the characteristics of realistic visual art just because you want them to.

Earlier, Roger attempted to answer Dutton's question that I posted about what is "re-created" in a fugue.

I've always thought that fugues were like multi-voice conversations "chewing" on the same comment(s) - difficult to follow, but aided somewhat by the recurrence of material. A well-written fugue is coherent and does not descend into unintelligible babble. The best fugues are written in a key that makes them playable by trombone trios or quartets. :-)

Others see fugues a bit differently. They see them as chases. In fact, the origins of the word "fugue" mean "chase." So it appears that Roger has demonstrated that music does not re-create anything which can be easily identified by listeners. If someone with Roger's musical background can't identify anything with specificity or commonality with others, but ends up importing his own personal, subjective take on it -- one which includes the very Randian notion of conversational "chewing" -- then clearly music is not "re-creating" anything anywhere near the level that Objectivists require when they declare that abstract paintings are not art. Double standard.

When I identify what I see in abstract paintings, I'm held to a much higher standard. If I were to say that I saw a "conversation" where others saw a "chase," I'd be accused to "reading into" the art, "just making stuff up," and deserving of being mocked and ridiculed and told, "Give me a break!"

Anyway, it really is astounding that there are people here who hold the position that the abstract compositions of architecture and music can express enough emotion and meaning to qualify as art, but the abstract compositions of abstract paintings cannot. Heh. If I were to show you an abstract composition of forms, and tell you that it's an elevation drawing of a work of architecture, you'd exclaim that it presents great emotional depth and meaning, but if I were to show you the exact same drawing and tell you that it's an abstract painting, you'd say that it's meaningless nonsense and a vicious attack on "man's mind."

Your position is silly. The Objectivist Esthetics will never have influence, and will be nothing but a laughing stock, as long as its supporters continue to deny the obvious and to employ irrational double standards. You're not fooling anyone other than yourselves.

J

[Jonathan]

"Art works don't refer. They present."

Beautifully put Ellen.

It's nice to see you back, Michael. Perhaps now we can pick up where we left off when you left OL in a huff? There are still a lot of unanswered questions that I'd like to hear you answer.

J

[Jonathan]

I'm really not interested in hearing any more of your relativist hippy feminized leftist gibberish, Greg.

You at least made an attempt at humor, Jonathan. But what makes it funny is that its a comment by a superfluous flighty artist to a practical real world mechanic. I could live without people who do what you do... while you could not live without people who do what I do.

Greg

You're making some unwarranted assumptions.

The first is that because I'm an artist I must not have "real world mechanical" skills. The reality is that I might have more advanced knowledge and hands-on experience at a more fundamental level than you do. You may know how to use items that you purchase at a store, but where would you be if you had to create those items from scratch via designing, smelting, molding and machining?

And, btw, your appraisal of the arts as being "superfluous" is quite fitting with your mindset, and your classifying me as "flighty" is hilarious, especially in light of your beliefs in magical/supernatural entities and your almost constant use of the fallacy of affirming the consequent.

J

[Brant Gaede]

Without me you'd all be screwed.

--Brant

why does a caveman need an electrician?--to bonk him on the head, drive in some sense

[Jonathan]

Seriously, bro, you really should consider taking it down a few notches, and contemplate applying the same careful generosity to all artworks that you give to Rand's.

J

Generosity. What for, generosity? I go one better, I treat artworks seriously, I take their artists' word for it. What else is art for, if not to see the world through an other's eyes, experience what's important to him or her, and just occasionally have one's own view of life affirmed?

"Don't take me seriously, I don't mean it" - is roughly what modern art is about. So, a Warhol picture might be claiming that a Campbell's soup can, or a series of repeated, vari-toned photos of Monroe, is self-ironic. It's an 'in joke' directed at consumerism, or celebrity-dom (and fetches big bucks) he might be implying. I take him at his word, they aren't be taken seriously.

(And abstract art has the best evasion: "Ha. You can't take my art seriously and judge it, since you can't even understand it in the first place!")

You seen to think I -ungenerously- go around judging, praising and condemning art, according to Naturalism/Romanticism types.

I've made the point often enough, that I try to see what's 'there', to appreciate the inherent style, look for often unexpected values, and so on, regardless of category. If the picture grabs me aesthetically and content-wise, it settles more deeply into my mind. I think I have rather eclectic tastes which cross several categories of art, fiction and music. Going back to broad categories, I've said before I prefer some great Naturalism (of the non-boring kind) to so-so, unoriginal Romanticism, of which there isn't a vast selection anyway - but now and again, it all comes together as the best of the latter.

The above is a perfect example of what I was talking about. Where you bring generosity and lots of convenient double standards and forgiving selectivity to judging Rand and her art, you approach those whom you've prejudicially decided to hate with pure hostility. You make unwarranted assumptions, you willfully misinterpret, and you assume the worst.

J

[Brant Gaede]

Art:

I like this.

I dislike that.

I don't react.

Tony, you write monographs to say the same things.

--Brant

[Jonathan]

Without me you'd all be screwed.

--Brant

why does a caveman need an electrician?--to bonk him on the head, drive in some sense

It would make for an interesting experiment or reality show: If Greg versus people who have "superfluous" careers were isolated from modern conveniences, and had to discover how to make things for themselves from scratch in order to survive, would Greg do any better than others? Would he be able to create? Does he have the mental capacity to do anything beyond copying the tasks that he's been trained to perform? Left alone in the wilderness, would he originate new ideas and methods faster and better than the "superfluous" people, or would he be limited to what he has already learned from others?

J

[Brant Gaede]

Without me you'd all be screwed.

--Brant

why does a caveman need an electrician?--to bonk him on the head, drive in some sense

It would make for an interesting experiment or reality show: If Greg versus people who have "superfluous" careers were isolated from modern conveniences, and had to discover how to make things for themselves from scratch in order to survive, would Greg do any better than others? Would he be able to create? Does he have the mental capacity to do anything beyond copying the tasks that he's been trained to perform? Left alone in the wilderness, would he originate new ideas and methods faster and better than the "superfluous" people, or would he be limited to what he has already learned from others?

J

Actually, he could do quite well, but he'd need to get more social.

--Brant

tribal time

[anthony]

J: If music is an abstraction, then all sound is an abstraction. But it's not, is it? It can be identified and named: screeching tyres, birdsong, a viola, hammering metal...a symphony.

Is reality an abstraction? Is sight abstract? Only a manmade 'abstract' image which may be presented to one's vision can be 'abstract'. Nothing else man-made or in nature can be 'abstract' (that is, unidentifiable).

But you can't have it both ways.

To claim to see even approximate meanings in abstract images, is a self-contradiction; then it's not 'abstract' any longer - in which case, anyone can learn its signs and symbols from a book.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Here's a quote from The Black Swan: The Impact of the Highly Improbable by Nassim Nicholas Taleb.

I have been listening to an audiobook of this during as my car driving and a sentence jumped out at me, so much so that I went to the printed book and found it (p. 31):

It is hard for us to accept that people do not fall in love with works of art only for their own sake, but also in order to feel that they belong to a community.

Man, does that seem to hit the center of all controversies surrounding Ayn Rand's aesthetics.

A person with a Randian mindset is still a member of community even if it is only the broad category of Ayn Rand fans.

I think story is the glue that binds communities and gives power to the leaders, which is already a bit outside the box, but I never thought of community identity as one of the fundamental characteristics of aesthetics.

I have to think about this some, but it sounds awfully true on first blush. And not just for Rand's standards of art. For all of it.

Michael