Objectivist Esthetics, R.I.P.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

5 hours ago, Jonathan said:

Yes, Torres tries very had to be a bully. Kamhi does as well.

Jonathan,

I have to confess that the only thing I have read first hand by either is Torres's series dealing with Dutton. I have their books (What Art Is by both Torres and Kamhi and Who Says That's Art? by Kamhi), but every time I have opened one of these books, I kept getting a feeling of uselessness. They seem to operate under a different system of thinking than I do and hold, as absolute, certain so-called truths that I question.

When people are like that, they tend to be bullies when challenged, or, hell, just to get attention.

To make a cruel analogy, they seem like someone who judges the entire psychiatric profession from the perspective of phrenology. And they elaborate on controversies, approve of this and disapprove of that, cite sources, make case studies, slay dragons and gush over saints--these are metaphors for the nitpickers--and so on while pegging everything to their dogmas. To extend the phrenology metaphor, all the while referring to personality organs located by regions on the skull. And they do all this, from what I have skimmed, in a tone of absolute certainty.

I don't know what to do with things like this because I find them excruciatingly boring.

I suppose one day, owing to my accumulated knowledge of Objectivism and Rand, I will have to delve into their books. But, frankly, this is not a task I contemplate with much relish. It's hard to read a work in an area (like Objectivism) where one has earnestly sought wisdom when one has already prejudged that work as lacking in wisdom. So I am aware of my bias. And, to be fair, this is a task I will do, and I will set aside my prejudgments when I do it (using the identify, then evaluate system), at least as much as I can at the time. But, first, I have to do a few more urgent and pleasant things like chew on razor blades.  

This is the reason I have not contributed to the threads when their names come up. I have preferred to wait until I have first hand knowledge from the original writings.

I have Kant in this same frame (notice you rarely see me discuss his works), except with him, from what I have skimmed, I need to chew on double-edged razor blades first.  

Michael

[anthony]

5 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Tony,

How about this. It is art in the same molds to you? (btw - These examples come from a Wikipedia article: Cave painting.)

This is (quoting from Wikipedia): "Cueva de las Manos located Perito Moreno, Argentina. The art in the cave dates between 13,000-9,000 BP." (Basically, that means about 11,000-7,000 BC.)

Or this? Is it art to you?

That is from Santa Barbara in California from about 6,000-7,500 years ago.

Care to infer and make up a Randian story about these?

Or how about going the easy way and proclaim they are not art?

Michael

Michael, I'll turn the question back to you. Which image contains at least one referent to reality in the manner you 'take in' reality(seen by your senses, make an identity, make a value assessment, internalize - "integrate" - and feel an emotion)?

Which depicts metaphysical reality, of nature, existence, man or humanity? Simplistically, which one "speaks to you" - perceptibly, abstractly and emotionally, about reality or the reality of human beings? That's the one which "is art".

If we remove the context of what you inform us of the second image, (the age, place, antiquity) and one sees and considers it in isolation, (no outside considerations) and I'll wager a viewer will think "that's interesting" - maybe it is ancient hieroglyphics, religious symbols, or modern, random, abstract patterns, a dress design ...? He knows the individual signs are man-made, but he can't see them as forming a single entity, an artwork because there's nothing recognizable of "reality" in it, as the subject. The 'picture' isn't cohesive or coherent.

The first image contains direct referents to reality - human hands (prints of). To someone who doesn't know the background story, it ~could~ have been painted on a rock yesterday. Anyway, from that image of a repetitive pattern of hands, you may infer the artist(s) is/are depicting the theme of the existence of a group of people, perhaps a tribe of sorts, who are individually demonstrating their co-operative survival.

Is that 'good'? Yes, to most viewers: and those hands each 'waving' for one's attention, it seems, will usually evoke emotional responses. I recall William posting this one a year or two back, and it's stuck with me since.

 

 

[regi]

5 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

I call this sui generis epistemology.

I suppose you do not call yourself a human being because that would lump you with some of the most tasteless and contemptible people.

Well call it whatever you like, but I don't think it's very good epistemology to confuse  the metaphysical (human beings) and the man-made (art and artifacts), speaking of mixing categories. It's something I notice Objectivists doing all the time in spite of Rand's explication of the difference.

Human beings, by nature, are neither good or bad (virtuous or contemptible) but must choose what they are. To be lumped together with all human beings only means being lumped together with all other beings with the same metaphysical nature, capable of conscious choice, not with what any of their individual choices might be.

I think you have misused sui generis. There is nothing unique or peculiar about my view. Most of what is called art by those who, "use the concept," is trash, and is used to promote both ideas and attitudes contrary to all ethical principles. If there is any value in anything called art it "is the enjoyment of those that use it. Everything else said about the purpose of art is so much blather."

I only bring these things up, Michael, because I think aesthetics is so important, and am sorry to see a discussion that was meant to be about aesthetics reduced to a discussion of art.

Randy

 

 

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

2 hours ago, regi said:

Well call it whatever you like, but I don't think it's very good epistemology to confuse  the metaphysical (human beings) and the man-made (art and artifacts), speaking of mixing categories.

Regi,

I'm surprised. After you having done a long critique of Binswanger's book on epistemology, I assumed you would get that I was talking about conceptual hierarchy. But you didn't. And even more basic, the hierarchy of concept and and subcategories were presented so individual referents could be easy to point to.

I call your epistemology sui generis because you apparently use the correct hierarchy for humans, but use a different epistemological system for the concept "art," which you claim is useless.

Concepts are concepts, irrespective if they refer to the metaphysical or the man made. Or the imaginary, for that matter (like dragons and unicorns.) They bear the same organizing structure in all cases. Anyone who knows Rand's theory of concepts knows that.

Odd...

Michael

 

 

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Regi,

Here's an added thought. I use a specific system for guiding volitional rationality (which, according to neuroscience, is possible, but is much narrower to do than most people have presumed before scientists got as deeply into the brain as they now are). I call it the cognitive before the normative. I don't think it is possible to correctly evaluate something you have not correctly identified, except by accident or, maybe, habit. In other words, the system I use when encountering something new or when checking an idea is to try to identify correctly before evaluating. That mean suspending evaluation during the identify phase.

You do this with human beings. You do the contrary, that is you evaluate before identifying, when you talk about art. Take a look at your statements and the pattern is as clear as daylight. Don't be disheartened or defensive, though. This process is common (way too common, even with me  ) since that is the way the lower level of the brain operates. It's an automatic process.

(As an emergency system in the brain, there's even a shortcut from the thalamus directly to the amygdala that causes immediate emotion and action for images that look like snakes and many other things, some non-visual like sudden loud noises. When this kicks in, to stay with the snake example, you don't know if you are looking at a snake or garden hose until after you jumped. In other words, you evaluate, then identify. This is called an emotional hijack or amygdala hijack.)

It takes a conscious choice and mental effort that entails a much, much higher caloric consumption in the brain to do the cognitive before the normative direction. That's why doing it is harder and fraught with constant abandonment.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

7 hours ago, anthony said:

The 'picture' isn't cohesive or coherent.

Tony,

So why did primitive people do both? Are you really claiming they got spiritual fuel from the hands (which occur in regions way distant from each other), but time wasting doodling (or whatever) from the second?

How sophisticated are your primitives?

I have another monkey-wrench to throw at you. Why do you think primitive peoples practiced animal sacrifices? I never knew the answer to this until I listened to a lecture by Jordan Peterson. He claims (and I agree with him) it was an indication of an enormous evolutionary leap. To us nowadays it's irrational and disgusting, but in context, it was one of mankind's first mental glories.

An ancient animal sacrifice involved projection of a god (or gods) with some human characteristics (and often some animal characteristics) that controlled all of the elements the primitive brain did not understand. That's one hell of an abstraction. It involved a concept of time that the primitive man could influence--especially the future. And it involved the concept of trading and rituals to effect the trade. That's a tall order for chimpanzees living in trees and living only in the present according to prewired patterns.  

There's a bunch of primitive art surrounding this practice, too, starting with statues and engravings on stone.

Michael

[anthony]

7 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Tony,

So why did primitive people do both? Are you really claiming they got spiritual fuel from the hands (which occur in regions way distant from each other), but time wasting doodling (or whatever) from the second?

How sophisticated are your primitives?

I have another monkey-wrench to throw at you. Why do you think primitive peoples practiced animal sacrifices? I never knew the answer to this until I listened to a lecture by Jordan Peterson. He claims (and I agree with him) it was an indication of an enormous evolutionary leap. To us nowadays it's irrational and disgusting, but in context, it was one of mankind's first mental glories.

An ancient animal sacrifice involved projection of a god (or gods) with some human characteristics (and often some animal characteristics) that controlled all of the elements the primitive brain did not understand. That's one hell of an abstraction. It involved a concept of time that the primitive man could influence--especially the future. And it involved the concept of trading and rituals to effect the trade. That's a tall order for chimpanzees living in trees and living only in the present according to prewired patterns.  

There's a bunch of primitive art surrounding this practice, too, starting with statues and engravings on stone.

Michael

Michael - time wasting doodling, ha, I don't think so! To review this discussion, it hardly moved past the basic stage - "what is art?" (and I'm glad you and Randy bring fresh material and ideas). "How" art, "why" art, "what value" is art, have been rather neglected.

The categories have to be clearly sorted. Not to question your undoubted intelligence, but: Art isn't anthropology (--and saying that, one large and worthwhile field of study has been based upon ancient art - analyzing the beliefs, customs etc. of the people of those times). Art isn't neuroscience - but important aspects connect to the brain function. Art isn't psychology - but again, there has been much useful study of the interconnections, partly revealing the subconsciousness. And so on, for art education, art history, art techniques - all studies of art, aesthetics, which one can, if interested,  perform in parallel with enjoying-contemplating art.

The nature and purpose of art overlap and have to be established. Basically, contra "a collective consciousness", art is created by an individual's mind for contemplation by another individual's mind. Whatever intellectual claims some artists might make, that's what it resolves to, from far back until now. I think to hold this in mind and approach art this way, collapses the 'collectivist' framework surrounding and imbuing art today. To understand that, clears the way for one to appreciate art as it is, "profoundly personal". Selfishly, for one's own mind.

The Objectivist theory places the X millions of differentia that comprise art within categories and so conceptual hierarchies, as you've said. You see one sample of art, and amost always if not every time, you can connect where it fits into the larger frame, and that, into larger ones - etc.. More important still, is how one perceives/integrates an artwork - this process is inductive and conceptual (in the making and perusing), so the O'ist theory takes art right out of the traditional "mystical-skeptical loop" (I roughly call it).

"Beauty" - in nature (i.e.,"God-given") - then continued seamlessly without much distinction by them, into man-made beauty - introduced the mystical side by philosopher-aestheticians, which, reinforced by beauty's emotional associations, continues to bedevil art; the naturalists/empiricists arose, although some of whom began to make inroads against the mind and a volitional consciousness: therefore, ultimately, devolving into skepticism, removing man's mind from the creation of art (and anything else of the mind). Consequently, art is considered by most as - either - sourced from 'on high' through a human "medium", or - a 'logical' and 'measurable' arrangement of natural materials into a satisfying construct. Or commonly, both loop together, since even the empirical approach hasn't let go of the original, inherent "mysticism". Whichever way, both "sides" diminish the originating, creative mind of an individual only from which art comes.

A long way round, to my opinion that there's been a growing 'category-seepage' between the sciences and art, compromising the arts and artists. Primitive art and primitive knowledge moved ahead, roughly together. But a re-creation of reality, e.g., "Hands", was one function of a consciousness - and the admirable, conceptual development of early men's hieroglyphics into written languages today, completely another, and should be kept distinct.  

However: I believe it's accurate to the Objectivist method to say that far down the conceptual ladder of a mind, the science disciplines and the arts meld into one ~Knowledge~, the all-embracing concept.

Only, not so fast, not immediately at the lesser levels.

 

[Brant Gaede]

5 hours ago, anthony said:

Michael - time wasting doodling, ha, I don't think so! To review this discussion, it hardly moved past the basic stage - "what is art?" (and I'm glad you and Randy bring fresh material and ideas). "How" art, "why" art, "what value" is art, have been rather neglected.

The categories have to be clearly sorted. Not to question your undoubted intelligence, but: Art isn't anthropology (--and saying that, one large and worthwhile field of study has been based upon ancient art - analyzing the beliefs, customs etc. of the people of those times). Art isn't neuroscience - but important aspects connect to the brain function. Art isn't psychology - but again, there has been much useful study of the interconnections, partly revealing the subconsciousness. And so on, for art education, art history, art techniques - all studies of art, aesthetics, which one can, if interested,  perform in parallel with enjoying-contemplating art.

The nature and purpose of art overlap and have to be established. Basically, contra "a collective consciousness", art is created by an individual's mind for contemplation by another individual's mind. Whatever intellectual claims some artists might make, that's what it resolves to, from far back until now. I think to hold this in mind and approach art this way, collapses the 'collectivist' framework surrounding and imbuing art today. To understand that, clears the way for one to appreciate art as it is, "profoundly personal". Selfishly, for one's own mind.

The Objectivist theory places the X millions of differentia that comprise art within categories and so conceptual hierarchies, as you've said. You see one sample of art, and amost always if not every time, you can connect where it fits into the larger frame, and that, into larger ones - etc.. More important still, is how one perceives/integrates an artwork - this process is inductive and conceptual (in the making and perusing), so the O'ist theory takes art right out of the traditional "mystical-skeptical loop" (I roughly call it).

"Beauty" - in nature (i.e.,"God-given") - then continued seamlessly without much distinction by them, into man-made beauty - introduced the mystical side by philosopher-aestheticians, which, reinforced by beauty's emotional associations, continues to bedevil art; the naturalists/empiricists arose, although some of whom began to make inroads against the mind and a volitional consciousness: therefore, ultimately, devolving into skepticism, removing man's mind from the creation of art (and anything else of the mind). Consequently, art is considered by most as - either - sourced from 'on high' through a human "medium", or - a 'logical' and 'measurable' arrangement of natural materials into a satisfying construct. Or commonly, both loop together, since even the empirical approach hasn't let go of the original, inherent "mysticism". Whichever way, both "sides" diminish the originating, creative mind of an individual only from which art comes.

A long way round, to my opinion that there's been a growing 'category-seepage' between the sciences and art, compromising the arts and artists. Primitive art and primitive knowledge moved ahead, roughly together. But a re-creation of reality, e.g., "Hands", was one function of a consciousness - and the admirable, conceptual development of early men's hieroglyphics into written languages today, completely another, and should be kept distinct.  

However: I believe it's accurate to the Objectivist method to say that far down the conceptual ladder of a mind, the science disciplines and the arts meld into one ~Knowledge~, the all-embracing concept.

Only, not so fast, not immediately at the lesser levels.

The more you abstract the less that is left over. "Art" is not a horse to be saddled and bridled. Esthetics is not a "should be" and is therefore not philosophy for philosophy is nothing but should be this and should be that. Esthetics is what is qua art. It's descriptive. The need to be in control is anti-creation. In art the should be is one should do this to get that and is the responsibility of the creator. The job of the creator is not to satisfy the esthetician. In science that would be--taken to the extreme--Lysenkoism.

--Brant

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

5 hours ago, anthony said:

The nature and purpose of art overlap and have to be established.

Tony,

How do you propose to establish that when you want to eliminate human nature--ergo, the studies of anthropology, neuroscience, psychology, etc.? btw - Nobody ever claimed art was those studies. Why did you presume that?

So... do you wish to establish the nature and purpose of art without reference to human beings as they exist? And do you want to establish them with human beings as Rand said humans could and should be? She certainly did.

"Could and should be" means one thing on the timeline. It means it ain't now. It's in the future. In fact, when you look at Rand's view of art, she used it as a model for volitional growth according to such a projection. And it became a simple formula. Bad people like bad art because that gives a model for all people to become bad. Good people like good art because that gives a model for all people to become good.  And seeing that model "concretized" became their spiritual fuel. 

The thing is, art can be used that way, but that's not the whole enchilada. And trying to make it the whole enchilada will turn anyone's attempt into an intellectual pretzel. (Good God, where are all these food metaphors coming from? I must be hungry...  )

I note in your post that almost everything you said about art could apply to language. That's something to consider in working through these ideas.

5 hours ago, anthony said:

Primitive art and primitive knowledge moved ahead, roughly together. But a re-creation of reality, e.g., "Hands", was one function of a consciousness - and the admirable, conceptual development of early men's hieroglyphics into written languages today, completely another, and should be kept distinct.  

That's a pretty broad statement with several presuppositions. The first is that the "Hands" drawing was made by one conscioousness and not several. Another is that because hieroglyphics (why did you bring that up as that came much later?) became used for language symbols (instead of abstract lines and squiggles), that they are somehow banished from the realm of art. In this conception, are you stating that a symbol has one use and one use only? That it cannot do double duty?

Whenever I read the words "must" and "should" these days, I recall Kant's starry skies above and the moral law within and wonder what does it all mean?

 

Michael

[regi]

13 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

I don't think it is possible to correctly evaluate something you have not correctly identified

I totally agree. I have listened to and read what everyone who uses the word art identifies by that word. After discovering what those who use the word art mean by it, I then evaluated that which they have identified. It is similar to discovering what those who use words like "duty," or, "subconscious," attempt to identify by those words, then evaluating the usefulness of such words.

Now I don't mind your presumptuous psychologizing but trying to guess what other's psychological processes are is usually fruitless. As in this case, it made you miss the whole point of my post, which I'll make a different way.

Much, if not all, of what has ever been called, "art," if it has any value is only market value. With regard to what is truly important to human life and history, except for its commercial aspects and negative affects, its presumed importance is a complete deception, with the possible exception of some literature and music.

It is because aesthetics is such an important philosophical concept that I cannot allow it to be corrupted and preempted by reducing it to art. I do not mean I cannot allow anyone else to do it. It is strictly my view based on the principles I make all my choices by.

It is, therefore, disappointing to me to discover a discussion about aesthetics that never addresses the fundamental questions of, "what is beauty," "what is the aesthetic sense?" (why are we able to recognize and enjoy beauty),  and, "why do we have it?"

What in the world is there in the nature of those things we see (or hear, or experience in any way) that is so, "beautiful," it moves us to tears or takes our breath away, and why are we able to have that incredible experience?

Randy

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

1 hour ago, regi said:

What in the world is there in the nature of those things we see (or hear, or experience in any way) that is so, "beautiful," it moves us to tears or takes our breath away, and why are we able to have that incredible experience?

Regi,

This is an evaluation, not an identification, in question form.

In Japan, the Kabuki theater moves audiences deeply and has for centuries, but if you stage it at half-time in a football game, even in Japan, it will not have much effect. And if you perform it for a normal American audience, they will not grok it.

Try Brahms on an Amazonian tribe and see how far it goes. (There's a famous story about a performance of Brahms--I think it was in Kanses--for an Indian who had lived on the reservation all his life. At the end, they took him backstage to meet the conductor. The conductor asked if he liked it. The Indian replied he didn't understand the music, but he loved the dance.  )

So there is no use trying to make the effect the cause. I find it better to look for causes behind the effects, and that starts with human nature, the nature of communication, evolution and things like that.

I'm sorry you are so disappointed in this discussion. As I am interested in ideas and not the emotional difficulties of posters, I'll take my leave for now.

Michael

[anthony]

3 hours ago, regi said:

It is because aesthetics is such an important philosophical concept that I cannot allow it to be corrupted and preempted by reducing it to art. I do not mean I cannot allow anyone else to do it. It is strictly my view based on the principles I make all my choices by.

It is, therefore, disappointing to me to discover a discussion about aesthetics that never addresses the fundamental questions of, "what is beauty," "what is the aesthetic sense?" (why are we able to recognize and enjoy beauty),  and, "why do we have it?"

What in the world is there in the nature of those things we see (or hear, or experience in any way) that is so, "beautiful," it moves us to tears or takes our breath away, and why are we able to have that incredible experience?

Randy

 

Randy, since "aesthetics" is a concept defined as  "Belonging to the appreciation of the beautiful" [Concise Oxford], and from my own considerations of it, I have to disagree that it is exclusively a "philosophical" concept. (Nobody here I think is corrupting beauty, not Rand for starters, and not I). The *study* of aesthetics (the appreciation of the beautiful, to repeat) - I've kept arguing, should be made and is being made across several disciplines. But beauty is not the transcendent element of art. In the same way that appearances don't reveal, nor are more important than character. Or beautiful forms and colors don't necessarily make the artwork's content and subject matter, palatable. Or, a beautiful beast won't try to kill you. Or style matters more than substance. Or that, emotions precede thought and values. 

Man's consciousness transcends in significance, all but existence, to Objectivism, and as she would, Rand saw much more criticality to "art", the product of consciousness, *for* consciousness, than to its aesthetic elements (which she covers quite well, with artistic style and "stylization", too).

In its multiple ways and forms, art, at times, drives and fulfills what I call the three C's - conceptualism, character, conviction. All are properties of the volitional consciousness, the supreme one being conceptual thinking. (For me, I don't believe I could have developed and kept anything of a conceptual mind throughout a stultifying English-type education, if I hadn't been a voracious novel reader of every type from early and been fascinated by pictures as well. Much later I found the ~explanation~ of the conceptual method in Rand's epistemology, and took strongly to her art theory. I think sometimes that arts saved my mind).

"What ... moves us to tears ...?"

You have written profoundly about this in an essay on man's emotions. Why then, these intense emotions we feel for art, beauty - and everything? The answer is the same, how can it differ? Value. One's perceived, thought about, made, discovered and yearned for - values - and with art, values of the human spirit which keep one forging ahead, with an image to aim for.

 

[anthony]

20 hours ago, Brant Gaede said:

The more you abstract the less that is left over. "Art" is not a horse to be saddled and bridled. Esthetics is not a "should be" and is therefore not philosophy for philosophy is nothing but should be this and should be that. Esthetics is what is qua art. It's descriptive. The need to be in control is anti-creation. In art the should be is one should do this to get that and is the responsibility of the creator. The job of the creator is not to satisfy the esthetician. In science that would be--taken to the extreme--Lysenkoism.

--Brant

Your point is good as it highlights a fundament to art which usually remains unquestioned and unnoticed, the high value of the artist thinking and doing what he chooses to do, in freedom. And who will control him, who could want to prescribe to his mind what he does and why he does it? Simply compare the artist making art to any individual having and voicing an "opinion". It can be spoken or written, and you, the listener/reader, are free to take it or leave it, to learn by considering things more, or simply add to your experience by inductive intake. Equivalently, the visual artist asserts his "opinion" in his way: "Here! Look! this is what *I* consider matters deeply."  

We might intensely disagree with others' opinions sometimes, but in our cause of knowing reality prefer their candor in speaking them - and value their liberty to express them. Going with this equally, is one's moral right and individual right to argue with, ignore or reject another's "opinion" or view of life ("metaphysical value-judgment").

I've asked, why are everybody else's views considered up for criticism and even attack, but an artist's are generally considered by another set of standards, not to be questioned? (Probably because art is implicitly seen to be less man -made, than "metaphysically-given"?)

(btw, In truth and actuality, and artists will attest to this, "the job of the creator" is always "to satisfy" himself, first, before any others see or know of his creation).

I think your concerns bring up cause and effect correlating to artwork and viewer. Look at it this way - the artist creates a new existent, a cause, which is now *a reality* which exists, like all reality, independent of the viewer -- This exists: Whatever I think or wish won't take it away, now what do I identify it to be; what am I going to 'make of' it and do with it? I.e., perceived and evaluated in the viewer's mind, the "effect". According to his life-views/ideas/premises/values, he'll mostly respond pertinently to the artistic first cause, maybe launching a mental chain of further cause-effects.

In one important sense, the artwork changes hands and now becomes the viewer's property, if that artist's view "matters deeply" to him too, it's his to integrate and use for his chosen benefits (grounding his concepts, inspirational, pleasurable).

[regi]

21 hours ago, anthony said:

Randy, since "aesthetics" is a concept defined as  "Belonging to the appreciation of the beautiful" ... I have to disagree that it is exclusively a "philosophical" concept

Anthony, did I say it was an exclusively "philosophical" concept? If I did, I was mistaken and apologize. It is certainly not what I think.

I do think aesthetics has a philosophical foundation that explains its nature, just as language is not exclusively a philosophical concept, but cannot really be understood without an epistemological foundation.

21 hours ago, anthony said:

You have written profoundly about this in an essay on man's emotions. Why then, these intense emotions we feel for art, beauty - and everything? The answer is the same, how can it differ? Value.

I was only referring to that particular experience that one associates with their own understaning of beauty and the question was why human beings should have that particular experience as part of their nature. It is a uniquely human experience, like humor, pathos, and embarrasment (we laugh, cry, and blush), and the same question applies to them as well. I assumed most would be bright enough to understand the question was rhetorical. I know why we have those particular uniquely human experiences, as you do, because we have minds and are able (must) evaluate all our experiences. It's exactly as you say, "value," and one's values determine what they will experience as funny, sad, embarrasing, or beautiful.

I personally find very little of value, especially aesthetic value, in either of what are called graphic or performing arts, but do find some in literature and classical music. I find much more negative value in all of what is called art, expecially when mixed with "entertainment."

Of course that's my judgment based on my values, but if you want to understand why I make that judgement, it is similar to Rand's which she expressed in, "Our Cultural Value-Deprivation."

Merry Christmas!

Randy 

[Jonathan]

On 12/23/2017 at 5:14 PM, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

To make a cruel analogy, they seem like someone who judges the entire psychiatric profession from the perspective of phrenology...To extend the phrenology metaphor, all the while referring to personality organs located by regions on the skull. And they do all this, from what I have skimmed, in a tone of absolute certainty.

Totally. And it's not just T&K who do that.

The pseudoscientific trick in the Objectivist Esthetic's "phrenology" is to use "sense of life" as a weapon. If a viewer sees something different than a Randian aesthetics authority, such as Torres, and therefore interprets a work of art differently than he does, well then the authority cites the concept of "sense of life" and suggests that the reason that someone has a different interpretation of the art than he does is because they have a defective "sense of life."

It's the act of removing falsifiability and putting rational critics on the defensive. And the best response is to throw it right back at them.

J

[Jonathan]

On 12/22/2017 at 12:55 PM, anthony said:

Treat each medium according to what it is, we are talking here about visual art and you repeatedly cross genres. Is a dancer and her body "abstract"? I won't get drawn into music or architecture, but I'd say dance is the physical manifestation - a body's motions (to music) - of a choreographer's mental abstractions. Physical, so visible, perceptible - see?

Yes, I see!!! Applying the exact same methodology to abstract paintings, paint on canvas is a physical manifestation of physical attributes of the painter's mental abstractions! Physical, so visible, perceptible! Therefore art!

J

[Jonathan]

On 12/22/2017 at 5:18 PM, anthony said:

Nobody ever answers this: Why must everything *be* art? Why does the definition of art have to be inclusive of *everything* made by a human? Why the insistence?

 

On 12/22/2017 at 6:08 PM, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Tony,

Who is insisting?

 

MSK, Tony often has these weird conversations with and about the people who live in his head. They take positions that no one in reality takes, but Tony believes that they are real people. He argues with them, and he asks us questions about why his imaginary people believe what he asserts they believe. Sometimes he even assigns me some of their beliefs, even though I've specifically stated the opposite.

It's really kooky shit.

J

[anthony]

Duchamp's Fountain and Other Readymades

Most perversely, Dutton insists that Duchamp's infamous "readymade" Fountain[more] is a work of art in spite of the fact that (as suggested by another scholar) it "'reflects and embodies the intention to produce something that does not, and could not, satisfy the criteria we employ in classifying things as art.'" While regarding this as a "perfect description of Fountain," Dutton nonetheless devotes some nine pages of his book to arguing why Fountain is, after all, a work of art. In a response to a review of his book, Dutton summarized that argument, immodestly declaring:

Duchamp's readymades are not a hard case for me at all: they are easy. In chapter seven [eight], I analyze Fountain against every item of the list and come to the conclusion that this reluctant object, despite its reluctance, can't help being a work of art. . . . Skeptics about the artistic status of readymades may disagree, but they will have to do so in terms of the Cluster Definition (which is in my view a true definition . . .). ⁽⁶⁾

Instead of taking the plumbing fixture at Duchamp's word (as Dutton knows, Duchamp himself declared that he never intended his readymades to be art), Dutton argues thatFountain is art because it meets seven of his cluster criteria, among them that it is "intellectually challenging." If by that he means that slogging through the voluminous literature on them is no easy task, he is right. In order to have "even a minimal appreciation" of Fountain, he explains, one must have a knowledge of art history, "or at least of the contemporary [avant-garde] art context."

Moreover, Duchamp's readymades are "objects of pleasure" in Dutton's view. His own first criterion of "direct pleasure" does not support that conclusion, however, for the readymades lack the crucial quality of "beauty," the very source of "aesthetic pleasure . . . derived from the experience of art." Ordinary people are more likely either to experience the readymades as clever little artworld jokes (if they know something of their history) or to dismiss them as mere oddities.

[A passage from L.Torres' "What makes Art *Art*? Does Dennis Dutton Know?"] From Michael's link earlier.

Amusing and telling, that Duchamp himself denied his "readymade" (a urinal) um, 'artwork' as art, but the art establishment over-rode him, insisting otherwise, in effect.;)

"...that this reluctant object, despite its reluctance, can't help being a work of art". D.Dutton

[anthony]

1 hour ago, Jonathan said:

 

MSK, Tony often has these weird conversations with and about the people who live in his head. They take positions that no one in reality takes, but Tony believes that they are real people. He argues with them, and he asks us questions about why his imaginary people believe what he asserts they believe. Sometimes he even assigns me some of their beliefs, even though I've specifically stated the opposite.

It's really kooky shit.

J

No one "in reality", huh? Besides the minor fact that I addressed my question to all, generally, in that post (before I addressed MSK personally) - I know as you know that everything, from decorated clay pots and table lamps, from 'performance art' to 'abstract art' - and the rest - is or has been claimed as "art" by many experts and public.

Again: why this *need* to turn nearly everything  - made, painted, crafted, designed, performed, etc.etc. - by a person, into "art"? 

Does it give people pseudo-importance or something? Isn't their skill and work important enough?

[anthony]

2 hours ago, Jonathan said:

Yes, I see!!! Applying the exact same methodology to abstract paintings, paint on canvas is a physical manifestation of physical attributes of the painter's mental abstractions! Physical, so visible, perceptible! Therefore art!

J

Yeah. Like the boulder the landscapers placed in your garden is a scuplture by Rodin. Both physical and of the same substance.

[Jonathan]

15 hours ago, anthony said:

No one "in reality", huh? Besides the minor fact that I addressed my question to all, generally, in that post (before I addressed MSK personally) - I know as you know that everything, from decorated clay pots and table lamps, from 'performance art' to 'abstract art' - and the rest - is or has been claimed as "art" by many experts and public.

Again: why this *need* to turn nearly everything  - made, painted, crafted, designed, performed, etc.etc. - by a person, into "art"? 

Does it give people pseudo-importance or something? Isn't their skill and work important enough?

Tony, why do you Rand worshippers have such a strong *need* to deny art status to everything? Nothing has ever been objectively shown to qualify as art by Objectivist criteria. Nothing! Ever! And you people absolutely love shouting "that's not art!!!" about everything. In fact, it's your only real involvement in the subject of art -- screaming that things are not art according to the nutty rules that you want everyone to obey (but from which you also arbitrarily exempt yourselves when challenged to prove that anything has ever qualified as art by your own criteria). You people really seem to hate art, logic and reality. Destroyers. Rand cult idiots.

J

[Jonathan]

15 hours ago, anthony said:

Yeah. Like the boulder the landscapers placed in your garden is a scuplture by Rodin. Both physical and of the same substance.

You're not even following what you write, let alone what I write.

J

[Jonathan]

16 hours ago, anthony said:

Duchamp's Fountain and Other Readymades

Most perversely, Dutton insists that Duchamp's infamous "readymade" Fountain[more] is a work of art in spite of the fact that (as suggested by another scholar) it "'reflects and embodies the intention to produce something that does not, and could not, satisfy the criteria we employ in classifying things as art.'" While regarding this as a "perfect description of Fountain," Dutton nonetheless devotes some nine pages of his book to arguing why Fountain is, after all, a work of art. In a response to a review of his book, Dutton summarized that argument, immodestly declaring:

Duchamp's readymades are not a hard case for me at all: they are easy. In chapter seven [eight], I analyze Fountain against every item of the list and come to the conclusion that this reluctant object, despite its reluctance, can't help being a work of art. . . . Skeptics about the artistic status of readymades may disagree, but they will have to do so in terms of the Cluster Definition (which is in my view a true definition . . .). ⁽⁶⁾

Instead of taking the plumbing fixture at Duchamp's word (as Dutton knows, Duchamp himself declared that he never intended his readymades to be art), Dutton argues thatFountain is art because it meets seven of his cluster criteria, among them that it is "intellectually challenging." If by that he means that slogging through the voluminous literature on them is no easy task, he is right. In order to have "even a minimal appreciation" of Fountain, he explains, one must have a knowledge of art history, "or at least of the contemporary [avant-garde] art context."

Moreover, Duchamp's readymades are "objects of pleasure" in Dutton's view. His own first criterion of "direct pleasure" does not support that conclusion, however, for the readymades lack the crucial quality of "beauty," the very source of "aesthetic pleasure . . . derived from the experience of art." Ordinary people are more likely either to experience the readymades as clever little artworld jokes (if they know something of their history) or to dismiss them as mere oddities.

[A passage from L.Torres' "What makes Art *Art*? Does Dennis Dutton Know?"] From Michael's link earlier.

Amusing and telling, that Duchamp himself denied his "readymade" (a urinal) um, 'artwork' as art, but the art establishment over-rode him, insisting otherwise, in effect.;)

"...that this reluctant object, despite its reluctance, can't help being a work of art". D.Dutton

Tony, you had claimed that people had been asserting that everything is art.

In the above quote that you posted, no one is arguing that everything is art. In fact, it is abundantly clear that Dutton is very careful about what he includes and excludes in the realm of art.

See, what you're doing is being a typically frantic Rand worshipper. Nutjob city. You discover that someone classifies something as art which you don't. That kooks you out. You then jump to the irrational conclusion that the person therefore classifies everything as art. The next step is for you to make the illogical assertion that "if everything is art, then nothing is art." Then, "They're trying to destroy man's consciousness!" "They hate existence," etc.

J

[anthony]

2 hours ago, Jonathan said:

Tony, why do you Rand worshippers have such a strong *need* to deny art status to everything? Nothing has ever been objectively shown to qualify as art by Objectivist criteria. Nothing! Ever! And you people absolutely love shouting "that's not art!!!" about everything. In fact, it's your only real involvement in the subject of art -- screaming that things are not art according to the nutty rules that you want everyone to obey (but from which you also arbitrarily exempt yourselves when challenged to prove that anything has ever qualified as art by your own criteria). You people really seem to hate art, logic and reality. Destroyers. Rand cult idiots.

J

"Why"? That counts about the fourth time we've gone through this cycle. Because definitions matter to a mind. Because reality matters. Either "visual" art is intelligible to the eye and mind, or it is whatever anyone wishes it to be. There is the undermining of art and the compromise of mind-reality.

Further, to people's minds: if anyone can subjectively make up his own floating definition of art, all people can redefine anything whichever way they please, up to what is existence, what is life (to the eventual detriment of lives). How people think about art is like the canary in the coal mine which advance-warns one about degradations of one's society, and the lightning rod which draws the best and worst. But art mustn't be taken this seriously, must it..?

Quoted (twice) above, a sample of subjectivity, Dutton validating his theory of "cluster criteria" to define art:

"...that this reluctant object, despite its reluctance, can't help being a work of art".

I notice this wasn't "kooky" enough for you to remark on... i.e. A urinal ~shows itself~ to be an artwork because (one can only assume) an artist advanced it. If it had been a plumber who'd produced "the Fountain", do you believe he'd also be taken seriously? But more still - the artist who 'created it' is ignored when he reveals it was an ironic joke! Then you know there's something sick - and authoritarian - in the art world. 

"This IS ART!!!"

I haven't read Torres before, though I read a Mahdi article somewhere. He strikes it exactly right: "What we have now is not "modern aesthetics" but *postmodern* aesthetics, with its extreme relativism and denial of objectivity". 

"Relativism" is visible worldwide in every human sphere. Not a surprise nor coincidence, simple causation. Artists and art follow and lead the trends.

 

[anthony]

4 hours ago, Jonathan said:

Tony, you had claimed that people had been asserting that everything is art.

 

J. This is an example of bad faith argumentation. (I realize your intention is to defend abstract art. Are you now going to defend everything, clay pots and all?)

I have expressly specified uncountable times "Everything decorated, crafted, designed, painted, ETC. ETC." is stated to be art. That is a broad abstraction of the many 100's of times I have seen, heard, read of many somebodies upholding an object to be art, when it is (e.g.) a craft. Would anyone think I mean security gates and computers are also "considered to be artworks"? Do I have to present 100's of examples or images, to make the point? Or do you assume my best meaning?

Obviously, there is (what I've called) "a range" of objects, viewed as art/non-art; it is within this range the debate takes place. Everyone accepts there have to be boundaries. Where are the boundaries - and why? How does one know for future pictures seen? Dutton makes the attempt with a mixed bag of his cluster criteria, but not objectively. E.g. "One must have a knowledge of art history...etc." - he states, "to have even a minimal appreciation" of The Fountain. Who says? Why must one?

Not even the most accepted basic requirement, beauty, (forget about aesthetic mastery by an artist) is depicted there.

The urinal 'artwork' demonstrates his system's huge fail.