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

[Brant Gaede]

Tony, reality is an abstraction. Aspects of reality are concretes.

--Brant

[william.scherk]

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.

You're making some unwarranted assumptions.

First, remove the irrelevant and insulting padding, and see what Greg is contrasting. Stripped of the irrelevancies, it seems Greg sees two types of people who are in different relationships.

There are the mechanics/electricians ... and there are the artists and artisans/designers. One group builds or maintains an electrical system or a septic field or a shack on the edge of the wilderness. This group is able to build or purchase all necessary things and systems. If they want a chair, they build it. If they want a lamp, they build it. If they want some wallpaper, or calendars, they make these things.

The artists produce 'art.' The group as a whole makes all kinds of art, ugly art, illustrative art, patterns, domestic art, cracker-tin pictorials, and so on.

Now Greg's group may or may not enjoy the contemplation of artworks. His point is that he doesn't need it (the same way an artist needs a shack and a pump and a vegetable garden). He doesn't and his group doesn't need art.

So, the difference could be sharpened. Greg makes nearly everything he needs (shelter, food, electricity, plumbing, sewarage, petroleum products), so he is independent to the max. Jonathan, on the other hand, makes nothing but art, and nobody needs art. And if anyone did want art (or pretend to need it), then they can make the art themselves. They can draw their own wallpaper designs and prints for fabrics and pillows, and they can make their own beautiful artistic calendars, and so on.

So, Greg has -- by elaborating the differences between himself and Jonathan that he assumes -- identified himself as a fully self-determining man who can make anything he needs.

Now, in my mind's eye, I am looking inside Greg's abode. There are no paintings or prints framed on the walls. His sheets and pillows are plain and white. His coffee cups are plain. There are no bits of artistry in any visual medium. No sculptures, no busts, no literature, no picture books, no nothing. Greg doesn't need this shit, this art crap. And so he does not consume it.

The contrast is complete. Far away in a snowy state, Jonathan is making art (we do not inquire exactly what). This art is unnecessary and unwanted by Greg.

I don't think it is Jonathan in particular that Greg considers superfluous, it is artists in general (including fiction authors) who are unnecessary the world over. It is art is general that is to be rejected and ranked lower than electrical systems and shacks and septic fields and miniature trains and perfect moral creatures ...

Now, some may consider that such an estimation of art's value clashes strongly with an Objectivish stance. It may, but that is not Greg's concern. I think Greg's concern is to feel morally superior to other folks in discussion.

It should not matter to him that other folks do value art and welcome it it their lives, or that some folks hold an art portfolio as an investment and as something for their descendants to own, sell, auction once death intrudes.

So, Greg takes the moral high ground, deprecates artists in particular and art in general, and judges Jonathan's artistic output as superfluous to the real world of men and machines and wiring and plumbing and drywall and firewood and septic tanks and so on.

Jonathan, what could you possibly hope to trade with Greg, value for value, if he deprecates art entirely?

Here's a canvas by one of my favourite British Columbia paintings -- Emily Carr's "Kitwancool" from 1928.

[Jonathan]

J: If music is an abstraction, then all sound is an abstraction.

No. That doesn't logically follow. It doesn't even illogically follow.

But it's not, is it? It can be identified and named: screeching tyres, birdsong, a viola, hammering metal...

The arts are categorized as "realistic/representational" versus "abstract." If an art form creates directly identifiable likenesses of things in reality, then it is "realistic/representational." If an art form does not create directly identifiable likenesses of things in reality, then it is "abstract."

If a piece of music were to rely on instruments mimicking the identifiable sounds of screeching tires, birdsongs, etc., then it would be proper to categorize that piece of music as "realistic/representational," whereas any piece of music which does not rely on making such identifiable imitations is properly categorized as "abstract."

J

[Jonathan]

Jonathan, what could you possibly hope to trade with Greg, value for value, if he deprecates art entirely?

I suppose I could always create stories designed to confirm the existence of the magical entities that Greg believes in. He certainly seems to place a lot of value on that brand of artistry. In fact, he seems to value it much more than he values reality.

J

[anthony]

Art:

I like this.

I dislike that.

I don't react.

Tony, you write monographs to say the same things.

--Brant

It seems you guys don't recognize the hierarchy from art's objective identification and life-value, down to one's own objective values.

'Fact and value': A piece of art is also a fact of reality, which can only be assessed the same way.

If anyone thinks art has no objective, personal purpose (which I gather you do) then only subjective or intrinsicist 'values' are left.

Greg has it quite right. To whatever his extent of art appreciation, he sees, he understands, he approves and he applies it to his life. Anything but treating artwork Platonically or collectively, separate from reality and one's life.

[anthony]

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

J: You have to jack up your reading skills, "hate with pure hostility" is a figment of your imagination.

You are back to psychologizing again.

If "generosity" for art is more important than my respect in taking it seriously, the implication is it is not worthy of respect.

{Granting poetic and dramatic licence, is something automatic I do}.

[Jonathan]

It seems you guys don't recognize the hierarchy from art's objective identification and life-value, down to one's own objective values.

'Fact and value': A piece of art is also a fact of reality, which can only be assessed the same way.

If anyone thinks art has no objective, personal purpose (which I gather you do) then only subjective or intrinsicist 'values' are left.

Greg has it quite right. To whatever his extent of art appreciation, he sees, he understands, he approves and he applies it to his life. Anything but treating artwork Platonically or collectively, separate from reality and one's life.

And it seems to me that you don't have any knowledge of art, art history, or aesthetics outside of Rand's theories and those of her followers and supporters. You seem to have no exposure to real people in reality, but instead you have a fictional notion -- a fantasy -- of heroes and villains, and you willfully misinterpret people and try to make them fit the mold of your imagined villains, so as to cast yourself as the hero.

J

[anthony]

It seems you guys don't recognize the hierarchy from art's objective identification and life-value, down to one's own objective values.

'Fact and value': A piece of art is also a fact of reality, which can only be assessed the same way.

If anyone thinks art has no objective, personal purpose (which I gather you do) then only subjective or intrinsicist 'values' are left.

Greg has it quite right. To whatever his extent of art appreciation, he sees, he understands, he approves and he applies it to his life. Anything but treating artwork Platonically or collectively, separate from reality and one's life.

And it seems to me that you don't have any knowledge of art, art history, or aesthetics outside of Rand's theories and those of her followers and supporters. You seem to have no exposure to real people in reality, but instead you have a fictional notion -- a fantasy -- of heroes and villains, and you willfully misinterpret people and try to make them fit the mold of your imagined villains, so as to cast yourself as the hero.

J

"Any knowledge". Untrue, if certainly not to your level of education.

"No exposure to real people in reality". That's a joke of course...

"Wilfully misinterpret". Then I'd be wrong - but show me where.

"A fantasy of heroes and villains". I try to see art as real as the artist makes it. His are the villains and heroes, if any.

"So as to cast yourself as the hero". Now you're getting it!

[Roger Bissell]

Jonathan in #566 said: "Earlier, Roger attempted to answer Dutton's question that I posted about what is "re-created" in a fugue."

(REB) 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. :-)

Jonathan commented: "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."

Polyphony in general began as multiple voices, perhaps beginning at different times, but eventually singing different musical material, but conceptually related material, at the same time - for instance, in Catholic worship services. That's why the conversation metaphor seems so apt in describing polyphony. We even talk of different "voices," meaning different vocal parts.

That doesn't mean that conversation or communal discussion of some idea is the only metaphor that polyphony can present. A round (like "Row, Row, Row Your Boat" or "Frere Jacques"), which is a simpler form of polyphony than a fugue, in fact sounds like a *verbal* chase, where the second entering voice (or group of voices) repeat exactly what was sung by the first one. Sort of a "catch me, if you can." I almost included this in my post, then (unfortunately) thought better of it. But now that Jonathan has introduced the point, I couldn't be happier.

So yes, a "chase" - "catch me, if you can," "repeat after me," whatever. This metaphor certainly has both specificity and commonality for *many* people, especially on the level of the canon or round. Fugues, for the most part though, are generally considered to be more on the intellectual side of music. (Plus, they're hard as hell to write.) I would imagine that most schoolchildren (and adults) who find rounds to be great fun are probably bored to tears halfway through their first fugue.

I used the term "chewing" to connote reflecting upon what someone else has sung (or, metaphorically, "said"), more or less repeating it at least in part, then adding variations or elaborations. I'm not aware of Rand as an advocate of *conversational* "chewing," as against simple conversation. Her concept of philosophical chewing pertained to analyzing and reflecting on ideas to get a deeper understanding of them. This has nothing to do with the use I made of the term, and I sorely regret using it.

The good news, however, is that Jonathan's if-then logic in his next to last sentence breaks down because of false presumption on his part. It doesn't prove that I can competently, correctly do aesthetics - but it does prove that he plays very fast and loose with logic and prefers lurid gotcha's to sound argument.

REB

[Newberry]

Polyphony in general began as multiple voices, perhaps beginning at different times, but eventually singing different musical material, but conceptually related material, at the same time - for instance, in Catholic worship services. That's why the conversation metaphor seems so apt in describing polyphony. We even talk of different "voices," meaning different vocal parts.

That doesn't mean that conversation or communal discussion of some idea is the only metaphor that polyphony can present. A round (like "Row, Row, Row Your Boat" or "Frere Jacques"), which is a simpler form of polyphony than a fugue, in fact sounds like a *verbal* chase, where the second entering voice (or group of voices) repeat exactly what was sung by the first one. Sort of a "catch me, if you can." I almost included this in my post, then (unfortunately) thought better of it. But now that Jonathan has introduced the point, I couldn't be happier.

So yes, a "chase" - "catch me, if you can," "repeat after me," whatever. This metaphor certainly has both specificity and commonality for *many* people, especially on the level of the canon or round. ...

I used the term "chewing" to connote reflecting upon what someone else has sung (or, metaphorically, "said"), more or less repeating it at least in part, then adding variations or elaborations. I'm not aware of Rand as an advocate of *conversational* "chewing," as against simple conversation. Her concept of philosophical chewing pertained to analyzing and reflecting on ideas to get a deeper understanding of them. This has nothing to do with the use I made of the term, and I sorely regret using it.

REB

Nice! It's pleasure to read these informative thoughts.

[Jonathan]

The good news, however, is that Jonathan's if-then logic in his next to last sentence breaks down because of false presumption on his part. It doesn't prove that I can competently, correctly do aesthetics - but it does prove that he plays very fast and loose with logic and prefers lurid gotcha's to sound argument.

There's nothing "fast and loose" about my use of logic. I've correctly identified your position as being that of an obvious error based on a category mistake, and on the employment of double standards. In order to attempt to classify music as a valid art form by Objectivish criteria, you have to play fast and loose with reality, and you have to misrepresent music as not being abstract, but as being a parallel to realistic/representational art! It's really an obvious error, Roger.

Anyway, it's amusing that none of you address my comments about the abstract art form of architecture. I know that several of you disagree with Kamhi on the subject of architecture, but you don't want to go there now. Why is that? Heh. Is it more important right now to present a united front? Why aren't any of you interested in exploring and discussing your differences with Kamhi's views? Why are my views so upsetting to you, but when Kamhi says that you are a part of the problem (the horrible cultural problem of the destruction of the objectively proper concept, definition and criteria of "art") you're completely unfazed and uninterested?

Why not just admit to reality? There is no rational rhyme or reason to your views on art. There's no objectivity or consistency. Everything comes down to nothing but the fact that each of you personally doesn't experience anything of depth or meaning in the art forms that you reject. You each arbitrarily attempt to establish your own personal aesthetic responses and lack of responses as the universal standard for determining what is or is not art. You each arbitrarily reject others' reports of the depth of their responses to art when you don't happen to experience the same.

J

[Jonathan]

Throughout Kamhi's book, she laments that talented artists who have genuine skills aren't receiving the attention, respect and wealth that they deserve.

And then, in chapter 10, Kamhi tells us about her love of Gauguin's work. She loves it, and praises it to high heaven, despite its not being academically/technically worthy! By any objective technical standard, Gauguin painted like a kid, like an amateur. So, what happened to Kamhi's concern for genuinely skilled artists? Why does she dedicate a section of her book to promoting a lesser-talented artist, rather than highlighting an objectively superior artist who actually deserves the recognition? Why is what she subjectively likes more important to her than what is objectively demonstrably superior?

J

[Jonathan]

Polyphony in general began as multiple voices, perhaps beginning at different times, but eventually singing different musical material, but conceptually related material, at the same time - for instance, in Catholic worship services. That's why the conversation metaphor seems so apt in describing polyphony. We even talk of different "voices," meaning different vocal parts.

That doesn't mean that conversation or communal discussion of some idea is the only metaphor that polyphony can present. A round (like "Row, Row, Row Your Boat" or "Frere Jacques"), which is a simpler form of polyphony than a fugue, in fact sounds like a *verbal* chase, where the second entering voice (or group of voices) repeat exactly what was sung by the first one. Sort of a "catch me, if you can." I almost included this in my post, then (unfortunately) thought better of it. But now that Jonathan has introduced the point, I couldn't be happier.

So yes, a "chase" - "catch me, if you can," "repeat after me," whatever. This metaphor certainly has both specificity and commonality for *many* people, especially on the level of the canon or round. ...

I used the term "chewing" to connote reflecting upon what someone else has sung (or, metaphorically, "said"), more or less repeating it at least in part, then adding variations or elaborations. I'm not aware of Rand as an advocate of *conversational* "chewing," as against simple conversation. Her concept of philosophical chewing pertained to analyzing and reflecting on ideas to get a deeper understanding of them. This has nothing to do with the use I made of the term, and I sorely regret using it.

REB

Nice! It's pleasure to read these informative thoughts.

Excellent job of praising the people you agree with, Michael! Good job!

J

[Brant Gaede]

Throughout Kamhi's book, she laments that talented artists who have genuine skills aren't receiving the attention, respect and wealth that they deserve.

And then, in chapter 10, Kamhi tells us about her love of Gauguin's work. She loves it, and praises it to high heaven, despite its not being academically/technically worthy! By any objective technical standard, Gauguin painted like a kid, like an amateur. So, what happened to Kamhi's concern for genuinely skilled artists? Why does she dedicate a section of her book to promoting a lesser-talented artist, rather than highlighting an objectively superior artist who actually deserves the recognition? Why is what she subjectively likes more important to her than what is objectively demonstrably superior?

J

But a great artist? He greatly influenced Picasso, according to Wikipedia. Was Picasso a great artist? Picasso struck me as an artist who had more skill than he usually used, not Gauguin. Gauguin seems all maxed out.

--Brant

[Jonathan]

Throughout Kamhi's book, she laments that talented artists who have genuine skills aren't receiving the attention, respect and wealth that they deserve.

And then, in chapter 10, Kamhi tells us about her love of Gauguin's work. She loves it, and praises it to high heaven, despite its not being academically/technically worthy! By any objective technical standard, Gauguin painted like a kid, like an amateur. So, what happened to Kamhi's concern for genuinely skilled artists? Why does she dedicate a section of her book to promoting a lesser-talented artist, rather than highlighting an objectively superior artist who actually deserves the recognition? Why is what she subjectively likes more important to her than what is objectively demonstrably superior?

J

But a great artist? He greatly influenced Picasso, according to Wikipedia. Was Picasso a great artist? Picasso struck me as an artist who had more skill than he usually used, not Gauguin. Gauguin seems all maxed out.

--Brant

I don't know! I'm trying to be "objective" and employ the methods that defenders of "objectivity" use. So, I guess that I have to ask myself if I like Picasso's work, despite it's not being great by any objective standards, and if I do, therefore it is "objectively" great art?

J

[Brant Gaede]

Fire (subjective)

Ice (objective)

--Brant

Some say the world will end in fire,

Objectivists say ice.

From what I've tasted of desire

I hold with those who favor fire.

But if it had to perish twice,

I think I know enough of hate

For that destruction ice

Is also great

And would suffice.

[moralist]

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):

Taleb said

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

Hey Michael. I'm in the middle of reading "The Black Swan" too!

I love his wry witty observations of human nature.

Greg

[moralist]

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

Beautifully put Ellen.

I also really liked her particular comment too because it's so spot on.

(...but for God's sake, don't tell her)

Greg

[Newberry]

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?

Nice!

[Newberry]

For the reader, if you are interested in how music and emotions work and what some of the best brains working in this field have to say about it, here is a partial repeat of the titles I suggest as a start.

I believe you will learn a lot. I know I have just from periodic skims. (Once I finish my work on story, I will delve into this stuff in earnest.)

Sweet Anticipation: Music and the Psychology of Expectation by David Huron

This Is Your Brain on Music: The Science of a Human Obsession by Daniel Levitin

The World in Six Songs: How the Musical Brain Created Human Nature by Daniel Levitin

Music, The Brain, And Ecstasy: How Music Captures Our Imagination by Robert Jourdain

Music and the Mind by Anthony Storr (this is an older work than the others and probably more speculative than scientific, but I love Storr's insights)

Musicophilia: Tales of Music and the Brain by Oliver Sacks

That's not all, but it's a good start. Every time I pass the shelf where my books on music and audio are, I pick up one of these, skim a little and sigh, hoping for more time one day. I'm particularly fascinated by fMRI scans and hormone secretions (dopamine, serotonin, etc.) with music.

I did read a lot of stuff on music and emotions in another time of my life, but those works are not nearly as good as the ones I listed above. Here are just a few from before:

Emotion and Meaning in Music by Leonard B. Meyer

The Language of Music by Deryck Cooke (an earlier edition than the one linked here)

Psychology of Music by Carl E. Seashore

Principles of Rhythm by Paul Creston (not as relevant to emotions, but I thought it was when I bought it way back when )

For those interested in the Rand-was-right vs Rand-was-wrong contest, I don't have much to offer.

Michael

Wow, those are some interesting links. Oliver Sacks seems like a very engaging character. I think its is excellent that you posted these Michael.

[Roger Bissell]

Jonathan in #566: "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."

In #584, I supplied the specificity and commonality he presumed that I could not, on which basis he invalidly inferred that music is not "re-creating" anything that justifies saying abstract paintings are not art.

Jonathan then in #586 says there's nothing fast and loose about his use of logic. No? Then perhaps there's some other cognitive impairment going on that explains his failure to retract his bogus argument in #566. Perhaps it's the influence of modern, abstract logic, that says a false premise doesn't have to generate an unsound argument, if you don't want it to. That might explain it.

I'm not defending Kamhi or presenting a united front on her behalf. I debated her and Lou's ideas on music and architecture, and art in general, over a 5 year period in JARS and that's enough. I may read this new book of hers some day, but I don't think there's any new reasoning in it beyond her and Lou's first book 15+ years ago.

As for rejecting others' reports of the depth of their responses to art when I don't happen to experience the same - when did I ever make a claim like that? I don't have an aesthetic response to the Rolling Stones, but I certainly don't reject the depth of the responses of others to them either.

In contrast, if someone presents nondescript lumps of brownish material as a work of art and claims it is profound and deep in its aesthetic meaning, yes, I do respond with incredulity, and so do many people who are otherwise extremely tolerant and ecumenical in their non-rejection of the aesthetic responses of others. And no, it is not unreasonable or arbitrary to expect an explanation of how these nondescript lumps present anything meaningful and worth contemplating. The presumption is that it is an example of the Emperor's New Artworks. If that presumption is rebuttable, let's hear it.

REB

[Newberry]

I'm aware of Capuletti's technical deficits, but I do find some of his work imaginative, with a sense of juxtaposition which reminds me of Rand's (e.g., such twists of hers as "The Bottom at the Top" and "The Chickens' Homecoming").

Ellen

He was never an artist that appealed to me, but in the 70's there were very few notable fine artists. There was Hopper, who painted urban landscapes and interiors with his wife posing, Chandleresk. A classical painter William Whitaker, he carried through the modern era and taught classical techniques, I researched him a little bit when I was young with the idea of studying with him, but I hated his work. Philip Pearlstein had a gimmick of lighting his models with 3 or four lights, which casted odd shadows, lights. From that time I can only remember about 7 or 8 figurative painters, oh Andrew Wyeth, and Norman Rockwell.

I like Hopper alot, and Wyeth and Rockwell have great techniques, though Rockwell was a paid illustrator and Wyeth is somewhere in-between illustrator and realist. Given that group Capuletti, I prefer him to Pearlstein and Whitaker, kind of a mini version of Dali without the surrealism.

[anthony]

Fire (subjective)

Ice (objective)

--Brant

Some say the world will end in fire,

Objectivists say ice.

From what I've tasted of desire

I hold with those who favor fire.

But if it had to perish twice,

I think I know enough of hate

For that destruction ice

Is also great

And would suffice.

Damn, that's good. Your's, Brant? In which case I'd forgive you for that "reality is abstraction".

[anthony]

J: If music is an abstraction, then all sound is an abstraction.

No. That doesn't logically follow. It doesn't even illogically follow.

But it's not, is it? It can be identified and named: screeching tyres, birdsong, a viola, hammering metal...

The arts are categorized as "realistic/representational" versus "abstract." If an art form creates directly identifiable likenesses of things in reality, then it is "realistic/representational." If an art form does not create directly identifiable likenesses of things in reality, then it is "abstract."

If a piece of music were to rely on instruments mimicking the identifiable sounds of screeching tires, birdsongs, etc., then it would be proper to categorize that piece of music as "realistic/representational," whereas any piece of music which does not rely on making such identifiable imitations is properly categorized as "abstract."

J

All music is sound, not all sound is music. Is that logical enough?

"The arts are categorized as realistic...versus "abstract"".

"Categorized", by whom? I doubt by any philosophers, positively not by Objectivist philosophers.

I understand that this has been an accepted convention in the art world - but an abstract-in-reality is a contradiction in terms .

Everything in reality is concrete, not "abstract", including abstract art. However a distinction, what such art depicts is 'unreal' and unintelligible - or is, at least, open to interpretation (being "generous").

Abstractions and concepts exist in our minds in order to encompass reality.

See what happens when we admit in fudge words like "abstract": As in abstract art, musical abstraction. First anyone can jointly apply them to equally justify abstract art along with music, in a package deal. Second, the whole subject begins to stray into mysticism.

Rather as if Art and Beauty descend to men direct from the gods via the medium of the artist.

(Which is not far off the mark in many people's heads, I think).

[Brant Gaede]

Fire (subjective)

Ice (objective)

--Brant

Some say the world will end in fire,

Objectivists say ice.

From what I've tasted of desire

I hold with those who favor fire.

But if it had to perish twice,

I think I know enough of hate

For that destruction ice

Is also great

And would suffice.

Damn, that's good. Your's, Brant? In which case I'd forgive you for that "reality is abstraction".

You don't know Robert Frost?

--Brant

the unforgiven