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

[Selene]

To update the word "sublime", then, would not just be unnecessary (since "exaltation", or "ecstatic/ecstasy" would do just fine)...actually, it wouldn't even be an UPDATE; it's not expanding or adding (since it's already subsumed under a larger concept as a type of exaltation, maybe?)...it would actually be doing a dis-service by destroying the differentiation between those words/concepts. It would not be the equivalent of Rand reclaiming "selfish", or putting the religous concept of an "anthem" into a secular context (nothing is lost in that way), whereas the particular concept invoked in the sublime (the contradictary state of "the fear that delights" would be lost.

LOST.

Not just a concept lost, but an emotion REPRESSED, because someone interprets it as "philosophically creepy."

Writers subsequent to Kant came up with their own variations on the concept. It's not like he had the last word. Schiller, Hugo, and Schopenhauer are a few names to look up. Concepts are supposed to be open-ended.

So I wouldn't worry about some anti-Newspeak thoughtcrime, a banned concept of the Sublime, as though Kant's work is to be consigned to the flames when the Revolutionary Objectivist Total Freedom Liberators (ROTFL) seize control and de-nationalize the libraries. And put the collected writings of Newberry in their place. Redacted, as needed, to eliminate traces of Kant's actual ideas as might be reconstructed from his presentation (not that such redaction would take much effort).

Now, here at OL, having done some due diligence, it is clear that Ayn was quite incorrect about his work.

I'm agnostic on that. All we have is a one-liner from her, not remotely enough to reverse-engineer what she was thinking. There's a lot in Critique of Judgement. One thing's for sure, after his 50+ readings over many decades, Newberry sure hasn't figured it out.

Fair enough, Dennis.

I do find it somewhat bizarre that a brilliant, insightful, learned and perceptive scholar artist like Newberry can't grasp what an idiot like me can grasp with a few targeted searches, reading comprehension and an open mind.

Go figure.

A...

[9thdoctor]

All we have is a one-liner from her, not remotely enough to reverse-engineer what she was thinking.

Further, it might be that she had an idea to pursue in a future essay, and after doing more research found that she'd been wrong, had misread Kant on whatever point it was, and abandoned the project. If so we'll never know. No doubt she worked hard on her non-fiction, so naturally some false-starts ended up in the trash.

[Wolf DeVoon]

All we have is a one-liner from her, not remotely enough to reverse-engineer what she was thinking.

Further, it might be that she had an idea to pursue in a future essay, and after doing more research found that she'd been wrong, had misread Kant on whatever point it was, and abandoned the project. If so we'll never know.

I think you all have lost your minds. What art or music or narrative fiction did Kant produce? - none.

[Selene]

All we have is a one-liner from her, not remotely enough to reverse-engineer what she was thinking.

Further, it might be that she had an idea to pursue in a future essay, and after doing more research found that she'd been wrong, had misread Kant on whatever point it was, and abandoned the project. If so we'll never know.

All we have is a one-liner from her, not remotely enough to reverse-engineer what she was thinking.

Further, it might be that she had an idea to pursue in a future essay, and after doing more research found that she'd been wrong, had misread Kant on whatever point it was, and abandoned the project. If so we'll never know.

I think you all have lost your minds. What art or music or narrative fiction did Kant produce? - none.

Neither did Barbara Branden and a host of others.

I must be missing your point, Wolf.

Aristotle created Rhetorical art.

[9thdoctor]

All we have is a one-liner from her, not remotely enough to reverse-engineer what she was thinking.

Further, it might be that she had an idea to pursue in a future essay, and after doing more research found that she'd been wrong, had misread Kant on whatever point it was, and abandoned the project. If so we'll never know.

I think you all have lost your minds. What art or music or narrative fiction did Kant produce? - none.

What does this have to do with what I wrote? You quoted me, why?

In reply: if doing philosophical aesthetics requires being an artist, most authors on the topic are disqualified. And how about Umberto Eco? He wrote influential volumes on aesthetics for decades before producing his first novel. Do those books not count, having been written by someone who hadn't produced? Did they start counting once The Name of the Rose sold it's first million copies?

[9thdoctor]

I do find it somewhat bizarre that a brilliant, insightful, learned and perceptive scholar artist like Newberry can't grasp what an idiot like me can grasp with a few targeted searches, reading comprehension and an open mind.

Time for a quote from Atlas Shrugged. But I'm afraid I might have a bit too much beer in me to get it perfect from memory. Alright, here goes, a paraphrase: contradictions don't exist. If you think you've found one, check your premises and you'll find that one of them is wrong.

[Wolf DeVoon]

And how about Umberto Eco?

I'll raise the bet. Raymond Chandler on narrative fiction:

Down these mean streets a man must go who is not himself mean, who is neither tarnished nor afraid. He is the hero; he is everything. He must be a complete man and a common man and yet an unusual man. He must be, to use a rather weathered phrase, a man of honor—by instinct, by inevitability, without thought of it, and certainly without saying it. He must be the best man in his world and a good enough man for any world. He will take no man’s money dishonestly and no man’s insolence without a due and dispassionate revenge. He is a lonely man and his pride is that you will treat him as a proud man or be very sorry you ever saw him. The story is this man’s adventure in search of a hidden truth, and it would be no adventure if it did not happen to a man fit for adventure. If there were enough like him, the world would be a very safe place to live in, without becoming too dull to be worth living in.

As Eco The Prankster would say, a "closed text" that means something in particular, the non-Joyce, non-Calder.

[Jonathan]

All we have is a one-liner from her, not remotely enough to reverse-engineer what she was thinking.

Further, it might be that she had an idea to pursue in a future essay, and after doing more research found that she'd been wrong, had misread Kant on whatever point it was, and abandoned the project. If so we'll never know.

I think you all have lost your minds. What art or music or narrative fiction did Kant produce? - none.

Are you unfamiliar with the fact that the field of aesthetics is not limited to art? Do you not know that Kant primarily addressed aesthetic judgments as they pertain to nature?

J

[Wolf DeVoon]

Are you unfamiliar with the fact that the field of aesthetics is not limited to art? Do you not know that Kant primarily addressed aesthetic judgments as they pertain to nature?

J

Not unfamiliar, contemptuous of it. The question that matters pertains to art, especially cinema.

[Jonathan]

So, she "never addressed the philosophcal issue of the Sublime" most likely because she already constantly revered and advocated man's mind and reason, and didn't recognize sublimity as a philosophy in its own right.

No, the most likely explanation is that, since she wasn't a student of the history of aesthetics, she wasn't aware of the concept of the Sublime, other than a layman's definition of the term. If she were at all familiar with the philosophical concept of the Sublime and its history, she would have had to have been quite dense to not recognize that all of her own novels contain the Sublime, and specifically Kant's version of it. Kantian Sublimity was her signature aesthetic style. She wasn't aware of Kant's very positive influence over her own work and over other works of Romanticism.

J

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I have wanted to jump into this discussion, but I have very little time right now, and even less to say about Kant's view of the sublime.

 

(One day I will read him, though, since I am tired of getting my impression of Kant second-hand from Rand and Randians, and from Kant scholars and readers, for that matter.)

 

But something else has excited me.

 

Two different art theory thinkers rocked my world recently. The first is Denis Dutton: The Art Instinct: Beauty, Pleasure, and Human Evolution.

 

We discussed this on OL a while back (see here), but I had not read him at that time nor watched any video. Now I have seen some videos and read some articles (I have the book, but have not read it yet). Dutton is definitely on to something. I will probably open a new thread later about this (along with a discussion of the other guy below) and references to the best in the previous thread. For now, here's a video of the recently deceased Dutton (a TED talk, but there are others I want to share later):

 

 

I want to mention something in passing. Louis Torres from Aristo (and cohort of Michelle Kamhi) wrote several things about this book and about Dutton (see here for one, but there are others). As someone who is deeply interested in Rand's ideas, I have to admit I was embarrassed by his hostility and crappy attitude. I also read his review of Dutton's book, where he mischaracterized what Dutton was getting at (although he got some things right), and condemned condemned condemned. But I have to talk about this downer stuff at some other time. Let's say for now, this was my introduction to the writing of Louis Torres and I was not impressed.

 

On a happier note, there is Alva Noë: Strange Tools: Art and Human Nature. This rocked my world like Dutton did, and I haven't even read it. I saw a video of Noë and immediately got the book.

 

Here's the video I saw (a Google talk, and there are others I have seen since that I will share later--and many others I still want to see, especially on perception):

 

 

Between Dutton and Noë and, yes, some Rand thrown in (not to mention recent advances in psychology and neuroscience), I think I just might be able to arrive at a concept of art that satisfies me.

 

Up to now, no matter who I have studied, everything theoretical dealing with art has seemed like an opinion. Sometimes an elaborated opinion, but mere opinion underneath nevertheless. (Including Rand's thoughts on art.)

 

I suspect Kant's sublime is nothing more than a fancied-up opinion, but let me read him and give my thoughts before you hold me to that.

 

Right now, from what little I have delved into it, I believe Dutton and Noë have ascended from opinion to good speculation and, in some of the ideas, fact.

 

That's what I find exciting.

 

Michael

[Jonathan]

Perhaps we should follow Nebsie's lead and "reclaim" or "update" the meanings of all of the words that we dislike because they contain what we feel are icky, "creepy philosophical" elements?

Why not cut to the chase right away and start with the queen mother of yucky words: "Evil"?

Kant wrote about the concept, and therefore he is the cause of its being about bad things. We should update it so that its nice! It should now mean "Sunshine and cute baby bunnies at a happy fun time picnic!"

Now that we've gotten the big one out of the way, back to concepts in the arts. How about "Naturalism"? Let's update Rand's definition so as to get rid of the "creepy philosophical" meaning that she imposed on it. Her view of it was that it was the category of art which denied volition by presenting slice-of-life folks next door who were playthings of deterministic fate. Eeeesh! Let's freshen it up for contemporary times by making it mean art which celebrates volition by showing heroic individuals achieving the highest goals that they've chosen!

The color "black." Its dark. That's creepy. Let's make "black" refer to bright, happy colors! Hooray!

In drama, there are "tragedies." Who wrecked the word "tragedy" by giving it a creepy meaning? Kant, no doubt! Let's fix that by updating the word. "Tragedy" should now mean funny stories with happy endings and gumdrops and rainbows! Yay!!!

"Rhubarb." I like the sound of the word, but I hate the flavor of the plant to which the word has historically referred. Instead of keeping that historical meaning which was probably concocted by Kant, we should update it so that it refers to something that I like, like strawberries. Yum, bake me a rhubarb pie, please!

J

[Jonathan]

Are you unfamiliar with the fact that the field of aesthetics is not limited to art? Do you not know that Kant primarily addressed aesthetic judgments as they pertain to nature?

J

Not unfamiliar, contemptuous of it. The question that matters pertains to art, especially cinema.

Yawn.

J

[Selene]

Serutan spelled backwoods is Natures...

 

 

If that worked for Snake Oil Tonic Cures, it will work for Evil...Live! 

 

Now it feels like bunnies!

 

See how easy that was!

 

Thanks J.

[Ellen Stuttle]

If the word "sublime" is to have a different meaning than the experience that it has always signified, then what word should now be used to signify that long-identified experience? When people experience what has always been called the Sublime while viewing, say, the deluge of the reservoir gates opening on the Yellow River, like this: [....]

...and they refer to their experiencing the Sublime from having witnessed it, and everyone on the fricking planet understands exactly what they mean (other than Newbsie, Tony, and a few other doofuses who have been fooled by Newbsie's posing as a scholar), what point is there in changing or "updating" the words that are used, and what word would Newbsie demand that they use instead of "sublime"?

From the standard way I heard "sublime" used when I was growing up, I wasn't aware of the philosophic meaning "terror that delights" until courses I took in college.

For instance, if people say of a sunset that it's "sublime," or of a woman that she's "sublimely beautiful," do you take them to mean an element of fear in their reaction?

Ellen

[Wolf DeVoon]

Look where this crap is leading you, conflating terms like awe and fearsome with a cogent discussion of art.

The goal of Kant's mental masturbation wasn't intended to persuade. The payoff was subliminal, a stimulus below the threshold of understanding; perceived by and affecting someone's mind without their being aware of it -- a eunuch's bluff, no different than Toohey's honeyed voice at a public meeting -- the purpose of which is to baffle and terrify.

http://www.metamodernism.com/2013/12/18/levitated-mass/

[anthony]

If the word "sublime" is to have a different meaning than the experience that it has always signified, then what word should now be used to signify that long-identified experience? When people experience what has always been called the Sublime while viewing, say, the deluge of the reservoir gates opening on the Yellow River, like this: [....]

...and they refer to their experiencing the Sublime from having witnessed it, and everyone on the fricking planet understands exactly what they mean (other than Newbsie, Tony, and a few other doofuses who have been fooled by Newbsie's posing as a scholar), what point is there in changing or "updating" the words that are used, and what word would Newbsie demand that they use instead of "sublime"?

From the standard way I heard "sublime" used when I was growing up, I wasn't aware of the philosophic meaning "terror that delights" until courses I took in college.

For instance, if people say of a sunset that it's "sublime," or of a woman that she's "sublimely beautiful," do you take them to mean an element of fear in their reaction?

Ellen

Ellen, It does seem to me that 'sublime' has been hijacked somewhat. It's only a word to denote a concept which each individual experiences and abstracts for himself. It is also a loaded word, supposed to signify emotions that accompany it. Which emotions - is dependent on the person's value judgments of reality, so they vary largely.

A rose by any other name would smell as sweet (unless you have a cold).

[anthony]

So, she "never addressed the philosophcal issue of the Sublime" most likely because she already constantly revered and advocated man's mind and reason, and didn't recognize sublimity as a philosophy in its own right.

No, the most likely explanation is that, since she wasn't a student of the history of aesthetics, she wasn't aware of the concept of the Sublime, other than a layman's definition of the term. If she were at all familiar with the philosophical concept of the Sublime and its history, she would have had to have been quite dense to not recognize that all of her own novels contain the Sublime, and specifically Kant's version of it. Kantian Sublimity was her signature aesthetic style. She wasn't aware of Kant's very positive influence over her own work and over other works of Romanticism.

J

"...the concept of the Sublime"...

Men could create a religion around and based on ~The Word~ but any rational men would ignore it as an anti-concept which corresponds to nothing in reality.

You write how Kant had a positive influence over Rand's work [due to his Sublime].

First, by your supposition, she "wasn't aware of the concept of Kant and the Sublime".

(Personally, I think it would be hard to miss if she read only part of his writings).

But how could she employ Kant's Sublime without knowing of it?

Anyhow, a minor objection.

It's obvious that artists and authors for many hundreds and thousands of years have been employing the techniques of evoking grand emotions in their audience.

They - of course- painted and wrote from their own experience, observation, thinking and emotions, not from some philosopher's theory.

If a writer (in Rand's case) can stylize and describe an intensely gripping scene (for her, concerning man and the man-made) which arouses the reader's emotions, such reader would grasp the importance of the writer's (Rand here) ideas which go with his enthralled, heightened feelings. Many of us here could call those passages we found in her novels - exalted or sublime or enraptured or exultant or exciting - etc.

Why? I think because we all at OL mostly share Rand's value-judgments of life and existence, and respond well to her "technique".

(Many or most adept writers I've read will raise exultation, etc. too).

The 'Sublime' exists in our heads: to each his own, by degree and variation of his life-value.

This concept and its accompanying feelings is simply the effect of an artful "technique" understood by all authors and readers, long predating the Sublime philosophers, going back to tales told by early men around a fire.

[anthony]

(I think "the fear that delights" can't exist very long, as self contradictory. I believe emotions can and do coincide for a moment in a mind, but introspection and further identification of the reality will sort them out, and one will remain or both will dissipate).

And that's what the great thinkers of the past did: They worked at it, and sorted out what appeared to be a contradiction. Kant explained it very clearly. The entity of great magnitude or destructive power stimulates our ability to reason and to get our minds around the entity, and to feel fortitude, and to regard our estate as exalted above it. That's what the pleasure part is: Our succeeding in grasping what seemed to be incomprehensible, and to feel our power to overcome.

See? What appeared to be a contradiction was resolved. It wasn't a contradiction after all!

Get it yet?

J

Heard it all before. And is that Kant's justification and proof of reason?

(What I think he called "practical reason".)

The Sublime in Nature.

Bigger than a man is.

So what?

All of nature is bigger than man, what is called 'the metaphysical given', yes?.

Took Kant reams of emotive rationalization for what Bacon did in a few words of reason.

Nature to be commanded must be obeyed.

[9thdoctor]

And how about Umberto Eco?

I'll raise the bet.

You'll raise the bet meaning...Eco is on your shit-list, above, below, or maybe in between Hitchcock and Spielberg? And apparently your understanding of The Open Work is about as good as Rachel Maddow's is of The Virtue of Selfishness. Start a thread for it if you think you have something intelligent to say on the matter. But Festina Lente, there are people here who actually know something about it.

For now, you maintain that before having something valuable to say on Aesthetics, one must actually produce art or music or narrative fiction, right? So Joseph Campbell is out, never mind that his work inspired Star Wars, Watership Down, and (very directly) The Lion King. Ok, good chance those are on your shit list too, so what's the use? How about another approach. Ayn Rand wrote a great deal about politics, but was never a politician. Machiavelli and Kissinger were politicians who wrote about politics. Therefore...

"Rhubarb." I like the sound of the word, but I hate the flavor of the plant to which the word has historically referred. Instead of keeping that historical meaning which was probably concocted by Kant, we should update it so that it refers to something that I like, like strawberries. Yum, bake me a rhubarb pie, please!

Thats a Minnesota thing, right?

We don't get that where I'm from. Down here we have guava. Way better.

[Wolf DeVoon]

Ninth,

Machiavelli and Kissinger were not politicians, and Ayn Rand's contribution to political theory could be written on the back of a postage stamp, like Google's absurd mission statement "Don't be evil." Quit throwing spaghetti at the wall.

The sun rises and sets on Campbell's condensed soup? Just pour out a can and make a hero's journey about rabbits, a muppet sensei who backward speaks, or talking lions and warthogs. No doubt you could find open meaning in Psycho.

I believe in plain speaking. Eco's adulation of incoherent drunks like Joyce and Calder was art crime.

[Brant Gaede]

Being politicians partly explains both M and K, Wolf, but predominantly they were or became something more and that's what we were left with.

--Brant

(I don't know "Eco" from a hole in the ground so I decline that part of the discussion)

[Jonathan]

If the word "sublime" is to have a different meaning than the experience that it has always signified, then what word should now be used to signify that long-identified experience? When people experience what has always been called the Sublime while viewing, say, the deluge of the reservoir gates opening on the Yellow River, like this: [....]

...and they refer to their experiencing the Sublime from having witnessed it, and everyone on the fricking planet understands exactly what they mean (other than Newbsie, Tony, and a few other doofuses who have been fooled by Newbsie's posing as a scholar), what point is there in changing or "updating" the words that are used, and what word would Newbsie demand that they use instead of "sublime"?

From the standard way I heard "sublime" used when I was growing up, I wasn't aware of the philosophic meaning "terror that delights" until courses I took in college.

For instance, if people say of a sunset that it's "sublime," or of a woman that she's "sublimely beautiful," do you take them to mean an element of fear in their reaction?

Ellen

Have you not been following the conversation?

When I've mentioned the difference between the philosophical meaning of the Sublime and a layman's meaning of it, what did you think that I was talking about?

I've been in conversations with groups of people at a party, and when the talk had gotten just a little deeper or more serious than some people would like, the hostess said something like, "You're all getting much too metaphysical for a party," when no one had been discussing anything that was anywhere near to being in the ballpark of the branch of philosophy known as metaphysics.

Would you have able to tell, by the context of the situation, that she was using a common layman's usage of the word rather than its philosophical meaning? Probably not.

Anyway, thanks for inspiring me to add a new updated word to the Newbsie Dictionary of Philosophy:

In philosophy, the word "metaphysical" has meant "pertaining to the nature of existence, causality, time, substance," etc., but now it will be replaced with the layman's meaning. Philosophers will no longer study the nature of existence, but instead will be too serious and recondite at parties until admonished not to be. "Whoa, dude, that's like too metaphysical, brah."

J

[Jonathan]

Look where this crap is leading you, conflating terms like awe and fearsome with a cogent discussion of art.

The goal of Kant's mental masturbation wasn't intended to persuade. The payoff was subliminal, a stimulus below the threshold of understanding; perceived by and affecting someone's mind without their being aware of it -- a eunuch's bluff, no different than Toohey's honeyed voice at a public meeting -- the purpose of which is to baffle and terrify.

http://www.metamodernism.com/2013/12/18/levitated-mass/

Ah, I get it. It took me a while. You're parodying Newbsie.

J

[Jonathan]

You write how Kant had a positive influence over Rand's work [due to his Sublime].

First, by your supposition, she "wasn't aware of the concept of Kant and the Sublime".

(Personally, I think it would be hard to miss if she read only part of his writings).

But how could she employ Kant's Sublime without knowing of it?

Let's see if you can work that one out for yourself. Think about it. Imagine that it's someone other than Saint Ayn whom were talking about. Could that person be influenced by ideas without knowing who originated them? Think hard! Remember that Obectivist writings assert that philosophy drives history, and that the herds of filthy ignorant people often don't know the names of the philosopher monster demons who led them to destruction.

Okay, if you can't think that hard, here are some pointers:

Might it be that certain ideas work their way into the culture and influence people, without those people knowing who originated the idea? If one person sees an aesthetic effect that she likes, and borrows and expands upon it, is it logically possible that she might not know which past creators and thinkers had influenced that aesthetic effect?

J