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

[moralist]

I'm not interested in going into anymore detail about my work or finances, especially with someone with your pervy background of having spent a year stalking another male. I'm done with your dick swinging' contest. M-kay?...

Ok Jonathan. It's fine with me if you want to make up something silly for you to claim to be afraid of. No one asked for anything less general than simply saying what work you presently do to support yourself financially. What you said you did was all in the past tense.

I'm not like you. I support myself and family with my electrical business of 35 years which I created from "scratch" (since that was an issue with you ). The profits from it funded buying land and building two homes debt free... and I never need to worry about money for the rest of my life.

You were deriding me for buying materials from others, and claimed that you made stuff from scratch without buying anything from others. So I asked you what you made from scratch without buying anything from others, and now you won't say. Strange behavior. Even though what I produce in goods and services is with materials bought from others, I make a decent profit on them because their practical utility as well as my expertise are highly valued by others.

Your behavior demonstrates the difference in each of our ethical values. I don't hesitate offer to others (even you) in equal measure what is asked of them...

...and you don't.



Greg

[Newberry]

Music is arguably the most venerable ancestor of the very idea of "the arts." All the muses sang, and each was associated with a musical instrument. Music has been since antiquity a primary phenomenon which people are trying to understand in theorizing about "art." If there's a problem about music's fit under a definition of "art," it's the definition which needs adjusting or discarding, not music which needs abandoning.

Ellen

Ha, that was wonderful!

[moralist]

But anyway, back to your snit with Jonathan...

That's your motivation to post. You feed on it.

Greg

[Newberry]

The chief (but not only) culprits seem to be harmony and melodic intervals and melodic "direction." (Tempo and rhythmic style are important, too.) For instance, upward tending melodies connote striving, major key harmonies connote optimism, the melodic interval of the 6th moving to the 5th connotes joy - and not just because I'm "reading them in," or because countless composers and song-writers have used them in that way during the past 4 centuries, but because there are physiological factors that make them work that way. Deryck Cooke's 1960 book The Language of Music is very helpful with details, as is Helmholtz' The Sensations of Tone.

But as Ellen noted, I go deeper than the subject/content of the artwork in analyzing its meaning. To me, art is world-making, creating a realm into which the viewer/listener/reader can "enter" imaginatively and "live" there for a while. This of course necessarily includes making something to be in that world, but I consider that (the subject/content) to be the secondary level of "re-creation."

Fugues, and imitative music in general, all re-create a world in which some sort of multi-person conversation is being conducted. When the fugue or other contrapuntal or polyphonic music is vocal, the conversation is literal, though regimented by the words being prescribed in advance and in a certain pattern of pitch and rhythm. It's theoretically possible to take some person's spoken words and construct a vocal piece out of it, even a fugue or other contrapuntal piece, thus "re-creating" that set of spoken words, but the over-arching context of setting those rather than some other words is constructing a tonal or sonic "world" *in which* one can hear that sort of speech/conversation. The principle is that a world is created in which this-or-that-or-the-other kind of human conversation occurs. (I suppose you could record car horns or dog barks and make a fugue out of that - much in the same manner as the recording of the "singing" cats and dogs doing "Jingle Bells.")

When only instruments are used, without people singing words, the principle is the same as when instrumental dance movements are performed without dancers. There is still the metaphor of a world where one perceives, in the motions and relationships of the musical notes, an abstract(ed) image of human conversation or human physical movement.

Imitative instrumental music in general, and fugues in particular, grew out of imitative vocal music. Music that has more than one pitch sounding at a time is usually written as melody and accompaniment (homophonic) or two or more independent melodies (polyphonic), whether imitative like rounds, canons, fugues, etc., or non-imitative such as "Lida Rose" and "Sweet and Low" in The Music Man (or "Seventy-Six Trombones" and "Good Night, My Someone" in the same play/movie).

I once wrote a piece that combined chordal homophonic texture with non-imitative polyphony. If this is too jargony or technical, just imagine a church choir singing a hymn, while another singer improvises a different melody "over" the block-style hymn sung by the choir.

A very familiar example of a piece that uses both homophonic and polyphonic texture, but in *sequence,* is the "Hallelujah Chorus" in Handel's Messiah. It's helpful to note the similarity between "hallelujah" and "so say we all" in Battlestar Galactica, as people unanimously, in solidarity expressing some common belief or resolution. Most Protestant hymns are written in this block harmony, "chordal" style, for that very purpose - to more or less regiment the congregation's mood and participation in worship. The imitative section of the "Hallelujah Chorus" ("Lord God omnipotent reigneth...") has the text sung in overlapping sequence by various voices of the choir. (The first group does not stop and say, "Why are you repeating everything I say?" :-) Something between a simple round and a fugue. Then returning to the block choral texture again.

I'm not a huge fan of Handel's, but this is very effective writing, partly because of his skillful alternation of textures and the skillful use of each of them, but also even in his astute use of melodic intervals for expressive effect. ("Hallelujah" is repeatedly sung on the 5th-major 6th-5th intervals, which even in the mid-1700s were widely recognized as being the most effective melodic intervals for connoting joy. Again, see Cooke's excellent book about this point)

I played in the Disneyland Candlelighting Orchestra the first weekend of December for about 20 years, and the "Hallelujah Chorus" was the climax piece of the concert. The "world" of the Messiah is certainly not the kind of world I want to live in for more than a few minutes once a year - but neither did I come remotely close to having a Cherryl Taggart moment. :-)

REB

Fascinating. Ha, I love Handel and often listen to him all day. In another life I would have liked to have studied music as a kid. Reading this inspired that thought.

[Newberry]

I'm not like you. I support myself and family with my electrical business of 35 years which I created from "scratch" (since that was an issue with you ). The profits from it funded buying land and building two homes debt free... and I never need to worry about money for the rest of my life.

Greg

Honorable.

[Guyau]

Stephen: "PPS

Psychosis and the Sublime in American Art: Rothco and Smithson

Timothy D. Martin (Tate Papers - 2010)

[This paper kinda makes my mind hurt, but Rothco prints in our home are soothing.]"

Good find.

Martin: "One cannot hit the high road to the sublime by starting from that other part of the self, the part that lives in the phenomena of direct bodily experience and self-interest, otherwise known as the will to enjoy."

Yep. Meaning, this comment aligns with my understanding of Kant's Sublime.

I think that Stephen's point was that the painting that he is standing in front of in the image that he posted is an example of the Sublime in art. It is about threatening forces of incomprehensible magnitude. See? And it's not postmodernism. Understand? I think the idea of Stephen's post was that it was a hint to you to reconsider your mixed up perspective on Kantian Sublimity.

J

Michael, as you may know, I had to abandon my study of esthetics just as I was getting into Kant’s third Critique* because it was time to write a book of philosophy, which happened to not have room for esthetics.* So I haven’t gotten to study Kant on the sublime, and the book by Brady remains unopened in my personal library—till who knows when. We have conversed a bit on OL about the history of the sublime in esthetics prior to Kant,* and I’ve written a bit about Schopenhauer on that.* But I’m pretty much in the dark till I get to open those sorts of books again. The Martin paper bears looking at again if such a time comes.

Yes, Jonathan, the sublimity (and beauty) of Bierstadt is a sort I like. I seek him out everywhere. I gather different artists have taken Kant on the sublime (or ordinary notion of the sublime) in different ways, and view it in their creations in different ways. Not only our contemporaries (e.g. Rothco), but Bierstadt and his contemporaries do get to have their say too about the sublime and how Kant or Schopenhauer rings true (or not) in what they created. For now I continue only with sinking into the paintings for refreshment, leaving the philosophers on the sublime out of the experience and in the farther reaches of my library.

[Newberry]

Michael, as you may know, I had to abandon my study of esthetics just as I was getting into Kant’s third Critique* because it was time to write a book of philosophy, which happened to not have room for esthetics.* So I haven’t gotten to study Kant on the sublime, and the book by Brady remains unopened in my personal library—till who knows when. We have conversed a bit on OL about the history of the sublime in esthetics prior to Kant,* and I’ve written a bit about Schopenhauer on that.* But I’m pretty much in the dark till I get to open those sorts of books again. The Martin paper bears looking at again if such a time comes.

Stephen, good luck on your book, Lol, if Martin's article makes your mind hurt ... Still Kant's Sublime dovetails so well with many of the important postmodernists, but it reads like Martin's article. Being kind to Kant, Kant may have unwittingly made a huge mistake by juxtaposing his concepts of Beauty with that of Sublime, he did like yin yang, to compare and contrast, but he did state that his concepts of Sublime were not about art, perhaps it should have been a separate book, divorced from the aesthetic conversation? But then he did place it in aesthetic using art as the foil.

[Brant Gaede]

Rather, 1. it is a stance wholly in defence of the uniqueness of art. 2. It is in defence of objectivity and objective definitions. 3. It is all for the mind of man.

And a few individuals who are speaking up, clearly and rationally, against the entrenched and powerful Art Establishment are hardly the bullies you make of them. By far, the reverse, more like rocks against the popular current; while they might not get everything right all the time.

Art is symptomatic (and the motivator) of much, today. Here is a huge (probably favoritist or cronyist) industry which self-rewardedly deems what art is, for its own benefits and status. Following them, the many people who blindly depend on what they are told of the nature of art, and great art, by 'experts'. And underneath, common and universal egalitarianism which dictates that everybody has equal talent, everybody equally deserves success by only existing, and art is 'anything goes'. All together, I think the result is a corruption and devaluation of what art means.

Nice!

And art means what?

--Brant

it's different art for different folk: Mae West (for the plumbers) and Gretta Garbo (for the exaltationists) and Betty Grable (for hoi polloi)

[Roger Bissell]

In #339, Ellen Stuttle wrote: "Music is arguably the most venerable ancestor of the very idea of "the arts." All the muses sang, and each was associated with a musical instrument. Music has been since antiquity a primary phenomenon which people are trying to understand in theorizing about "art." If there's a problem about music's fit under a definition of "art," it's the definition which needs adjusting or discarding, not music which needs abandoning."

Amen to that!

I'd say the same thing about architecture. Rand's discussion on the second page of "Art and Cognition" was grotesquely illogical - and I think the problem is with Rand's and Kamhi's (apparently) concrete-bound misconception of what constitutes a "re-creation of reality." So, yes, I vote for "adjusting" the definition - or rather, I reaffirm the vote I cast in my JARS essays, some parts of which have been posted and discussed here.

REB (sweet, gentle, respectful scholar who is being unjustly attacked as being a bully and fallacy-monger)

[Roger Bissell]

Stephen Boydstun in #656 wrote: "I had to abandon my study of esthetics just as I was getting into Kant’s third Critique* because it was time to write a book of philosophy, which happened to not have room for esthetics.* So I haven’t gotten to study Kant on the sublime..."

That's sad. You missed some wonderful, witty jokes by Kant, right at the very end of Part I, Secton 1 of his third Critique. Very surprising, seeing him go from the Sublime to the Ridiculous. I guess that's just an indication of his Copernican Revolution in Humor. :-)

For those who are interested in the theory of humor, Kant's remarks compare favorably with the delightful discussion by Arthur Koestler in The Act of Creation.

REB (sweet, gentle, respectful scholar who is being unjustly attacked as being a bully and fallacy-monger)

[Roger Bissell]

Brant Gaede in #620, commenting on the discussion of the Rolling Stones, said: "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."

And your enjoyment and non-enjoyment of war differs from the other contents of your head - how, exactly? In general, would you say that you "can't get no satisfaction" - or that you can, too, get no satisfaction? ;-)

REB (sweet, gentle, respectful scholar who is being unjustly attacked as being a bully and fallacy-monger)

[Brant Gaede]

Young human males are biologically wired to hunt and fight. You could say war fed my alligator brain. I went to Vietnam thinking I might be killed or badly wounded. I was also a nice guy, a combatant combat medic. I ran medical patrols. That fed my thinking brain. Most combat medics don't go armed. I did. I got a bronze star for each. One for valor in ground combat and another for meritorious service. While I did come close to being killed, I wasn't wounded, the main reason being I wasn't heavily exposed to indirect fire such as artillery and mortars. It was mostly bullets.

Figuring out the war was crap, I left it and the army. A few months later came the Tet offensive and LBJ threw in the towel and I knew then it was only a matter of time. I wrote down exactly how the war would end, not when, and why, for a brief part of a short book I wrote in 1971. I was only wrong about the Mekong Delta, which hung on for a while after Saigon fell.

I do have a latent blood lust. I want to kill those ISIL bastards much more than I ever wanted to kill Vietnamese communists, many of whom I considered mistaken idealists. I really wanted to kill those Cambodian communists after they won and took over. They were much worse than their neighbors. They murdered 2-3 million of their own people. I thank the influence of the French communist intellectuals on the likes of Pol Pot for that.

I capture moths in my kitchen and take them outside. I don't even hunt for meat; I go to Safeway. My blood lust is not a default. I have to climb up to it for it to really kick in. This is not reactive self defense--I can do that too--it's literally going to war. Did that.

Someone who never killed anybody, Nathaniel Branden, was asked in a semi-private situation I shared in 1976, "What would you do if someone raped and murdered your wife?" "I'd do my best to kill him." And I'd bet as he pulled the trigger he would have enjoyed it. You can call that perversion, if you want, but war is perversion in and of itself, and for Nathaniel that would have been a private war.

I just have no idea why you couldn't figure this sort of thing out for yourself; it seems so obvious to me. I mean in Atlas Shrugged Francisco blew the heads off two guys. I'm sure he enjoyed saving Hank's life--never mind the fiction--and Ayn enjoyed writing about him doing just that. Ayn Rand had a blood lust too--she had a man in her--and it too wasn't a default. For Islamist terrorists it's no default. Their default is what we'd think of as normal living. (Going to peace?)

--Brant

[moralist]

Young human males are biologically wired to hunt and fight. You could say war fed my alligator brain. I went to Vietnam thinking I might be killed or badly wounded. I was also a nice guy, a combatant combat medic. I ran medical patrols. That fed my thinking brain. Most combat medics don't go armed. I did. I got a bronze star for each. One for valor in ground combat and another for meritorious service. While I did come close to being killed, I wasn't wounded, the main reason being I wasn't heavily exposed to indirect fire such as artillery and mortars. It was mostly bullets.

Figuring out the war was crap, I left it and the army. A few months later came the Tet offensive and LBJ threw in the towel and I knew then it was only a matter of time. I wrote down exactly how the war would end, not when, and why, for a brief part of a short book I wrote in 1971. I was only wrong about the Mekong Delta, which hung on for a while after Saigon fell.

I do have a latent blood lust. I want to kill those ISIL bastards much more than I ever wanted to kill Vietnamese communists, many of whom I considered mistaken idealists. I really wanted to kill those Cambodian communists after they won and took over. They were much worse than their neighbors. They murdered 2-3 million of their own people. I thank the influence of the French communist intellectuals on the likes of Pol Pot for that.

I capture moths in my kitchen and take them outside. I don't even hunt for meat; I go to Safeway. My blood lust is not a default. I have to climb up to it for it to really kick in. This is not reactive self defense--I can do that too--it's literally going to war. Did that.

As I see it, Brant, you have a well developed sense of justice. And I respect that precious commodity because it is rapidly disappearing from America.

Another World War is coming... and the Islamic State are the new Nazis.

Greg

[Jonathan]

Ok Jonathan. It's fine with me if you want to make up something silly for you to claim to be afraid of.

I don't think it's silly. You've got kind of an inmate vibe to you. You're really keyed up and competitive about what a big manly man you think you are, and so much so that it reminds me of the apey/rapey mindset of an inmate believing that he's proving what an alpha male he is by forcibly butt-ramming other dudes. I could be wrong, but that's the vibe that I get from you.

No one asked for anything less general than simply saying what work you presently do to support yourself financially. What you said you did was all in the past tense.

Ah, I see, we've miscommunicated. I didn't intend to imply that my list of professional experiences was only in the past. Currently (in the past six months) I've done everything on the list except art/architectural restoration and playing in a band.

I'm not like you. I support myself and family with my electrical business of 35 years which I created from "scratch" (since that was an issue with you ).

How is that not like me?

The profits from it funded buying land and building two homes debt free... and I never need to worry about money for the rest of my life.

Good for you! You should be proud of your accomplishments, and so much so that you shouldn't need to be so focused on trying to belittle others, whom you really know nothing about, in order to make yourself feel good. You shouldn't need to be so apey chest-thumpy.

You were deriding me for buying materials from others...

Actually, I wasn't deriding you, but simply challenging your assertion about which one of us could live without the skills and abilities of the other, and providing counter evidence.

...and claimed that you made stuff from scratch without buying anything from others. So I asked you what you made from scratch without buying anything from others, and now you won't say.

Well, the reason that I didn't want to answer is that it seems that any answer that I give is never going to be enough for you. But, let's see if that's true. I've made a variety of things from scratch "without buying stuff," including gears, bearings and other machine parts, musket balls, bullets, knife blades, chisels, arrow heads, axe heads, etc.

Strange behavior. Even though what I produce in goods and services is with materials bought from others, I make a decent profit on them because their practical utility as well as my expertise are highly valued by others.

Your behavior demonstrates the difference in each of our ethical values. I don't hesitate offer to others (even you) in equal measure what is asked of them...

Actually, you often hesitate, and you also prevaricate. When you don't like a question, and you don't have a rational answer to it, you evade it or change the subject. And you're extremely quick to need to believe that others are so much less than you both morally and financially. Your attitude just screams insecurity.

J

[Newberry]

Okay, I bought the book as there weren't many insights about it on this thread. I read the beginning of the intro, and she told a good story about an excited visit to one of the great museums in the world, the Met, only to be confused and sadly disappointed about the exhibition. If you take a moment to think of the frame and reputation of a great museum, their strategy to target art lovers, it kind of reminds me of politicians that have totally lost sight of authentic people. I hope that I can copy and paste passages from my iPad.

Plus I will focus on what I think Kahmi is spot on about - I hope there will be lots of points I like.

[Jonathan]

I'd say the same thing about architecture. Rand's discussion on the second page of "Art and Cognition" was grotesquely illogical - and I think the problem is with Rand's and Kamhi's (apparently) concrete-bound misconception of what constitutes a "re-creation of reality."

Rand didn't have a "misconception" of what constitutes a "re-creation of reality." She invented the term and its meaning! As the term's originator, she gets to decide what it means, not you or anyone else, and her meaning was that art must be realistic/representational. Her meaning was that art must be very "concrete-bound," and that it must be a direct, instantly-identifiable-to-all-people, mimetic, imitative, perceptual likeness of things in reality, or, in the case of literature, a verbal/conceptual description of direct, instantly-identifiable-to-all-people, mimetic, imitative, perceptual likeness of things in reality.

Like most of her followers, in focusing so much importance on mimetic representationalism, she seems to have been primarily motivated by hatred for abstract visual art and the desire to deny its status as a legitimate art form. Thus, she began with criteria that would eliminate abstract visual art, and she didn't think it through too well in regard to the consequences on art forms that she wanted to keep, and then she therefore had to do a lot of what you called "grotesquely illogical" selectively exempting of certain art forms from her own definitions and criteria. Like her followers, her hatred for abstract art was so intense that she was willing to be "grotesquely illogical" rather than simply accept it as an art form. That's still pretty much the priority among most O-ist-types: eliminating abstract visual art is still way more important than being logical or consistent.

J

[Jonathan]

Okay, I bought the book as there weren't many insights about it on this thread. I read the beginning of the intro, and she told a good story about an excited visit to one of the great museums in the world, the Met, only to be confused and sadly disappointed about exhibition.

Yeah, we've discussed that. It's the first of many examples in the book of Kamhi's attempting to establish her own personal limits of aesthetic tastes and depth of response as the universal standard for judging what is or is not art, and to pretend that her subjective tastes and aesthetic limits are "objective" and representative of the cognitive normalcy and limits of all mankind.

J

[Jonathan]

Excerpts from Michelle Marder Kamhi's Who Says That's Art? A Commonsense View of the Visual Arts:

“The visual fine arts have traditionally been contrasted with the decorative (or applied) arts and crafts.”

False. In the grand scheme of things, the "tradition" of separating the arts into "fine" and "decorative" is very recent, and mostly European rather than universal.

Granted, it happens to be the young tradition that Kamhi grew up under, and the only thing she's ever known, but it doesn't therefore follow that it's always been that way just because it's always been that way to her. Kamhi's life, context, and limits of experience are not the universal limits of all mankind.

“Prior to the early twentieth century, artists since time immemorial had employed imagery to embody meaning."

And they also employed abstract designs. Btw, what exactly does it mean to "embody meaning"? Objectively, what means would we use to identify and test claims of the "embodiment of meaning"? What are Kamhi's objective criteria for measuring the "embodiment of meaning," and where are Kamhi's examples of any alleged work of art succeeding in meeting those objective criteria of "embodying meaning"?

"Purely abstract designs or patterns served a mainly decorative function—ornamenting articles of clothing, buildings, and other objects of practical utility, as well as the human body itself."

Says who? Where is Kamhi's evidence that people did not create those ancient purely abstract designs for their aesthetic depth, impact, and meaning? Does she have any quotes, or once again, is she merely projecting her own personal context and lack of depth of response onto other people, and arbitrarily claiming to speak for them?

J

[Roger Bissell]

Jonathan in #666 (how appropriate) wrote: "Rand didn't have a "misconception" of what constitutes a "re-creation of reality." She invented the term and its meaning! As the term's originator, she gets to decide what it means, not you or anyone else, and her meaning was that art must be realistic/representational."

By that standard, her unacknowledged dumping in 1961 of one-third of the referents from her definition of "reason" would mean that she didn't previously have a misconception of what "reason" meant. IMO, she just had people making a more vigorous case about her defective definition and/or conception of what reason is, than was the case for art. The idea that "re-creation of reality" means something broader than mimesis of specific objects and people has only gradually crept into Objectivist writing and thinking - including the Blumenthals in their music lectures and Peikoff in OPAR. She passed away much too soon for this case to be made to her, and for her to consider changing her defective portrayal of what a "re-creation of reality" is.

Plus, are you sure that she was the inventor of the term "re-creation of reality"? John Hospers said that the term was floating around in aesthetics discussions since at least the 1950s, though he didn't provide a citation or example to back up his claim. She can certainly say what the term means *to her*, just as she did "reason," before she changed it.

She also gets to say what she does or does not want to *apply* the term "art" to. But when she includes architecture as an art form for decades, then illogically says it is and isn't a form of art ("Art and Cognition"), then sub rosa asks Binswanger to eliminate the entry for "architecture" from his Lexicon (while keeping mention of it in the entry for "visual arts") - I think it's past time for other people to step in and say that "mistakes have been made, and here's how to fix them." And may the best man win...

REB

[Jonathan]

Stephen, good luck on your book, Lol, if Martin's article makes your mind hurt ... Still Kant's Sublime dovetails so well with many of the important postmodernists, but it reads like Martin's article. Being kind to Kant, Kant may have unwittingly made a huge mistake by juxtaposing his concepts of Beauty with that of Sublime, he did like yin yang, to compare and contrast, but he did state that his concepts of Sublime were not about art, perhaps it should have been a separate book, divorced from the aesthetic conversation? But then he did place it in aesthetic using art as the foil.

What a mess.

First of all, um, Rand was a bit unfamiliar with the philosophy of aesthetics and didn't realize that it wasn't merely "the study of art," but that it also deals with all aesthetic issues, including those involving nature. Okay? So, your habit of believing Rand and starting with her mistaken ideas and then criticizing past thinkers for not limiting themselves to the limits that Rand ignorantly made up off the top of her head is laughable.

Second, as you've been told many times now, your imaginary enemy Kant didn't make a mistake in juxtaposing Beauty with Sublimity. That was done long before he arrived on the scene! The Beautiful and the Sublime are separate categories of aesthetic response, and the terms mean what they've historically meant, rather than what you apparently want them to mean. The concept of the Sublime has always referred to fearful forces and magnitudes. Kant didn't invent the term or the classification. He didn't give it the meaning that you think you hate. He was nowhere near to being the first to contrast the Beautiful with the Sublime.

Third, it is not true that Kant's concepts of the Sublime "were not about art." As with previous thinkers', his concepts of the Sublime were about both nature and art. He primarily wrote about the aesthetic effects of the Sublime in nature, but also addressed the idea of how all of his aesthetic concepts also apply to art.

J

[Jonathan]

Jonathan in #666 (how appropriate) wrote: "Rand didn't have a "misconception" of what constitutes a "re-creation of reality." She invented the term and its meaning! As the term's originator, she gets to decide what it means, not you or anyone else, and her meaning was that art must be realistic/representational."

By that standard, her unacknowledged dumping in 1961 of one-third of the referents from her definition of "reason" would mean that she didn't previously have a misconception of what "reason" meant.

Rand didn't originate the term "reason," or even claim to originate it. We have no reason to believe that she was, or even may have been, the first to use the term.

The idea that "re-creation of reality" means something broader than mimesis of specific objects and people has only gradually crept into Objectivist writing and thinking - including the Blumenthals in their music lectures and Peikoff in OPAR.

People have begun to attempt to broaden the term because they're starting to recognize what Rand didn't: that Rand's meaning of the term and her criteria end up eliminating art forms that Rand didn't want eliminated.

She passed away much too soon for this case to be made to her, and for her to consider changing her defective portrayal of what a "re-creation of reality" is.

It wasn't a defective portrayal. It's as good a standard as any other arbitrarily selected standard. It represents the line that Rand wanted to draw in separating art from non-art. The only drawback is that, if employed consistently, it ends up eliminating what Rand and many of her followers don't want eliminated. The problem is that there isn't a fix. It is not possible to come up with rational and consistent criteria which will achieve the results that Rand and her followers would find acceptable, which is to keep the abstract forms of music and architecture while eliminating the abstract forms of abstract painting and sculpture.

Plus, are you sure that she was the inventor of the term "re-creation of reality"? John Hospers said that the term was floating around in aesthetics discussions since at least the 1950s, though he didn't provide a citation or example to back up his claim. She can certainly say what the term means *to her*, just as she did "reason," before she changed it.

Until I see citations to back up claims such as Hospers', I'll treat them as unconfirmed rumors. Anyway, the word "reason" has been around for a damned long time, where "re-creation of reality" as a defining term in regard to art hasn't been around. If no one knows for certain of lots of others commonly using the term prior to Rand, then we can pretty safely go with the operating assumption that Rand was its originator.

And even if Rand wasn't the originator, it's kind of odd that you're claiming to know the term's true and proper meaning, while not knowing who prior to Rand came up with or used this alleged true and proper meaning of the term. In other words, you seem to be taking the position that whatever meaning you come up with and want it to mean is it true, proper and traditionally and historically established meaning!

She also gets to say what she does or does not want to *apply* the term "art" to. But when she includes architecture as an art form for decades, then illogically says it is and isn't a form of art ("Art and Cognition"), then sub rosa asks Binswanger to eliminate the entry for "architecture" from his Lexicon (while keeping mention of it in the entry for "visual arts") - I think it's past time for other people to step in and say that "mistakes have been made, and here's how to fix them." And may the best man win...

I agree. In Rand's final appearance at the Ford Hall Forum, someone confronted her, during the Q&A session, about her obviously contradictory views on architecture. Her answer didn't clear anything up, but actually kind of made it worse. It went all nonsensical. I would suspect that that incident is what got her thinking seriously about the issue. And I think if she were similarly confronted with her other contradictions and double standards, she'd have to do much more serious reconsidering, especially if some of the logical consequences of her potentially changing her criteria were pointed out to her.

J

[anthony]

And art means what?

--Brant

"To see a World in a Grain of Sand

And a Heaven in a Wild Flower,

Hold Infinity in the palm of your hand

And Eternity in an hour".

(I call your Robert Frost and raise you some William Blake).;)

[Brant Gaede]

And art means what?

--Brant

"To see a World in a Grain of Sand

And a Heaven in a Wild Flower,

Hold Infinity in the palm of your hand

And Eternity in an hour".

(I call your Robert Frost and raise you some William Blake).;)

Blake is great:

A truth told with bad intent

Beats all the lies you can invent.

[Newberry]

Okay I've read the first chapter of Kahmi's Who Says That's Art? I am afraid to call it genius because there is a lot more to read, but it is excellent so far. She writes with her own voice, scholarly and leisurely. She covers quite a bit of ground, quotes several sources, and shows her broad and relevant knowledge. One thing she does brilliantly is carefully trace definitions of art through history, and notes the significance of changes. But in essence there were these distinctions in the arts; utilitarian art, decorative art, and mimic art. Also these are art forms across cultures and across time (except for our contemporary state).

Clarifying the distinctions among the arts helps us understand their natures, and what their purposes are for - for example decorating the body or making figurative sculpture for spiritual reasons. This chapter is an excellent way to refute that art is anything.

She did discuss Kant, quite cleverly too. She steered clear of his Concepts of the Sublime, but stayed with his concepts of Beauty, which dovetail well with a classic view of art. The clever part is that by doing that, she takes Kant at his word, that the C of Sublime are not about art, and more importantly she shows there is a universal nature of figurative art.

I am highly impressed and look forward to reading more.

[moralist]

Blake is great:

A truth told with bad intent

Beats all the lies you can invent.

That reminded me of an odd movie quote:

"Sometimes the wrong train gets you to the right station."

Greg