Mess or Masterpiece?

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I've tried to explain. As has come up before in evaluating artworks, I believe "universality" can't be applied in the way of establishing what is common and agreeable to all people, everywhere and for all time. Basically, it's an invalid attempt to find empirical 'proof' by consensus. One, it's untestable; two, there evidently can't be 100% consensus; three, even partial consensus would not make anything 'right or wrong', 'good or bad', objectively.

Tony,

I only have time to address this paragraph. But I do have two observations (and they probably deal with the rest):

1. Establishing what is common to all people is a whole lot different than establishing what is agreeable. We all eat by crushing solid food with our teeth. That is common to all people (normal people). What we crush with our teeth can be agreeable to some and not to others. Ditto for art.

My discussion is on the level of why does man need art? Not what art does man find agreeable? You claimed art was spiritual fuel. Just like food is physical fuel. Since this is a universal to you, but not a universal at the same time, and when we talk it keeps going there, maybe the question should be a different one.

To you, does man need art at all? Or is this need subjective, meaning it is not a need? And please, no dodge about context and meeting of minds and so on. We are talking about man's "metaphysical nature," not about metaphysical accidents.

2. Your assumption about consensus shows you have not examined my argument at all. I have been presenting neuroscience (and by extension, epistemology), not surveys on artworks. And there is a butt-load of experiments referenced in the material I discussed that do precisely what you said isn't done: testing, measuring, and so on. With repeatable results.

Once again, I think it boils down to whether the need for art is included in your version of man's metaphysical nature. It certainly is in Rand's. If it is included, of course it can be tested and measured. If it is only subjective to you, it cannot be tested and measured and there is no need to think beyond "I like this" or "I like that" without ever wondering what it would be like to have none of it. You can say that is not subjective, but that's what subjective looks like just about everywhere on earth.

(btw - If I sound harsh, it is from the nature of the written word. My intent is quite friendly and aimed at precision in thinking, not criticism of the person.)

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

"It is called dogma".

I think that dogma only works on the dogmatic.

Tony,

Just one other comment.

You can say that again.

Let me go all Jonathan on you for a minute and say that most of the arguments about art I have seen in O-Land show a lot of people being quite dogmatic.

In other words, Rand's ideas work with them not because they have checked her premises against the best thinking they could find, but instead because they are "the dogmatic" in their own thinking. Rand said it. They agree with it. That's all the premise they need. It informs all their observations when they look at theory and art. And they develop complicated arguments from that premise.

Michael

[anthony]

Michael: [To #151] It depends. Do you suppose that the sciences lead philosophy, or the reverse?

I sure do think that science can at times inform philosophy in the modern era, but predominantly philosophy (by its nature) leads the way. Wherever one finds new facts there are always concepts above them that they fit.** So far. If that ever is proved wrong, then reality as we know it will be falsified and philosophy will have to be re-written entirely or discarded.

(On crushing solid food, did you notice that I said "Apart from his biology...")

Will read more later.

**PS: especially the field of neuroscience, perhaps the most exciting. I've enthused that it is finally 'catching up' with philosophy, validating "a volitional consciousness"."Self-directing, self-generating").

[anthony]

Times I've been unjust to Rand in calling her quite dogmatic. Stopping to think about, this is not true. "Dogmatic" is the adjective of "dogma". If anyone could think that Objectivism is dogma, unrelated to reality in itself, and reliant on it being seized by unquestioning minds (the dogmatists) - then Objectivism is basely misunderstood. Of course, reality and independence are its raison d'etre. Everything "pivots upon that singular fulcrum" - (thanks Greg).

It shows the power of word-association when a word is misused in its casual, popular sense.

Belligerently passionate, would that be more fitting to her?

[Jonathan]

Let me go all Jonathan on you for a minute...

Ha!

J

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

If anyone could think that Objectivism is dogma, unrelated to reality in itself, and reliant on it being seized by unquestioning minds (the dogmatists) - then Objectivism is basely misunderstood.

Tony,

This is the circular argument of dogmatism.

If you agree with the dogma (which is never dogma), you are reality-oriented. If you don't agree and have cogent reasons, you haven't understood the dogma.

How about a different standard for reality: observation? Then going into science, testing and measuring?

Rand has made some claims about the human mind that are simply not true. Why? Because we can observe the opposite, test it, measure it, and repeat the findings. We can do that on the level of philosophy (where everyone can do it) and we can do it scientifically in a lab with specialists.

This is not misunderstanding Rand. This is checking a few of her premises.

Believe it or not, Rand got a few things wrong. She got a lot right, too.

A dogmatist will never admit that. The dogmatist says (but usually implies after some CYA gesture) Rand is always right and when she is wrong, you are wrong, not her. Probably because you didn't understand her.

Michael

[william.scherk]

Let me go all Jonathan on you for a minute and say that most of the arguments about art I have seen in O-Land show a lot of people being quite dogmatic.

In other words, Rand's ideas work with them not because they have checked her premises against the best thinking they could find, but instead because they are "the dogmatic" in their own thinking. Rand said it. They agree with it. That's all the premise they need.

Nicely reduced to a hard kernel of truth, I think. You've made a key observation about the process of constructing and buttressing argument based on Rand's verities; the premises of a Randian (Kamhian) finding about art is often predicated on the complete truthfulness of the initial generalizations.

This strikes me as a form of infallibility, where the initial premises are not checked -- they are subsumed in the following argumentation as if they are not subject to falsification.

I think this leads to conclusions that are illicit, logically, in a lot of cases.

It informs all their observations when they look at theory and art. And they develop complicated arguments from that premise.

And the complicated arguments are sometimes mere rationalizations of the baseline 'dogma.' The superstructure of the arguments rests on infallible pronouncements. This is where my rational mind feels queasy.

[Brant Gaede]

Rand did a lot of asseveration leaving out a great deal of supporting arguments throughout her non-fiction writing and Galt's speech. The libertarians took a lot of her political writing and said, wait a minute, this is classical liberalism upon which this country was founded. Rand didn't do enough of that. This helped divide llibertarians from Objectivists and Rand piled it on not to mention Rothbard doing the same. Some subset of libertarians loved her purported selfishness but I think it wasn't what she was really talking about which wasn't the classical common sense of it which is off-putting. She cashed in on its shock value by titling one of her books with it, but inside the VOS it was immediately emasculated into "concern with one's own interests." The whole idea of selfishness or "rational self interest" is woefully undeveloped in the Objectivist Ethics for the binary of selfishness/selflessness in the philosophy is just one of multiple facets off the natural base of selfishness of a human being's human being.

"Isn't everybody selfish?" Yes. Then what? That's just the base. There is no such thing as selfless down there. No room. When a human being starts acting he creates a context of selfish-selfless--there is a variable ratio--but all of that can be described as selfish or the selfishness of selfish-selfless.

Two tiers or layers. The first tier is always selfish. This is true of each tier of Objectivism, metaphysics to politics. Rand never properly moved her philosophy off the first tier, though she tried without really ever understanding the schematic structure involved. No one escapes the second tier which is a social existence. Even ship-wrecked on a deserted island, the second tier will hunt down the first tier and torture it. Such is the nature and need of a social existence.

I slightly knew someone in high school who five years later threw himself on a grenade in Vietnam protecting his fellow Marines. It was selfish (core) and selfish-selfless. It wasn't purely selfless for the two layers were integrated in his action as they are in all human actions. So when such people are admired for their selflessness that's just shorthand for selfish-selfless.

Atruism is just the way religious and political authorities like to get their hands on you for their powers' sake. That pissed off Rand no end and with great justification, but costing her clarity. Remove the people who are trying to make you do something by their words and deeds--adult speak here--and clarity is possible. It's easy. That way when a private party makes a demand on youh--it can be subtle so "demand" may be too strong a word sometimes--you can ask what is my cost and what is my reward?--and act or not act accordingly.

--Brant

[anthony]

If anyone could think that Objectivism is dogma, unrelated to reality in itself, and reliant on it being seized by unquestioning minds (the dogmatists) - then Objectivism is basely misunderstood.

Tony,

This is the circular argument of dogmatism.

If you agree with the dogma (which is never dogma), you are reality-oriented. If you don't agree and have cogent reasons, you haven't understood the dogma.

How about a different standard for reality: observation? Then going into science, testing and measuring?

Rand has made some claims about the human mind that are simply not true. Why? Because we can observe the opposite, test it, measure it, and repeat the findings. We can do that on the level of philosophy (where everyone can do it) and we can do it scientifically in a lab with specialists.

This is not misunderstanding Rand. This is checking a few of her premises.

Believe it or not, Rand got a few things wrong. She got a lot right, too.

A dogmatist will never admit that. The dogmatist says (but usually implies after some CYA gesture) Rand is always right and when she is wrong, you are wrong, not her. Probably because you didn't understand her.

Michael

But this is empiricism, not conceptualization. The process (for an individual) is cognitive and normative. He alone has to make the identification, and only he can make the evaluation: good or bad? Can a scientist test for *value*? Hardly, because value is dependent on a long conceptual process originating with metaphysics: man, qua man - continuing to the existence of an individual man.

It is on metaphysics that many arguments seem to founder. William, your "baseline dogma" and "infallible pronouncements" is the O'ist metaphysics, I fancy. You might not agree, and think man's nature isn't "autonomous, self-directing and self-generatiing", but please suggest to me an alternative metaphysics?

Re-quoting the earlier passage "To prescribe what man ought to do, he must first know ~what~ he is, and ~where~ he is".

There's nothing simpler and more logical than that--is there?

I don't think it's possible to "prove" or justify a concept, since it depends on a chain of sensory, perceptual and conceptual integrations/differentiations made by each individual, alone, over his lifetime. Testing and measuring won't cut it.

Michael, I don't think it's the point that "Rand is always right". What is the point, is can one, the individual, show to his own satisfaction that her ~methodology~ is true? In other words, doing it for oneself, seeing for oneself (and starting with no more than the premise of the metaphysical nature of man), can he find that everything logically follows?

Philosophy is a comprehensive view of existence. Therefore, very broad. The fine details are all owed to one's own honest and rigorous efforts, experiences and abstractions, not Objectivism, per se. That goes for art, too. One sees that for Rand, the subject is as much about man's consciousness and existence, as it's about art. I can't see how a philosopher can approach it any other way.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Can a scientist test for *value*? Hardly, because value is dependent on a long conceptual process originating with metaphysics: man, qua man - continuing to the existence of an individual man.

Tony,

I don't understand this.

I read a lot of modern psychology and neuroscience (granted, in the literature for what they call "smart non-experts," not the actual scientific papers).

They test for value all the time.

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

dup

[Brant Gaede]

Can a scientist test for *value*? Hardly, because value is dependent on a long conceptual process originating with metaphysics: man, qua man - continuing to the existence of an individual man.

Tony,

I don't understand this.

I read a lot of modern psychology and neuroscience (granted, in the literature for what they call "smart non-experts," not the actual scientific papers).

They test for value all the time.

Michael

Tony is stuck in an Objectivist matrix of his own making, and he doesn't know it. Red pill or blue pill? There are no pills for this.

--Brant

[anthony]

I've tried to explain. As has come up before in evaluating artworks, I believe "universality" can't be applied in the way of establishing what is common and agreeable to all people, everywhere and for all time. Basically, it's an invalid attempt to find empirical 'proof' by consensus. One, it's untestable; two, there evidently can't be 100% consensus; three, even partial consensus would not make anything 'right or wrong', 'good or bad', objectively.

Tony,

I only have time to address this paragraph. But I do have two observations (and they probably deal with the rest):

1. Establishing what is common to all people is a whole lot different than establishing what is agreeable. We all eat by crushing solid food with our teeth. That is common to all people (normal people). What we crush with our teeth can be agreeable to some and not to others. Ditto for art.

My discussion is on the level of why does man need art? Not what art does man find agreeable? You claimed art was spiritual fuel. Just like food is physical fuel. Since this is a universal to you, but not a universal at the same time, and when we talk it keeps going there, maybe the question should be a different one.

To you, does man need art at all? Or is this need subjective, meaning it is not a need? And please, no dodge about context and meeting of minds and so on. We are talking about man's "metaphysical nature," not about metaphysical accidents.

2. Your assumption about consensus shows you have not examined my argument at all. I have been presenting neuroscience (and by extension, epistemology), not surveys on artworks. And there is a butt-load of experiments referenced in the material I discussed that do precisely what you said isn't done: testing, measuring, and so on. With repeatable results.

Once again, I think it boils down to whether the need for art is included in your version of man's metaphysical nature. It certainly is in Rand's. If it is included, of course it can be tested and measured. If it is only subjective to you, it cannot be tested and measured and there is no need to think beyond "I like this" or "I like that" without ever wondering what it would be like to have none of it. You can say that is not subjective, but that's what subjective looks like just about everywhere on earth.

(btw - If I sound harsh, it is from the nature of the written word. My intent is quite friendly and aimed at precision in thinking, not criticism of the person.)

Michael

Michael,

There's a disjunct all the way I can't quite explain. It starts right down at:

Who does one think one's life belongs to?

Whose life are you, or I, living?

Is anything and everything one finds rewarding, significant, meaningful - a "subjective" experience?

(And, do people understand the difference between the metaphysical man-made, and the metaphysical given?)

'Art', in the abstract, and in the specific concrete, is treated at the same time with false 'objectivity' and invalid 'subjectivity', I sense in these discussions. It's as though one, the viewer, reader or listener, should not, or may not, take personal mental ownership of it for one's own sake (one's own purposes, one's "use") - without the say-so of...

(whom?)

The expert.

The majority.

The scientist.

A Supernatural Being

All are inferred/invoked at some point in an art debate: authoritarianism, collectivism, empiricism, or mystical omniscience. [Or spirituality].

After all, who am ~I~ to authorize myself on art, without 'the proper credentials'? Who am I to embrace certain artworks, quite enjoy others, intensely dislike others, or be bored by the rest?

(Sub-text: Who am I to authorize myself on what is good for me?)

It must be 'subjectivist'. It must be 'egotistical'. Hell, it's selfish.

Ironic and revealing, that in a debate on art there's as much and more philosophy and morality than on any other topic. (That's reality, it gets in everywhere, like Objectivism).

And do I believe that Art, or any specific work, was written, designed or created, etc. with ME in mind?

(Outside of the artist desiring to communicate something to somebody).

No more than I believe existence and my life was 'designed' FOR me, or for anyone else. It just exists, it's there.

But here I am. Here, you are. What to do about it? What to do with that other existent, art? Again: meaning and purpose. How do we grasp this entire thing called existence and the universe, and find meaning in it? and discover our own purposes and values? All of these are not an automatic "given".

As a small clue and analogy, take an instance of a casual meeting with some person, a stranger, who turns out to be uniquely special (by one's objective standards and personal experience). For the while, conversing with him/her, one experiences the same rationality and integrity, self-esteem and view of life that one also aspires to, not without personal struggle. I will remember an individual such as that for a long time after - for the reason and morality he/she expresses and the manner they do so, who - while acknowledging the same struggle of life - isn't over-awed by it and indicates that all of it is worthwhile, ultimately. Has this ever happened to you?

That's "affirmation" - fuel. Here, in human form, as in a man-created work of art..

In one stand-alone entity is an image that you 'agree with' (and that 'agrees with' you).

The concrete image, and all it represents in one conceptual package is what sticks in mind, to be drawn from, far later.

Testable and measurable... electrodes placed in the brain's cognitive and emotion centres can register *pleasure* and other activity, I guess, but nothing meaningful about a particular mind's abstractions.

Neural-pathways and -mapping is a fascinating, ground-breaking study - and what does it tell us? That the brain is as much a responsive effect while the mind is the causal determinant, I think. "Self-causality". We already know that.

It takes us back to - where? Back to those same "mind's abstractions"...

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

(And, do people understand the difference between the metaphysical man-made, and the metaphysical given?)

Tony,

There is an implied premise in your entire argument that you actually answered with your question. Reread everything you wrote in that post and you will see yourself arguing about an authority of some sort. A boss, so to speak.

When I ask, does man need art at all?, I am not talking about "the man-made," where an authority can be present (but doesn't have to be). Instead, I'm talking about man's nature, "the metaphysical" or "the given." Does human nature require that humans produce and consume art? There can be no authority except nature (or God for the religious) in this question.

So when you ask: "Who does one think one's life belongs to?", and other questions like that, for as interesting as they are, they have no bearing on whether the essence of art is fuel or something else. A proprietor does not determine human nature or whether humans need art. That need either comes built in or it is not a need.

And if art is spiritual fuel, I would still like to know what the spiritual residue is from using it. I harp on this because I believe the metaphor is only valid for a tiny portion of artistic experiences. Furthermore, I believe those experiences are not fundamental to man's need for art.

btw - One quibble. It's been a while and I didn't look just now (except for here), but I don't believe Rand ever used a term like "the metaphysical man-made." And I don't believe she would have had she thought about it. Her thing was to contrast the metaphysical against the man-made, the given against what man produces with volition. A way to translate "the metaphysical man-made" would be "the non-man-made man-made" or the "given non-given" and she never liked that kind of rhetoric except sometimes in fiction to enhance a description ("frozen motion" and things like that).

Testable and measurable... electrodes placed in the brain's emotion centres can register *pleasure* and other activity, I guess, but nothing meaningful about a particular mind's abstractions.

Man, do you have that wrong.

You need to read some of the literature. When you make statements like that, I feel like I am before a person who says categorically that the earth cannot circle the sun because we see the sun move, not the earth. Until such a person looks at the data without trying to prove his prejudice, there is no way to discuss this with him in any rational sense.

I recommend starting with some things by Oliver Sacks since he is so damn quirky that he is interesting. Here is a great start: The Man Who Mistook His Wife For A Hat: And Other Clinical Tales.

There is a ton of stuff out there that deals with how the brain creates abstractions and memories in the first place and how emotions interact with them.

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

"The Metaphysical or (and?) the Man Made." I think that's a Rand quote--a title of one of her essays. Can't check right now. It's of her style. Could be a FHF lecture. I'm even surer, but not sure, it's not a quote you'll find within one of her essays. I just can't quite place it. It's not a sub-title within AS. I'd first look in the RM for it. I can't think of any other place for it except, maybe, Philosophy, Who Needs it? If it wasn't published in The Objectivist* it wasn't published. Could be from Mary Ann Sures or edited in by Rand. Sures, Rand, Kay Nolte Smith or nobody.

--Brant

*The Ayn Rand Letter--thanks, Ellen

Edited June 27, 2015 by Brant Gaede

[anthony]

My mistake, snuck in an extra "metaphysical" there.

[anthony]

Michael:

"The need either comes built in or it is not a need".

I'd put it, that the need comes as by-product of a conceptual consciousness. Which IS built in, if not always fully realized.

Art as conceptualized by the artist is then, potentially, a source of conceptual comparison, invigoration or inspiration, which aid one's conceptual development.

(A painter reduces his concepts -of what is metaphysically "important" to him- to a concrete, sensory-perceptual level; the writer effectively does the opposite, by presenting completed concepts ("word-concepts") which the reader has to make concrete in his mind's eye).

Basically, the conceptual process is effortful and we need all the help we can get along the way. ;)

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Tony,

It's getting clearer.

Since you agree the need for art is innate (albeit with your byproduct hedge), how do you get from there to showing how and why a need for art-like "fuel" is innate to human consciousness?

What action is produced by burning this fuel?

And what waste byproduct results from the fuel-burning process?

You just claimed art aids the conceptual development of humans since it is potentially a source of "conceptual comparison, invigoration or inspiration."

Is conceptual development the action from the fuel-burning of this potential source? Does this mean people who consume a lot of art are more conceptually developed than those who don't and that this is caused by burning the moral or spiritual fuel of art?

Can you see the logical inconsistencies in all this? I can see too many to argue, but they all go back down to the same wrong premise: that human need does not have to be validated by observation, but instead proclaimed and rationalized.

Here's an exercise for you. Can you square your "potential source" of spiritual and moral fuel with the following ancient cave paintings (from Cave of Altamira, near Santander, Spain, and Cave of the Hands in the Santa Cruz province in Argentina respectively)?

and

I don't seen any moral or spiritual fuel here, nothing about how life could and should be, not even by a long twisted rationalization. But I do see great props for storytelling and story creating.

btw - I do believe the need for art is innate in conceptual humans (and this leads to a long discussion), but I don't agree this need is moral or spiritual fuel.

Michael

[Ellen Stuttle]

"The Metaphysical or (and?) the Man Made." I think that's a Rand quote--a title of one of her essays.

"The Metaphysical Versus the Man-Made." First published in The Ayn Rand Letter.

It was included in Philosophy: Who Needs It - ARI Bookstore link.

Ellen

[anthony]

Tony,

It's getting clearer.

Since you agree the need for art is innate (albeit with your byproduct hedge), how do you get from there to showing how and why a need for art-like "fuel" is innate to human consciousness?

{}

I don't seen any moral or spiritual fuel here, nothing about how life could and should be, not even by a long twisted rationalization. But I do see great props for storytelling and story creating.

btw - I do believe the need for art is innate in conceptual humans (and this leads to a long discussion), but I don't agree this need is moral or spiritual fuel.

Michael

Michael: Not all art, always, is of utmost objective value, but there are gradations of value. As you know, the best of Romanticism was considered by Rand to be the height of conceptual and moral value (reinforcing the conviction that man is a being of volitional consciousness). But that's a tiny segment. For me, from the simplest but well presented "Naturalism" through to Romanticism (not always well executed) is such a range and complexity that one could lose plenty of value by being - well - too 'dogmatic' about individual instances of art.

Clearly, Rand applied the same objective standards to evaluating artwork as she did identifying and evaluating ... everything. Except, being man-made, her standards were far higher (legitimately, I think). In fact, she treated art and the artist's judgment of existence more seriously than, I'm positive, any art writer has done :

Is this good for man's life and mind - or bad?

Most paintings fall under naturalistic art, representing life as it is. Not, "ought to be".

I'm taken with Rand's idea of "importance" when reviewing art. i.e., One picture was imaged and selected by the artist out of endless permutations open to him, then painstakingly crafted, then proudly (we assume) submitted to a viewership. Implicitly, we are drawn to anything within a 'frame', as having significance. So, the initial assumption one should make is that the artist is depicting something highly important to him - no matter, initially, how fine or crude is the technique or style. The questions, after we recognize the importance (for the artist), then identified as best we can its life-premises, are: Is it important to me? Is it of value to man's existence? Does it fit with my view of reality - or not?

(I believe this will and does occur subconsciously, anyway--if one doesn't take conscious control of the process).

Your posted pictures contain value or at the very least, interest. The multiple hand outlines or palm prints I find absorbing and quite unforgettable . Here, I surmize, some ancient group or tribe has left its identity as a statement on a rock wall: "We were here. We lived".

It's possible to psychologize and read to much into this sort of primitive painting, but always every created image returns to: "importance" - of value, to someone.

The animal which looks like a bison (they existed there back then?) could have been painted for many reasons: homage to its strength and beauty, appreciation of its part in the tribe's life and survival, the tale or account of a particular day's hunt, or simply an anatomical representation to teach the children.

(The colours and detail are incredible, that red looks so fresh and glossy it is as though perhaps the painting has been lately restored).

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Not all art, always, is of utmost objective value, but there are gradations of value.

Tony,

Once again, you are sidestepping what I am talking about.

I am asking about kind, not degree.

Is the value of art a satisfaction of a fuel need for humans?

If so, how does that work?

It's a simple idea to ponder. It would be a lot easier if we were discussing food. Some things in reality can be broken down and destroyed with our teeth to make them suitable for further breaking down. Our internal processes, with acid, convert the crushed chunks into fuel called nutrients that is distributed all over the body through the bloodstream. What gets left over is feces and urine that we eliminate.

That's the way food works as fuel. Other fuel processes work similarly, from carbon fuels to electricity (which has less residue, but there is still residue in worn out wires and so on--or a dam producing it has run off water, a nuclear process has nuclear waste and so on).

When I talk about this, I'm not talking about how much food one needs to eat. I'm talking about the nature of food and how it works.

You did make one interesting statement: "Implicitly, we are drawn to anything within a 'frame', as having significance."

Are you sure about this?

The first cave painting I referenced came from a group that has been carbon-dated from 20,000 to 35,600 years ago and the second from 9,000 to 13,000 years ago. Neither came in a frame. They didn't use frames on cave walls back then.

Is this art "Romantic" or "Naturalism"? Or better, does that question even make sense for prehistoric cave-dwellers?

I still don't see cave-dwellers spiritually burning these paintings as fuel so they can morally achieve the highest life has to offer or justify their lowest base whims and metaphysically say they couldn't help it.

I don't think Rand's premise is a fundamental part of how art works. I do see it as a small (tiny) subset within art, though. But you have to be on board with an Objectivist-like storyline for it to work. For instance, I don't see the following artwork as representing anything much to our dear cave-dwellers--certainly not spiritual fuel:

Michael

[Jonathan]

Clearly, Rand applied the same objective standards to evaluating artwork as she did identifying and evaluating ... everything.

Heh. I agree. Rand used the same "objective standards" to evaluate artworks that she used to identify art as a "recreation of reality" which "cannot serve a utilitarian purpose" but yet to assert that architecture was art despite that fact that she stated that it "does not recreate reality" and that it does serve a utilitarian purpose.

Most paintings fall under naturalistic art, representing life as it is. Not, "ought to be".

Hahahaha! Tony, you haven't seen "most paintings," let alone "objectively" analyzed them for content. You're just copying Rand in pretending that your subjective tastes and arbitrary whims are "objective." You're posing and pretending. No one's buying it.

J

[anthony]

Michael, I have answered, with analogy and reasoned explanation (by man's metaphysical nature). To repeat, not all art. And, evaluating art is dependent on one's own degree of rationality and abstraction (lower, for our cave-dweller, higher in the case of a conceptualist).

Also, the "gradation" of one's values (that it is of a hierarchical nature).

Apart from which, you are making too much literal out of a metaphor. The "fuel" is of course 'spiritual', encouraging, inspiring and confirming the necessity for a man's best character (inwardly) and that his goals are attainable (ouwardly). I've been perplexed by your insistence that it has a residue and comparisons to food and eating. It is all win-win, with no downside.

Art can be frivolous and fun, and still have some serious value. Like this above picture.

Apparently cave dwellers hadn't 'frames'. I put it in as an aside, that as modern men we give automatic significance to whatever is contained by four sides. Pick up your camera and view various subjects through it, and you'll see that even ordinary scenes are imbued with a little extra importance. The selectivity has a strong visual 'pull'. Or, take an empty picture frame and look at aspects of the world contained in it. This is learned, obviously, not innate.

[anthony]

Clearly, Rand applied the same objective standards to evaluating artwork as she did identifying and evaluating ... everything.

Heh. I agree. Rand used the same "objective standards" to evaluate artworks that she used to identify art as a "recreation of reality" which "cannot serve a utilitarian purpose" but yet to assert that architecture was art despite that fact that she stated that it "does not recreate reality" and that it does serve a utilitarian purpose.

Most paintings fall under naturalistic art, representing life as it is. Not, "ought to be".

Hahahaha! Tony, you haven't seen "most paintings," let alone "objectively" analyzed them for content. You're just copying Rand in pretending that your subjective tastes and arbitrary whims are "objective." You're posing and pretending. No one's buying it.

J

More "selectivity". It ignores my post, over-all.

Methinks thou protesteth too much - nastily, repeatedly and repetitively.

What really bothers you, J?

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Michael, I have answered, with analogy and reasoned explanation (by man's metaphysical nature). To repeat, not all art.

Tony,

In other words, art is necessary for humans except when it is not necessary.

But how can art be one thing and not be that thing at the same time?

Art is art except when art is not art. That is the error I am honing in on for precision of thinking.

Apart from which, you are making too much literal out of a metaphor. The "fuel" is of course 'spiritual', encouraging, inspiring and confirming the necessity for a man's best character (inwardly) and that his goals are attainable (ouwardly). I've been perplexed by your insistence that it has a residue and comparisons to food and eating. It is all win-win, with no downside.

I'm hammering the metaphor because, first of all, Rand did not use it as a metaphor, but instead as a biological, i.e., psychological need. I can find quotes if you like. But she also used it as a metaphor and, I believe, this metaphor has led to an incredible amount of fuzzy thinking about the nature of art in human life in O-Land.

My higher thinking (as opposed to automatic thinking) process is to identify something correctly, then evaluate it. I call this a cognitive before normative approach.

I see time and time again people in O-Land doing the contrary, evaluating what they have incorrectly identified. And this fuel metaphor is always there as some kind of anti-concept that folks use as blinders to keep them from questioning their incorrect identification. In other words, saying "fuel" is all the justification they need to bash and gush and fall into herd behavior.

That's not good enough for me. "Art is spiritual fuel" is not an axiom.

Similar to your approach in this thread, they will not discuss the essence of art except by using Rand's jargon. And when art is shown to them that falls outside the fuel concept, they do like you did, and claim art is art except when certain art is not art. They may use other words, but when you boil them down, that concept for identification is what you get.

And that doesn't make any logical sense.

This is a premise that sorely needs to be checked.

The good news is that Rand's heroic vision, I believe, will get a deeper validation when we arrive at correct identification of the nature of art. It will not be necessary to trash one form of art in order to elevate another--which is precisely where the Objectivist view is today. Theory-wise, using Rand's premise, Objectivist and Objectivism-friendly art does not exist as itself. It only exists as a superior form to what she calls garbage. In Randian terms, as a characteristic of man, Objectivist art exists as a form of comparison, not as its own thing.

We would never do that with legs. We would not say legs are superior to flippers or tentacles to justify why they exist. And every time we talk about legs, we don't slam flippers and tentacles. We simply look at humans and see they have legs. And we say. "Look there. Humans have legs." We don't rationalize by saying legs are legs except when legs are not legs.

I sense fear behind all this. Believe me, a heroic vision of existence will not disappear and everyone will not have to submit to cognitive enemies that are hellbent on destroying man's mind if we check one of Rand's premises about the nature of art. On the contrary, correct identification is one of the best uses of man's mind that we can engage in. And correct identification will nail her vision into place a lot firmer than the incorrect identification she theorized about. It will certainly be an easier sell to the public once it is correct.

But even so, do you want some proof that the heroic vision is not as fragile to attack as Rand postulated? Just look at the books and movies being produced today. Look at all the heroes--individual heroes who buck the collective and the system to follow their own sense of right and wrong--with happy endings to boot. One story after another. This is big business and there are countless franchises of such heroes. Doesn't that demonstrate "sense of life" to you? It certainly is not being held in place on such a wide cultural level through Rand's writings. So what is causing it?

How about man's nature in the first place?

That's right. Humans do not need Rand to be heroic individuals. They already come that way.

Apropos, I do not adhere to the "sense of life derived from philosophical subconscious integrations" idea Rand came up with, but there is a kernel of truth in it. If we grow up around certain core stories that everyone lives, we will assimilate much from them--but from imitation, not integration. That's the main system that primates use to learn from each other. They imitate one another, then try shit out themselves. And even after they develop their conceptual faculty, they still do it.

Also, I believe people innately generate stories of heroes because humans identify with heroes as an intrinsic part of human psychology (people are the heroes of their own lives, thus they love having other heroes around since a normal biological urge is for kind to attract kind). Also, heroes are fun (not fuel). And so on.

It takes an organized effort at mind-control to get people to not like heroes. And, sorry to check another premise of Rand's, altruism is not that mind-control system. It's just not. Altruism is a good tactic for some kinds of mind-control and Rand did a fantastic job of destroying it as a tactic, but it is not a good strategy, nor the essence. But that's another discussion.

The market for art and entertainment--just look at what the majority of people buy because they want to, even under totalitarian systems--is excellent proof of everything I'm saying if you try to see it without using Randian jargon.

Michael