Objectivist Esthetics, R.I.P.

[anthony]

19 hours ago, Jonathan said:

 

dupe

[anthony]

19 hours ago, Jonathan said:

 

 

Moron, heh, do you not realize that Rand did not recognize those definitions as being the "objective aesthetic principles" by which to aesthetically judge each of the art forms? Did you not catch the part where she stated that such principles were outside the scope of the discussion? Heh. If she had identified the principles in TRM, she wouldn't have stated that she didn't identify them and that they were outside the scope of the discussion.

Anyway, what about music, dance and architecture? What do they re-create?

 

J

1

"Those definitions" are a conceptual explanation of cognition applied to art. As such, they are central to Rand's theory, making a hash of "Rand did not recognize those..." and "she stated such principles were outside the scope of the discussion".

In, I think, sometimes an innocent misinterpretation you get Rand so crossed, I don't understand what you are on about, or know where to start an explanation. I suspect the "settled", conventional wisdom of "aesthetic principles" is the place you start going wrong. Time to get radical, and revisit that.

An "entity" is the building block of concepts. Yes? And here, not just any entity in metaphysical existence, but moreso, one that is man-made (in a painting), and which is given such special, accentuated significance by its artist that - for instance - a (re-created) 'tree' becomes fixed in a viewer's concepts as representing all trees, for all time. Depicted, is not the tree, it is not a faithful copy of the tree, and especially, it is not some mystical insight into trees and Nature - it is the artist's process of consciousness ~applied~ to a tree.

Rand makes a still life of apples as an example. Seeming "more real than it is in reality".

"Yet if one examines them closely, one sees that no real-life apple ever looked like that. What is it then that the artist has done? He has created a visual abstraction. He has performed the process of concept-formation--of isolating and integrating--but in exclusively visual terms...He has brought the conceptual method of functioning to the operations of a single sense organ, the organ of sight". [p47, TRM]

"Art is a concretization of metaphysics. Art brings man's concepts to the perceptual level of his consciousness and allows him to grasp them directly, as if they were percepts".

"THIS is the psycho-epistemological function of art and the reason of its importance in man's life (and the crux of the Objectivist esthetics)" [p.20]

How many times have you read this passage? 

[anthony]

As a secondary purpose, assessing art works is a fine place to also assess (try out) one's emotional responses. If an emotion felt for an image is fitting to one's conscious ideas and values, all is well. With non-integrated (I like "unaligned") emotions, they are in contradiction. One can claim (to oneself, too) that one is rational and with objective values, but experience a subjective emotion (which warns you that your premises and values are untrue or superficial).

 

[regi]

1 hour ago, Jonathan said:

Your point seemed to be to try to make your emotions objective by having a later objective recognition of the fact that the emotion existed.

It was not my point at all, but I can't help how something seems to someone else. If I've not made myself clear, I'll take the blame for that.

Randy

[regi]

1 hour ago, anthony said:

"Art is a concretization of metaphysics. Art brings man's concepts to the perceptual level of his consciousness and allows him to grasp them directly, as if they were percepts".

This is a wonderful example of the many times Rand was, "this close," to the truth, then missed it, like her epistemology. It is not art that brings man's concepts to the perceptual level, it it our emotions and the purpose of them.

There is another odd mistake in that paragraph. Art cannot concretize the metaphysical, the metaphysical is the concrete. Art might be the concretization of an ideal or principle, as an example, illustration, or model, but one cannot concretize what is already concrete.

1 hour ago, anthony said:

"THIS is the psycho-epistemological function of art and the reason of its importance in man's life (and the crux of the Objectivist esthetics)" [p.20]

The importance of art it is highly overblown. The aesthetic sense is very similar to the sense of humor. The capacity to enjoy emotionally the recognition of beauty is a wonderful thing, just as the ability to appreciate irony and exaggeration as humorous is a wonder thing, but many people just do not have much of a sense of humor; others, for various reasons, have vary little capacity for enjoying beauty. Neither is necessary to a fully successful and happy life. Nice if you have them, it doesn't matter if you don't.

Since most art is not "beautiful" to begin with and most "art" represents ideas and viewpoints that are not only wrong, but frequently vile and evil, it is very difficult to honestly make a case for the value of art. If there is any true value in any art, it is swamped by all the harmful influence of most of what goes by the name art.

Randy

[Jonathan]

1 hour ago, regi said:

It was not my point at all, but I can't help how something seems to someone else. If I've not made myself clear, I'll take the blame for that.

Randy

Okay, cool. Sorry if we got off on the wrong foot.

J

[Jonathan]

2 hours ago, anthony said:

"Those definitions" are a conceptual explanation of cognition applied to art. As such, they are central to Rand's theory, making a hash of "Rand did not recognize those..." and "she stated such principles were outside the scope of the discussion".

In, I think, sometimes an innocent misinterpretation you get Rand so crossed, I don't understand what you are on about, or know where to start an explanation. I suspect the "settled", conventional wisdom of "aesthetic principles" is the place you start going wrong. Time to get radical, and revisit that.

An "entity" is the building block of concepts. Yes? And here, not just any entity in metaphysical existence, but moreso, one that is man-made (in a painting), and which is given such special, accentuated significance by its artist that - for instance - a (re-created) 'tree' becomes fixed in a viewer's concepts as representing all trees, for all time. Depicted, is not the tree, it is not a faithful copy of the tree, and especially, it is not some mystical insight into trees and Nature - it is the artist's process of consciousness ~applied~ to a tree.

Rand makes a still life of apples as an example. Seeming "more real than it is in reality".

"Yet if one examines them closely, one sees that no real-life apple ever looked like that. What is it then that the artist has done? He has created a visual abstraction. He has performed the process of concept-formation--of isolating and integrating--but in exclusively visual terms...He has brought the conceptual method of functioning to the operations of a single sense organ, the organ of sight". [p47, TRM]

"Art is a concretization of metaphysics. Art brings man's concepts to the perceptual level of his consciousness and allows him to grasp them directly, as if they were percepts".

"THIS is the psycho-epistemological function of art and the reason of its importance in man's life (and the crux of the Objectivist esthetics)" [p.20]

How many times have you read this passage? 

You're talking in circles and dodging and evading.

The "objective esthetic principles" that Rand neglected to identify remain unidentified.

J

[Jonathan]

35 minutes ago, regi said:

Art cannot concretize the metaphysical, the metaphysical is the concrete. Art might be the concretization of an ideal or principle, as an example, illustration, or model, but one cannot concretize what is already concrete.

Yeah, she used imprecise language. She was dabbling in the field, had surrounded herself with adoring yes-men, and was not open to criticism -- she was reported by impartial observers to have been enraged by Hospers' gentle criticism of her ideas. 

I think that a better choice of wording would have been to say that art simulates reality, or stimulates a concept of a simulation.

 

41 minutes ago, regi said:

The importance of art it is highly overblown. The aesthetic sense is very similar to the sense of humor. The capacity to enjoy emotionally the recognition of beauty is a wonderful thing, just as the ability to appreciate irony and exaggeration as humorous is a wonder thing, but many people just do not have much of a sense of humor; others, for various reasons, have vary little capacity for enjoying beauty. Neither is necessary to a fully successful and happy life. Nice if you have them, it doesn't matter if you don't.

Since most art is not "beautiful" to begin with and most "art" represents ideas and viewpoints that are not only wrong, but frequently vile and evil, it is very difficult to honestly make a case for the value of art. If there is any true value in any art, it is swamped by all the harmful influence of most of what goes by the name art.

 

Well, it's not just about "beauty." That's only one element of aesthetics.

As for your opinion that art is overblown, I have the opposite view. Art is very powerful. Rand would have been nothing without her art. We would not be discussing her ideas if she had only been a philosopher. It was her art that moved and changed people. As a novelist, she rocked it. She was less than dazzling as a philosopher. The tail wagged the dog.

And her art is just a drop in the ocean of all of the various art works which deeply affect billions of people everyday, and strongly influence their lives. Stories, movies, plays, paintings, songs, etc. They all play a significant role in guiding who we are and what we value.

J

[william.scherk]

"As a secondary purpose, assessing art works is a fine place to also assess (try out) one's emotional responses. If an emotion felt for an image is fitting to one's conscious ideas and values, all is well. With non-integrated (I like "unaligned") emotions, they are in contradiction. One can claim (to oneself, too) that one is rational and with objective values, but experience a subjective emotion (which warns you that your premises and values are untrue or superficial)."

[Jonathan]

1 minute ago, william.scherk said:

"As a secondary purpose, assessing art works is a fine place to also assess (try out) one's emotional responses. If an emotion felt for an image is fitting to one's conscious ideas and values, all is well. With non-integrated (I like "unaligned") emotions, they are in contradiction. One can claim (to oneself, too) that one is rational and with objective values, but experience a subjective emotion (which warns you that your premises and values are untrue or superficial)."

Billy, there aren't any apples in that image. Ayn Rand only gave the example of apples in still lifes. She didn't say anything about paintings of lobsters, grapes or oysters qualifying as art. How are we supposed to judge a painting of a lobster? By how much it looks like an ideal apple? As an apple, it's very distorted and horrendous. So therefore the artist has a distorted and horrendous view of existence and "sense of life"?

J

[anthony]

2 hours ago, regi said:

This is a wonderful example of the many times Rand was, "this close," to the truth, then missed it, like her epistemology. It is not art that brings man's concepts to the perceptual level, it it our emotions and the purpose of them.

There is another odd mistake in that paragraph. Art cannot concretize the metaphysical, the metaphysical is the concrete. Art might be the concretization of an ideal or principle, as an example, illustration, or model, but one cannot concretize what is already concrete.

 

Randy

3

To paraphrase, 1.emotions (not art) bring man's concepts to the perceptual level. 2. That is the purpose of emotions.

?

Well, that's a fresh take upon emotions! And I disagree.

And as far as concretizing the metaphysical, metaphysical reality is that vast, couldn't she be read more simply, as an artwork "concretizing" one, single aspect of the metaphysical? I think it's that simple.

(Third, beauty is not the be-all and end-all of art).

[regi]

27 minutes ago, anthony said:

To paraphrase, 1.emotions (not art) bring man's concepts to the perceptual level. 2. That is the purpose of emotions.

?

Well, that's a fresh take upon emotions! And I disagree.

Well, that's to be expected, since psychologists, philosophers, and even Rand have so confused the nature of the emotions:

If you are truly interested in the nature of the emotions, please see the article, "Feelings." The following is from that article:

"The emotions provide a direct perceptual experience of the content of consciousness. While we are conscious of our thoughts intellectually, the emotions provide a direct "visceral" experience corresponding to conceptual consciousness. Making plans for something good is accompanied by feelings of enthusiasm and anticipation; thinking or contemplating doing, or having done, something we think is wrong will be accompanied by feelings of guilt or regret; thinking about someone we admire, desire, and value very highly is accompanied by feelings of love and affection; considering something evil and ugly is accompanied by feelings of anger or revulsion.

"In our actual experience, we do not usually distinguish between our thoughts and their accompanying feelings and experience them as units. The feelings and the thoughts are integrated into objects of consciousness which turn abstract thoughts into concretes which are directly perceived.

"Our emotions, as automatic reactions to our immediate consciousness, is the way our human consciousness enables us to directly enjoy or "physically" experience both direct perception and our conceptual identification and evaluation of the things we perceive simultaneously.

"The emotions are our nature's way of converting the abstract elements of conceptual consciousness, our concepts, values, and thoughts, into "physical" experiences. The emotions make our minds, as well as our bodies, sensuous.

"Since it is the enjoyment of our lives that is their purpose, the purpose of the emotions is to enable us to enjoy our lives, particularly that most human aspect of our lives as humans, our minds. When the emotions are not a source of joy, but of suffering, it is an indication of something wrong. The thing that is wrong can be physiological, but more frequently the thing that is wrong is an individual's view of life, one's values, one's thoughts, and one's choices, and the thing that is wrong with them is they are contrary to reality and dominated by unrealistic views and desires."

Randy

[regi]

34 minutes ago, anthony said:

(Third, beauty is not the be-all and end-all of art).

Agreed. There is damn little beauty in anything called art.

[anthony]

2 hours ago, Jonathan said:

You're talking in circles and dodging and evading.

The "objective esthetic principles" that Rand neglected to identify remain unidentified.

J

What you're looking for you won't get here.

But have you managed to perceive what principles WERE identified in her work?

Can it be: the principles of the *philosophy* of art?

It should be clear to you after now, that "objective esthetic principles" were outside the province of philosophy - to Rand.

Why? because she obviously thought of the "esthetic principles" to be *empirical*, by nature. For example, the theory of color, etc. - human physiology, etc.etc.

For comparison, from 'Consciousness and Identity' in ITOE:

"Since man is neither infallible nor omniscient, he has to ~discover~ a valid method of cognition. Two questions are involved in his every conclusion and decision: WHAT do I know?--and HOW do I know it? It is the task of epistemology to provide the answer to the "How"--which then enables the special sciences to provide the answer to the "What". In the history of philosophy, epistemological theories have consisted predominantly of attempts to escape one or other of these two questions--by means of skepticism or mysticism". [p105]

Can you see the distinction? 

The Empiricist-skeptical philosophy is insufficient for explaining Rand's theory; rather just accept that and move on. And nor ~certainly ~ will the lingering mystical view of art/beauty be catered to in her theory.

The "special sciences" are where empirical, "esthetic principles" can be discovered, as some have.

 

[regi]

12 minutes ago, anthony said:

The "special sciences" are where empirical, "esthetic principles" can be discovered, as some have.

What are the "special sciences?" I know what the physical sciences are.

Randy

[Jonathan]

57 minutes ago, anthony said:

What you're looking for you won't get here.

I won't get it anywhere.

It was a fantasy. Just one of Rand's subjective whims that she wanted to believe in.

 

Quote

But have you managed to perceive what principles WERE identified in her work?

Can it be: the principles of the *philosophy* of art?

It's not actually a philosophy of art so much as a philosophizing of Rand's subjective aesthetic tastes, preferences and limitations.

 

Quote

It should be clear to you after now, that "objective esthetic principles" were outside the province of philosophy - to Rand.

Why? because she obviously thought of the "esthetic principles" to be *empirical*, by nature. For example, the theory of color, etc. - human physiology, etc.etc.

No, she had no idea what she was talking about, and also no idea how to go about trying to fulfill her goal of objectivizing the subjective nature of aesthetic judgment. She wasn't up to the task, and so she did nothing but bluff and indulge in the distraction of pissing on other thinkers.

 

Quote

For comparison, from 'Consciousness and Identity' in ITOE:

"Since man is neither infallible nor omniscient, he has to ~discover~ a valid method of cognition. Two questions are involved in his every conclusion and decision: WHAT do I know?--and HOW do I know it? It is the task of epistemology to provide the answer to the "How"--which then enables the special sciences to provide the answer to the "What". In the history of philosophy, epistemological theories have consisted predominantly of attempts to escape one or other of these two questions--by means of skepticism or mysticism". [p105]

Can you see the distinction?

Yes, I can see the distinction! Music, dance and architecture do not comply with that notion of "a valid method of cognition." Rand and her followers can't answer WHAT and HOW they know what they think the know when experiencing those art forms. We're still waiting for the predicted objective "conceptual vocabulary" of music to arrive. Newsflash: It's not coming. Music doesn't work via an objective conceptual vocabulary. That's merely Rand's subjective wishy whim fantasy.

Also, philosophy doesn't get to make arbitrary assertions and then declare that the "special sciences" will someday fill in the blanks.

If  that were the way that philosophy worked, then any other philosopher could also use the exact same silly ploy to assert the exact opposite of whatever Rand arbitrarily asserted. Mere predictions and empty assertions are not valid methods of cognition. A truly objective philosophy would address only what IS, not what Rand wished to be and then stamped her foot at reality and demanded that future "special science" toadies follow her philosopher king orders.

J

[anthony]

1 hour ago, Jonathan said:

 

Music, dance and architecture 

 

1

This insistent clamor...

Architecture is the loose thread and I personally don't think of it as art. I found it a rationalistic struggle to accept the building as 'sculpted' and a "re-creation of reality" (although, sometimes it does appear designed "according to the [architect's] metaphysical value-judgments"). The element of human utility removes the building from the area of pure contemplation too.

Music ~self-evidently~ has a vocabulary* or you wouldn't identify the nature of, or feel the emotional difference, between a Mahler and hip-hop, or rock and jazz. Etc.

Dance is the styled re-creation of human motion and I'd say, representative of the conscious mind: whether as defying gravity with gracefulness or lumberingly pinned down to the Earth, and combinations of those. (And dance is inseparable from music and musical emotions).

*For the "special sciences" to work on. A music author named "Levitan" (I think) has made strides into this in one book of his I've read, The World in Six Songs, and which went beyond my scope.

[william.scherk]

"Architecture is the loose thread and I personally [subjectively-objectively] don't think of it as art."

Edited November 14, 2017 by william.scherk
Argitektuur is die los draad en ek dink dit nie persoonlik as kuns nie. Maar kuns oor argitektuur is beslis kuns. Plekke bespreek kuns en metiers, en die rou materiaal van kuns - menslike verbeelding. Verbeeldingskrag is die sleutel.

[anthony]

Daniel Levitin

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Daniel J. Levitin

Levitin in 2015

BornDecember 27, 1957 (age 59)
San Francisco

NationalityAmerican, Canadian

Alma materMassachusetts Institute of Technology
Berklee College of Music
Stanford University (B.A., 1992)
University of Oregon (MSc, 1993; PhD, 1996).

Known forLevitin effect, This Is Your Brain on Music, The World in Six Songs,The Organized Mind, A Field Guide to Lies

Spouse(s)Heather Bortfeld

AwardsSee "Awards" section

Websitedaniellevitin.comhttp://www.levitinlab.com

Scientific career

FieldsMusic cognition, cognitive neuroscience of music, cognitive psychology

Institutions

McGill University

Stanford University

Dartmouth College

University of California at Berkeley

Minerva Schools at KGI

Interval Research Corporation

Academic advisorsRoger Shepard, Michael Posner, Douglas Hintzman, John R. Pierce, Stephen Palmer

Notable studentsCatherine Guastavino, Susan Rogers, Parag Chordia

Daniel Joseph Levitin, FRSC (born December 27, 1957) is an American-Canadiancognitive psychologist, neuroscientist, writer, musician, and record producer.[1] He is James McGill Professor Emeritus of psychology and behavioral neuroscience atMcGill University in Montreal, Quebec, Canada, with courtesy appointments in music theory, computer science, neurology and neurosurgery, and education. He is Founding Dean of Arts & Humanities at The Minerva Schools at KGI, and a Distinguished Faculty Fellow at the Haas School of Business, University of California at Berkeley. From 2000 to 2017, he was Director of the Laboratory for Music Perception, Cognition, and Expertise at McGill.[2] His TED talk[3] has been viewed more than ten million times. He is an elected fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, a fellow of the Association for Psychological Science, and afellow of the Royal Society of Canada (FRSC). He has appeared frequently as a guest commentator on NPR and CBC.

Levitin is the author of four consecutive best-selling books, This Is Your Brain on Music: The Science of a Human Obsession (2006),[4][5][6] The World in Six Songs: How the Musical Brain Created Human Nature (2008), The Organized Mind: Thinking Straight in the Age of Information Overload (2014) and A Field Guide to Lies: Critical Thinking in the Information Age (2016). He has published scientific articles onabsolute pitch, music cognition, and neuroscience.[7][8]

[Jonathan]

2 hours ago, anthony said:

Architecture is the loose thread and I personally don't think of it as art. I found it a rationalistic struggle to accept the building as 'sculpted' and a "re-creation of reality" (although, sometimes it does appear designed "according to the [architect's] metaphysical value-judgments"). The element of human utility removes the building from the area of pure contemplation too.

 

Thanks for the direct answer, Tony.

J

[william.scherk]

Paging Roger Bissell. Roger Bissell to the sound booth. Paint it Black, Baby ...

23 hours ago, Mr Copy Pasta said:

DanielJoseph Levitin, FRSC (born December 27, 1957) is anAmerican-Canadiancognitive psychologist, neuroscientist, writer, musician, and record producer.[1] He is James McGill Professor Emeritus of psychology and behavioral neuroscience atMcGill University in Montreal, Quebec, Canada, with courtesy appointments in music theory, computer science, neurology and neurosurgery, and education. He is Founding Dean of Arts & Humanities at The Minerva Schools at KGI, and a Distinguished Faculty Fellow at the Haas chool of Business, University of California at Berkeley. From 2000 to 2017, he was Director of the Laboratory for Music Perception, Cognition, and Expertise at McGill.[2] His TED talk[3] has been viewed more than ten million times. He is an elected fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, a fellow of the Association for Psychological Science, and afellow of the Royal Society of Canada (FRSC). He has appeared frequently as a guest commentator on NPR and CBC.

[Brant Gaede]

Architecture: the selective re-creation of a cave.

Music: the selective re-creation of sounds and noise.

Dance: the selective re-creation of movement.

--Brant: the selective re-creation of a man--oops! I went too far (inertia)

so there!

[anthony]

13 hours ago, Brant Gaede said:

Architecture: the selective re-creation of a cave.

 

 

Nice one. hah

[Jonathan]

21 hours ago, anthony said:

Music ~self-evidently~ has a vocabulary*...

*For the "special sciences" to work on. A music author named "Levitan" (I think) has made strides into this in one book of his I've read, The World in Six Songs, and which went beyond my scope.

Oops, be careful not to change the terms! It's not just "a vocabulary" -- used in a sort of metaphorical way -- but an actual objective conceptual vocabulary that Rand said that the lowly technicians at the Objectivist Institute of Special Sciences, whose work is outranked by and obedient to Rand's philosophy, would someday discover.

 

21 hours ago, anthony said:

...or you wouldn't identify the nature of, or feel the emotional difference, between a Mahler and hip-hop, or rock and jazz. Etc.

Non-sequitur. One need not have an objective conceptual vocabulary in order to feel different emotionals in phenomena. There is no objective conceptual vocabulary of various sunsets, floral arrangements, interior design paint colors or furniture textures and patterns, but people nonetheless feel the emotional differences in them.

 

21 hours ago, anthony said:

Dance is the styled re-creation of human motion and I'd say, representative of the conscious mind: whether as defying gravity with gracefulness or lumberingly pinned down to the Earth, and combinations of those. (And dance is inseparable from music and musical emotions).

Heh. Yeah, you're just about as knowledgeable of dance as Rand was, aren't you?

I can already hear your "objective" analysis of a performance: "I didn't see any obvious signaling of weightlessness as Rand described liking and therefore as being morally good, and as representing the proper sense of life, so, therefore the performance was one of being pinned down to earth (because, in dance, you're either flying or pinned down), so the dance therefore represents anti-volition, fate and misery.

[Jonathan]

21 hours ago, anthony said:

Levitin is the author of four consecutive best-selling books, This Is Your Brain on Music: The Science of a Human Obsession (2006),[4][5][6] The World in Six Songs: How the Musical Brain Created Human Nature (2008), The Organized Mind: Thinking Straight in the Age of Information Overload (2014) and A Field Guide to Lies: Critical Thinking in the Information Age (2016). He has published scientific articles onabsolute pitch, music cognition, and neuroscience.[7][8]

We've discussed his works here at OL in the past, as well as those of similar authors.

They haven't gotten any closer to discovering the missing "objective conceptual vocabulary" that Rand wished for. In fact, their works actually head in the opposite direction, admitting that different people have different responses to music.

J