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

[anthony]

Ah. Fooled me for a moment.

Frost on ice. That was a hell of a poet.

(Forgiven anyway, it is impossible to hold a grudge).

[Brant Gaede]

deleted

[Jonathan]

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.

Heh. You changed your interpretation and supplied some "commonality" after I challenged your initial interpretation as not being very common. When people listen to a fugue, some might say that it has similarities to a conversation, where some others might say that it is more like a chase, and still others might say that, no, it's like a reflection. And there are some who will make none of those comparisons. Many -- probably most -- would say that a fugue may have some similarities to conversations, chases and reflections, but it also has similarities to many other things, and therefore it is not actually "re-creating" anything specific, but is abstract rather than realistic/representational.

As I correctly said, your accepting of such vagueness and differences in interpretations is nowhere near to meeting the same standard of specificity and commonality that Objectivists require when they reject abstract paintings and sculptures. The standard that Objectivists/Objectivish-types require for abstract art does not accept conversations, chases and reflections as being the same thing. In fact, the standard that they apply to abstract visual art would require that all viewers specifically identify not only which one of the three was re-created, but also what the conversation was about, or who was chasing whom and why, or what specific entity was being reflected in what specific type of surface.

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.

See above. Heh. Um, Roger, you're trying to force an abstract art form into the category of realism/representationalism, so you might want to reconsider your eagerness to throw around accusations of faulty logic. Now you're trying to paint my identification of your use of the fallacy of the category mistake as kooky modern logic? Heh. Go for it, bud. It's not going to fly. You're only making a fool of yourself.

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.

I agree that there's really nothing new in the book. I've boiled it down to essentials already: The book is nothing more than Kamhi's attempting to establish her own lack of depth of aesthetic response as the standard by which to assert what is not art. It is nothing more than the 'argument from personal incredulity.'

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?

You don't remember our previous conversation about my responses to abstract paintings? You know, where you included a certain family member's comments as an attempt to ridicule my explanation of what I experienced in the art?

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.

Great! Why not apply that grown up attitude to others' responses to abstract visual art, and not just to abstract aural art?

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.

And if someone were to give you such an explanation, would you listen to it, and contemplate it without hostility, or would you plug your ears and immediately have the uncontrollable emotional need to scream, "Give me a break!" If a person were to give you a very detailed explanation, would you later lie that you were given no explanation, and claim that you were told instead that "to those who understand, no explanation is necessary, and to those who don't, no explanation is possible"?

If a person were to explain to you that the "nondescript lumps of brownish material" had the same aesthetic effect on him as looking at the rolling hills of a freshly planted field, that it was like a wonderful little microcosm of agriculture and new life, would you still be so upset and still need to deny the validity of his aesthetic response?

The presumption is that it is an example of the Emperor's New Artworks.

Yeah, good one there, Roger! I've never heard anyone compare the art that they don't get anything from to the story of the Emperor's New Clothes. Very original!

Kamhi's position is that you are claiming to see in architecture what's not there. When she pulls the highly original Emperor's New Clothes thing on you and your "pretend" depth of response to architecture, what do you say?

Like me, do you say that her personal aesthetic limitations are not universal? Do you tell her that her lack of depth of response is not proof that you lack depth of response?

If that presumption is rebuttable, let's hear it.

You should think about adopting something other than your own personal reactions to visual art as the norm or as universal. The fact that you would be upset about some brownish material and wouldn't have an aesthetic response to it doesn't mean that everyone will be upset and that no one will have a deep aesthetic response. The fact that you cannot imagine something doesn't add up to anything. The 'argument from personal incredulity' is worthless. It's time for Objectivish-types to abandon it. In fact, it's well past the time.

J

[Brant Gaede]

Ah. Fooled me for a moment.

Frost on ice. That was a hell of a poet.

(Forgiven anyway, it is impossible to hold a grudge).

I really don't get it. I didn't say reality didn't exist. That would be arguing with an axiom. That "man" is an abstraction doesn't mean man doesn't exist. You can posit that the universe is a gigantic, interconnected something, but reality is an even broader concept in that if there is something somewhere not of the universe it fits the concept. We cannot know anything not of the universe, of course, unless we somehow come on something that while in our universe is not of it. Good luck with ever discovering any such thing for one universe plus another universe mixing it up physically is actually one. Only by saying that reality and universe mean exactly the same thing can we say each is a concrete consisting of many (all) concretes in the way a human body is the concrete sum of all its concretes. But "reality" sweeps in everything. It is the one epistemological step beyond the universe. We use it for the search for the unknown but hopefully knowable, not the unknowable. When we find something new we then throw that into "the universe." It was always there, but prior it wasn't in anybody's head except as a possibility, if that. To say something is "real" is only the abstraction concretized. It may be a rock in one's hand but there is no way to put "real" in one's hand, only a real something.

--Brant

reality exists, and . . .

[Jonathan]

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.

Rockwell was both an illustrator and a "fine" artist. Calling him only a "paid illustrator" would be like someone calling you only a paid art instructor to bored housewives. It would kind of smack of denial of reality likely motivated by jealousy.

As for your categorizing Wyeth as somewhere between illustrator and realist, Kamhi gets very upset about that sort of thing and calls it intellectual bullying. You might have just made her list. Seriously! She actually gripes about Hilton Kramer's criticism of Wyeth's work as being like illustration. Perhaps you, Michael, have been brainwashed by Kramer in the same way that you believe that lots of other people have been unknowingly brainwashed by the evil and omnipotent Kant?

J

[Jonathan]

I don't have an aesthetic response to the Rolling Stones...

That admission is actually very interesting to me. You have no aesthetic response to any of the Rolling Stones' music?!!! Nothing at all? Can you at least identify the general emotion that Rand baldly asserts is contained in each work of music and that almost all listeners will be able to identify? Is it only the Stones' music that stirs no aesthetic response in you, or is it the larger category of Rock music that does nothing for you?

J

[moralist]

Now, in my mind's eye, I am looking inside Greg's abode. There are no paintings or prints framed on the walls.

You're looking with the blind eye of a scribe, William. The walls of our home are decorated with my wife's beautiful paintings, and I also have a small collection of old lithographs on the walls.

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

Jonathan has nothing to trade with me. The prerequisite to every business transaction is the trust born of of matching values. Where there are no common values, there can be no trust, and no transaction can take place.Greg

[Jonathan]

Jonathan has nothing to trade with me.

The prerequisite to every business transaction is the trust born of of matching values. Where there are no common values, there can be no trust, and no transaction can take place.

Then you should trade with Newberry!

J

[moralist]

You're making some unwarranted assumptions. The first is that because I'm an artist I must not have "real world mechanical" skills.

Do you use them to make anything useful? If so, what are they?

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?

I'd do just fine. As a fun hobby, I design and market aftermarket performance auto parts. Presently I'm converting our septic system into a small waste water treatment plant to recover from our sewage, composted filtered agricultural grade water to irrigate our fruit trees.

And, btw, your appraisal of the arts as being "superfluous" is quite fitting with your mindset,

You haven't been paying attention, Jonathan. I've made my subjective opinion abundantly clear what I consider to be beautiful and uplifting and ennobling and inspiring, and what I consider to be ugly degenerate infantile diaper smears.Greg

[Jonathan]

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?

I'd do just fine.

As a fun hobby, I design and market aftermarket performance auto parts. Presently I'm converting our septic system into a small waste water treatment plant to recover from our sewage, composted filtered agricultural grade water to irrigate our fruit trees.

You didn't answer my question. Do you mine and smelt your own metals from scratch, or do you purchase your materials from a store? In monkeying around with your septic system, are you using PVC or copper that you bought in a store, or have you manufactured all of your materials from scratch? Do you know how to make anything that wasn't first bought in a store?

J

[Brant Gaede]

Now, in my mind's eye, I am looking inside Greg's abode. There are no paintings or prints framed on the walls.

You're looking with the blind eye of a scribe, William. The walls of our home are decorated with my wife's beautiful paintings, and I also have a small collection of old lithographs on the walls.

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

Jonathan has nothing to trade with me.

The prerequisite to every business transaction is the trust born of of matching values. Where there are no common values, there can be no trust, and no transaction can take place.

Greg

You're trading posts. You're getting "fun."

--Brant

[moralist]

You're trading posts. You're getting "fun."

--Brant

Excellent point, Brant.

This discussion provides entertainment for both Jonathan and I (and you ).

Greg

[moralist]

You didn't answer my question.

You have yet to answer any of mine.

Do you mine and smelt your own metals from scratch, or do you purchase your materials from a store?

As a Capitalist, I buy whatever materials I need from other Capitalists who produce them. They make money selling them to me, and I make money using them in my business. Real Capitalism is always win/win equitable value for value transactions. Anything else isn't Capitalism.

Do you know how to make anything that wasn't first bought in a store?

Yes. I grow food.

And just another reminder that you have yet to offer any description of what you do.

Greg

[Newberry]

a sublimely beautiful design. Doing what's morally right is acting in harmony with reality, and it is the key that opens the door to living a happy, meaning-filled, productive life

Greg

Nice!

[Newberry]

deleted

[Brant Gaede]

Yes. I grow food.

And just another reminder that you have yet to offer any description of what you do.

Greg

I think he once left an extensive description.

--Brant

aside from shoveling snow

[Jonathan]

You didn't answer my question.

You have yet to answer any of mine.

I've been waiting for you to answer some of mine for a change.

Do you mine and smelt your own metals from scratch, or do you purchase your materials from a store?

As a Capitalist, I buy whatever materials I need from other Capitalists who produce them. They make money selling them to me, and I make money using them in my business. Real Capitalism is always win/win equitable value for value transactions. Anything else isn't Capitalism.

So you don't make anything from scratch, but rather just buy things that others -- others like me -- make. Do you even remember what your original statement was that brought us to this little tangent? Your chest-thumping fantasy judgment was that you could live without people who do what I do, but that I could not live without people who do what you do. Do you remember that now?

Well, to answer your question, yes, I use my artistic skills to make "useful" things, as opposed to just "flighty" and "superfluous" things. I've designed and made many things, including furniture, architectural structures, and several products and parts of products out there in the Capitalist market, some of which you may have even purchased yourself when you've gone to the store to buy what people like me have designed and made but which you can't.

Do you know how to make anything that wasn't first bought in a store?

Yes. I grow food.

Yay!

Um, I've grown food too. I've also canned it. I've raised and hunted and butchered animals. I've harvested my own lumber. I've framed houses, and hung dry wall. I've done electrical work and plumbing. I've repaired my own vehicles. I've remodeled my kitchens. I've installed sump pumps and garage door openers. I've repaired broken watches and replaced batteries in smoke detectors.

'Nuff said?

And just another reminder that you have yet to offer any description of what you do.

I do many things. I've worked as a painter and sculptor, and as a technical illustrator and graphic designer, and as a photographer, and as a product and packaging designer, and in art/architectural restoration, and a bit in video, animation and sound production, and I've played in several bands.

Before that, I started out professionally as a teen painting signs, I watched people's houses for them while they were on vacation, mowed lawns, walked dogs, babysat, and ran or was a partner in several lemonade stands.

Are we done with the dick swingin' contest?

J

[Jonathan]

a sublimely beautiful design. Doing what's morally right is acting in harmony with reality, and it is the key that opens the door to living a happy, meaning-filled, productive life

Greg

Nice!

Wow, Michael, how you've changed since we saw you last! I never expected to see you responding so positively and supportively to someone's equating reality with God, and God with reality, and morality with being accountable to God/reality! How did you become so religious?!!! When and why did you abandon following Rand to become one of His followers?

J

[Jonathan]

I just spent some time reviewing this thread. Damn, it's mind-blowing how many of my questions have gone unanswered, how many of my points have not been acknowledged, addressed or countered, and how much "spin," prevarication, evasion, and even some threats I've received instead of answers! Such an incredible amount of resistance to simple, obvious reality has been displayed by my opponents, which is very weird considering how loyal they claim to be to adhering to reality!

J

[Brant Gaede]

I don't have an aesthetic response to the Rolling Stones...

That admission is actually very interesting to me. You have no aesthetic response to any of the Rolling Stones' music?!!! Nothing at all? Can you at least identify the general emotion that Rand baldly asserts is contained in each work of music and that almost all listeners will be able to identify? Is it only the Stones' music that stirs no aesthetic response in you, or is it the larger category of Rock music that does nothing for you?

J

Reminds me that I enjoyed war and fighting. I trained 18 months for a year of it.

I also didn't enjoy it. Enjoy yes, enjoy no--it's all mish-mashed in my head.

--Brant

[Roger Bissell]

Jonathan in #606: "You have no aesthetic response to any of the Rolling Stones' music?!!! Nothing at all?"

Two comments:

1. Even if I did, Jonathan, I wouldn't share it with you, because *whatever* I said, it would be turned against me. But no, to paraphrase Roark: "I don't think of (or respond to) Rolling Stones' music." Most likely, that's because I the Rolling Stones' music is tiresome and boring and basically irrelevant to me. (Though it is a pity, really, that such an attractive young man is unable to find satisfaction.)

2. I wonder if anyone else has noticed how much your outburst above resembles <gasp> Argument from Incredulity.

Jonathan again: "Can you at least identify the general emotion that Rand baldly asserts is contained in each work of music and that almost all listeners will be able to identify? Is it only the Stones' music that stirs no aesthetic response in you, or is it the larger category of Rock music that does nothing for you?"

Rand doesn't baldly assert anything of the kind. To the contrary, she says that "The absence of any metaphysical values whatever, i.e., a gray, uncommital, passively indeterminate sense of life, results in a soul without fuel, motor or voice, and renders a man impotent in the field of art. Bad art is, predominantly, the product of imitation, of secondhand copying, not of creative expression." ("Art and Sense of Life," pp. 39-40) She clearly contrasts bad art and music with things she recognizes as good/great art and music, but which she dislikes. For instance, she thought Beethoven was a great composer, and she recognized that his music communicated emotions and metaphysical values, but she didn't like to listen to it, because, in her opinion/experience, its emotions and values were "malevolent" i.e., opposed to hers. She also recognized that "broken, random" music and "jumbled" music was music, and some of it may even have met her qualifications for good, even great, art, but it was not the kind of music that a rational person would enjoy. See "Art and Cognition," pp. 58-59. Other music, whether "modern" or "traditional," would have low metaphysical/emotional octane, and basically be "bad art," not deep enough to provide much emotional fuel, one way or the other. All this was in contrast to what she might call anti-music (or certainly non-music), which was the reduction of music to sheer noise, while trying to pass it off as music (A&C, p. 77-78).

As for the general emotion(s) contained in Stones' music, or Rock music in general, even if I did have some thoughts on them, I wouldn't share them with you, because whatever I say, I know from painful experience that it will be used against me. So, why not instead ask someone who *cares* about their music enough to study and analyze it and identify the deep values it presumably communicates? (I will say that I do like one of the songs the Stones do, though the way they perform it does not stir me one way or the other. Also, there is a lot of good Rock music, some of which I like and some of which I don't, but a lot of mediocre-to-bad Rock music, too. But I'm not going to discuss any of that with you either.)

REB

[Brant Gaede]

It's one thing to state what you like. it's another to do that and mix it up with an explication on esthetics. That fair games you insofar as anyone is interested in such a hunt. I makes esthetic statements from time to time but I rarely reference Rand. Rand is fair game and Jonathan is after her. My teenaged sister was mad after my very young brother, maybe he was five, and was going to throw a can of some kind of food at him. I bravely stepped between them and said, "Joan, don't." She threw it anyway. I still have the faint scar--just below where my hairline maxed out. (Now I see where it had extended.) I ran away crying, "I didn't do anything." I've been a coward ever since.

--Brant

"Jonathan, don't." "I'm not mad." "Don't." KAPOW! (Imaginary conversation)

the real problem isn't Jonathan, but how Objectivism (Rand) doesn't stand up too well in one area--esthetics--which gives him annoying leverage interpreted as anger as he won't let go

[Jonathan]

Jonathan in #606: "You have no aesthetic response to any of the Rolling Stones' music?!!! Nothing at all?"

Two comments:

1. Even if I did, Jonathan, I wouldn't share it with you, because *whatever* I said, it would be turned against me.

You're so whiny and fragile! Especially for someone who enjoys dishing it out as much as you do. But, of course, when you dish it out, you don't think you're dishing it out, do you? When you pose and preen and jab and ridicule, you're not "turning anything against" anyone or being unfair or anything? Right? Heh. When you stupidly drag your wife's comment into a discussion as an attempt at ridicule, you're so self-important and self-unaware that you think that your opponent owes you an apology for commenting on your posting of your wife's comment!

But no, to paraphrase Roark: "I don't think of (or respond to) Rolling Stones' music."

Yeah. Super clever. And original. Just like the Emperor's New Clothes thing.

Most likely, that's because I the Rolling Stones' music is tiresome and boring and basically irrelevant to me. (Though it is a pity, really, that such an attractive young man is unable to find satisfaction.)

2. I wonder if anyone else has noticed how much your outburst above resembles <gasp> Argument from Incredulity.

"Outburst"? Heh. You're so tender and frantic! My question doesn't resemble an argument from incredulity. It was a question, not a statement or conclusion. Additionally, if you would pay attention to the discussions that you get involved in, you would have noticed that I've said similar things several times: Certain works or styles of music -- and of the other art forms as well -- do nothing for me aesthetically. I just think that it's very rare that nothing that an artist created has any aesthetic impact at all on a person. And it turns out that my suspicion was right, because below you admit that you do like one Stones song. As I suspected, your original statement about the Stones was a bit of an exaggeration. And calm down -- I'm not attacking you or using anything against you here! I'm not smearing you and ridiculing you for having exaggerated. I wasn't asking in order to play gotcha or hurt your little feelings, but just to clarify your statement. Okay?

Jonathan again: "Can you at least identify the general emotion that Rand baldly asserts is contained in each work of music and that almost all listeners will be able to identify? Is it only the Stones' music that stirs no aesthetic response in you, or is it the larger category of Rock music that does nothing for you?"

Rand doesn't baldly assert anything of the kind. To the contrary, she says that "The absence of any metaphysical values whatever, i.e., a gray, uncommital, passively indeterminate sense of life, results in a soul without fuel, motor or voice, and renders a man impotent in the field of art. Bad art is, predominantly, the product of imitation, of secondhand copying, not of creative expression." ("Art and Sense of Life," pp. 39-40) She clearly contrasts bad art and music with things she recognizes as good/great art and music, but which she dislikes. For instance, she thought Beethoven was a great composer, and she recognized that his music communicated emotions and metaphysical values, but she didn't like to listen to it, because, in her opinion/experience, its emotions and values were "malevolent" i.e., opposed to hers. She also recognized that "broken, random" music and "jumbled" music was music, and some of it may even have met her qualifications for good, even great, art, but it was not the kind of music that a rational person would enjoy. See "Art and Cognition," pp. 58-59. Other music, whether "modern" or "traditional," would have low metaphysical/emotional octane, and basically be "bad art," not deep enough to provide much emotional fuel, one way or the other.

You're either confused, or again you haven't been paying close enough attention to what's been discussed on this thread and you're therefore possibly unaware of what we've quoted Rand as having said on the subject:

"Music communicates emotions, which one grasps, but does not actually feel; what one feels is a suggestion, a kind of distant, dissociated, depersonalized emotion—until and unless it unites with one’s own sense of life. But since the music’s emotional content is not communicated conceptually or evoked existentially, one does feel it in some peculiar, subterranean way.

"Music conveys the same categories of emotions to listeners who hold widely divergent views of life. As a rule, men agree on whether a given piece of music is gay or sad or violent or solemn. But even though, in a generalized way, they experience the same emotions in response to the same music, there are radical differences in how they appraise this experience—i.e., how they feel about these feelings."

See? What I was asking you was if you could identify the those "distant," "depersonalized emotions" in Stones songs which don't "unite with your own sense of life." I was asking if you could demonstrate Rand's notion that people with widely divergent views identifying the "same categories of emotions."

As for the general emotion(s) contained in Stones' music, or Rock music in general, even if I did have some thoughts on them, I wouldn't share them with you, because whatever I say, I know from painful experience that it will be used against me.

Boo-frickety-hoo. Get over yourself, princess!

So, why not instead ask someone who *cares* about their music enough to study and analyze it and identify the deep values it presumably communicates?

Because the Objectivist Esthetics, as well as other Objectivish theories of art, makes assertions about what is "communicated" in music, and to what degree and percentage of the population, even to those who do not "*care*" about the music "enough to study and analyze it and identify the deep values that it presumable communicates."

But you seem to be saying that you believe the opposite. You seem to be saying that the vast majority of the Stones' music doesn't communicate anything to you.

I will say that I do like one of the songs the Stones do, though the way they perform it does not stir me one way or the other. Also, there is a lot of good Rock music, some of which I like and some of which I don't, but a lot of mediocre-to-bad Rock music, too. But I'm not going to discuss any of that with you either.)

How about this trombone version of Ruby Tuesday?

That seems like it might be up your alley.

J

[Jonathan]

the real problem isn't Jonathan, but how Objectivism (Rand) doesn't stand up too well in one area--esthetics

I think that Rand's "esthetics" could stand up very well if it were sold as an artist's personal view of literature and as the beginnings of a rudimentary inquiry and exploration of the arts, rather than as something closer to a signed, sealed and delivered branch of a philosophy. It's an interesting and stimulating expression of Rand's small view of a much larger space. Her perspective has value, especially when it's stripped of its silliness, contradictions, double standards, and its subjectivity thinly disguised as objectivity. Get rid of the bluff and bluster, and you've got a compelling contribution to the field of aesthetics.

J

[moralist]

So you don't make anything from scratch, but rather just buy things that others -- others like me -- make.

What do you make from scratch?

Do you even remember what your original statement was that brought us to this little tangent? Your chest-thumping fantasy judgment was that you could live without people who do what I do, but that I could not live without people who do what you do. Do you remember that now?

Yes. I can live without your "art", and you can't live without a home and electricity.

I do many things. I've worked as a painter and sculptor, and as a technical illustrator and graphic designer, and as a photographer, and as a product and packaging designer, and in art/architectural restoration, and a bit in video, animation and sound production, and I've played in several bands.

What kind of work are you doing presently to support yourself financially?

Greg