Objectivist Esthetics, R.I.P.

[Jonathan]

26 minutes ago, anthony said:

("Insensitivity" to John Hospers, eh? Ha! Not that you could see the self-contradiction).

What in the hell are you talking about???!!!!!

I never said anything about "insensitivity" to Hospers.

Seriously. What the fuck are your talking about?

Hospers invited her to speak about aesthetics. Then, when she was done doing so, he asked her some gently critical questions in front of an audience, as is very common in such situations in academia. She flipped her lid over it. She was enraged. She felt betrayed. She ended her friendship with him over it.

Do you understand what I'm saying? My complaint isn't her treatment of Hospers. If you're kookily misinterpreting me as trying to protect Hospers, no, that's not what I'm doing, and it's not the damned point. The point is that she acted like an infant when facing minor, gentle criticism from a friend. She was devastated by it, crushed. Apparently she wasn't familiar with the idea that philosophy includes criticism and rejoinders, that it's a back and forth exchange which includes answering criticism like a grownup, rather than excommunicating and making someone into an enemy.

It's not "insensitivity" that I'm criticizing, but massive insecurity, weakness, and emotionalism.

[Jonathan]

4 minutes ago, anthony said:

Positions, you don't have. Oppositions are all they are.

I am not going through the ways that music is different, but I caution anyone to read Rand herself on the subject.

But making an equivalence of the effects of music with the effects of paint slapped arbitrarily on canvas, in order to "prove" abstract art - is pathetic.

Prove it.

Your feelings about what you imagine experiencing in music are not proof. Your inability to experience what others do in abstract art is not proof.

Your assertions about what you experience in music are no different -- no more valid -- that others' assertions about what they experience in abstract art.

Your being upset about abstract art counts for nothing. Your emotions about the subject aren't proof. You obedience to Rand isn't proof. Your parroting her opinions isn't proof.

Your subjective, emotional mischaracterization of all abstract art as "paint slapped arbitrarily on canvas" doesn't make it true.

The fact remains that you've offered no proof of anything ever qualifying as art by Rand's definition and criteria. You've only offered anger and irrationality.

They're not good substitutes.

[anthony]

1 hour ago, Jonathan said:

So, the Objectivist Esthetics logically flows from the axiom of consciousness, but does so "imperfectly," which means that it only does so if we accept glaring contradictions. But it still needs no proof, because we should just accept and live with the contradictions, cuz it's no big deal.

 

 

And don't adjust my meaning: I'll say that art presupposes consciousness. Everything feasible to man follows from his consciousness, therefore from the axiom.

As for art, it is man-made and as with men, can be arbitrary - And music goes direct to one's feelings, it self-evidently has an identity, but we don't yet understand it fully. If you want the one, perfect, all-encompassing principle for every artwork/possible artwork ever, go to church.  

 

 

[Jonathan]

Just now, anthony said:

 

And don't adjust my meaning: I'll say art presupposes consciousness. Everything feasible to man follows from his consciousness, therefore from the axiom.

No shit! Duh!

Who has suggested otherwise? No one!

So, what relevance do you think there is to your saying on this thread that art presupposes consciousness? What relevance does it have to the challenge that you're evading?

My fucking challenge requires acceptance of the idea that art presupposes consciousness! I'm asking conscious entities to use their god damned consciousness in the way that Rand fucking recommends!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Or at least I thought that I was asking conscious entities -- your responses often make it seem that you're not fully conscious, if at all.

 

8 minutes ago, anthony said:

As for art, it is man-made and as with men, can be arbitrary - and music goes direct to one's feelings, it self-evidently has an identity, but we don't yet understand it fully.

The same is true of abstract art. It goes directly to people's feelings -- other people's, even though it doesn't go to yours. It self-evidently has an identity, but we don't yet fully understand it. What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. That's the way that a truly objective philosophy would work. The double standards and bluffing no longer work.

 

6 minutes ago, anthony said:

 If you want the one, perfect, all-encompassing principle, go to church.  

I don't want a perfect, all-encompassing principle. Rand was the one who did! She is the one who stupidly asserted that her philosophy was perfect, completely integrated, and that one part could not be accepted without all of the others.

That was false. It was a fantasy.

It's the church where you still worship.

 

[anthony]

41 minutes ago, Jonathan said:

What in the hell are you talking about???!!!!!

I never said anything about "insensitivity" to Hospers.

 

 

For once you are right. What you raised was Rand's "bullying". And also the "gentle" Hospers. Nothing changes the principle. If you don't appreciate or castigate an other's bullying, practicing it yourself is a self-contradiction and denotes lack of integrity..

 

[Jonathan]

Just now, anthony said:

For once you are right. What you raised was Rand's "bullying". And also the "gentle" Hospers. Nothing changes the principle. If you don't appreciate or castigate an other's bullying, practicing it yourself is a self-contradiction and denotes lack of integrity..

 

I'm not practicing bullying. I'm practicing standing up to bullies. Bitch slapping bullies is not itself an act of bullying. See, it's metaphorically like retaliatory force. Initiatory force is evil, but retaliatory force is morally just. Bullying is lame, but kicking the shit out of bullies is virtuous.

You and other bullies in O-land who try to borrow Rand's bullying tactics just aren't used to getting your asses intellectually kicked in your cloistered safe spaces after indulging in your attempts at bullying, so, like typical schoolyard bullies, you cry louder than anyone else when you get back some of what you've dished out.

Intellectual pussies.

 

[anthony]

Before this descends any further, I will repeat what I said at the beginning. Art is not a science experiment. 

Whoever thinks that "proof" has a place in contemplating art doesn't know the consciousness.

"Who has suggested otherwise? No one!"

What one must note is that while 'not suggesting otherwise' (perhaps) J. has not once affirmed the conceptual consciousness explicitly. But he continues his quest for "proof". 

But I'm getting tired of "the drooling beast" - heh.

[Brant Gaede]

1 hour ago, anthony said:

Before this descends any further, I will repeat what I said at the beginning. Art is not a science experiment. 

Whoever thinks that "proof" has a place in contemplating art doesn't know the consciousness.

"Who has suggested otherwise? No one!"

What one must note is that while 'not suggesting otherwise' (perhaps) J. has not once affirmed the conceptual consciousness explicitly. But he continues his quest for "proof". 

But I'm getting tired of "the drooling beast" - heh.

Proof in contemplating art is optional. If you have "proof" you're welcome to roll it into your contemplation. Now, philosophically, prove your proof. Pull it out of a work of art. Human consciousness is, in part, conceptual. If not denied, then that it is.

--Brant

[Jonathan]

14 hours ago, anthony said:

Before this descends any further, I will repeat what I said at the beginning. Art is not a science experiment. 

Whoever thinks that "proof" has a place in contemplating art doesn't know the consciousness.

"Who has suggested otherwise? No one!"

What one must note is that while 'not suggesting otherwise' (perhaps) J. has not once affirmed the conceptual consciousness explicitly. But he continues his quest for "proof". 

But I'm getting tired of "the drooling beast" - heh.

No one has asked for proof as having a place in contemplating art.

No one has asked that you prove that you've contemplated art.

You're not being asked to prove consciousness.

Rand's position was that art communicates artist's intended themes/meanings to consumers. You've been challenged to prove that any alleged work of art has actually succeeded doing that in reality.

You're being challenged to use your conceptual consciousness, to try your hardest to keep it focused on task, to understand and follow the very-easy-to-understand challenge, to not evade it, and to use logic and reason via your consciousness to objectively demonstrate that a work of alleged art has succeeded in communicating its creator's theme/meaning through only the content of the work and allowing no outside considerations, just as Rand's theory requires.

You're being challenged to use your consciousness in exactly the same way that you challenged people to use theirs to test abstract art to objectively determine whether or not they had identified artists' intended themes/meanings via only the work and allowing no outside considerations.

I am affirming conceptual consciousness! Let me repeat! I am officially, explicitly, loudly affirming conceptual consciousness!!!!!! Did you read that and comprehend it? I agree with the validity of the objective method of testing that you yourself proposed! I am adopting it because it is the only valid method of objective proof for a conceptual consciousness.

I challenge you and all other Objectivists and Objectivishes to use their conceptual consciousnesses objectively to prove that anything that is alleged by anyone to be a work of art has ever succeeded in communicating its creator's intended theme/meaning to anyone else who has relied only on the content of the work and has been denied access to any outside considerations.

 

[regi]

On 1/8/2018 at 10:58 AM, anthony said:

You lost me with "All knowledge is propositional"

Hi Anthony,

That's partly Rand's fault, I suspect. I was always disappointed that Rand, in spite of her admiration of Aristotle and classical logic, never addressed this classical logic principle which is fundamental to epistemology.

To be knowledge a thing must be true. Something which can be neither true or false is not knowledge. A concept only identifies existents. The concept represented by the word "peach" identifies a certain fruit. Saying "peach" is neither true or false, even if one knows what "peach" identifies. In classical logic, the word (and concept), "peach," is called a, "simple apprehension." Before anything can be true or false, something must be said about a thing. If I say, "a peach is a legume that grows underground," that is false. If I say, "a peach is a fruit that grows on trees," that is true. Until I say something about "peach," however, "peach," is neither true or false and is not knowledge.

Try it yourself for any concept: Zeus, potato, phoenix, pyramid. Are any of those true or false? If you say, "potato," is it true or false? If you say, "phoenix," is it true or false? Not until you say something about a potato or phoenix can it be true or false. "A potato is a from of slipper," is false. "The phoenix is a mythical bird in Egyptian mythology," is true. Even though potatoes are real and the phoenix is a fiction, it is not the concepts that are true or false but what is said about the concepts. All by themselves, unrelated to anything else, they are neither true or false and therefore not knowledge.

If one knows what a peach is, that of course is knowledge. That knowledge also requires a proposition. To know what a peach is there must be a proposition that describes what a peach is. That description is called a, "definition." Without propositions, no knowledge is possible, even the knowledge of a concept's meaning.

The importance may not seem apparent, but epistemologically it is very important. The only function of concepts is identification of existents: entities, attributes, relationships, actions (or behavior) concrete or abstract, metaphysical or psychological. A concept does not imply or contain any knowledge about what it identifies. This is very important to understanding why concepts for anything, like, "dog," or, "winter," for instance, mean exactly the same thing (identify the same things) for both a child and a biologist or a child and a meteorologists. The concept only identifies the existents, the difference in the child's and scientist's knowledge about those existents does not change the meaning of the concepts.

By the way, Rand was very confused about the nature of perception. If you are interested, my article, "Perception—The Validity of Perceptual Evidence," describes the true nature of perception as well as all that is wrong with the Objectivist view of perception. There is a shorter version of that article, "Perception," but it does not address the particular mistakes made by Rand.

Randy

[anthony]

18 hours ago, Jonathan said:

 

I challenge you and all other Objectivists and Objectivishes to use their conceptual consciousnesses objectively to prove that anything that is alleged by anyone to be a work of art has ever succeeded in communicating its creator's intended theme/meaning to anyone else who has relied only on the content of the work and has been denied access to any outside considerations.

 

1

To "prove" - what is self-evident. If one gets fixed on "meaning", one forgets that a picture isn't didactic, and "shows" (not "tells") or else the artist would write not paint, to be facetious. Not at all metaphorically, an artist provides a window into his world and one is able to look into it. That is a simple visual experience at first, which hasn't "proof". There are no concealed meanings there, nor special insights and training needed to "see" what exists in (a re-created) reality. One sees a painting's subject/s, lighting and other components (all the existents), and one knows implicitly that they and their choices and arrangement and styling represent a totality of something intensely special to the artist, and which is a glimpse of how he sees the world or would like the world to be. One very basically can either approve of his vision or disapprove - and with many levels and combinations of conceptual integration and emotions. So how does the artist view the world, going by and in a specific work? That takes the viewer into making the first abstraction and identifying the picture's "theme". I think that can begin making up one's own preliminary title for the artwork, for oneself, like: "laughing child playing with butterflies"--into--"a care-free existence of innocent joyfulness". Did the artist have those words in mind when working on the picture? I think not. To try "prove" this, is again specious. As I see it, simply, an artist 'thinks visually'. However, the judgments on life he had previously and consciously made, coupled with (or sometimes unintegrated with) his very early "sense of life", had already formed ~his~ broad abstraction which, by selection, etc., he turned into solid form. The viewer completes the cycle by identifying that abstraction. After which he can assess how well and skilfully the theme was technically executed.

[Jonathan]

9 hours ago, anthony said:

To "prove" - what is self-evident. If one gets fixed on "meaning", one forgets that a picture isn't didactic, and "shows" (not "tells") or else the artist would write not paint, to be facetious.

Tell it to Rand!

9 hours ago, anthony said:

To "prove" - what is self-evident. If one gets fixed on "meaning", one forgets that a picture isn't didactic, and "shows" (not "tells") or else the artist would write not paint, to be facetious. Not at all metaphorically, an artist provides a window into his world and one is able to look into it. That is a simple visual experience at first, which hasn't "proof". There are no concealed meanings there, nor special insights and training needed to "see" what exists in (a re-created) reality.

You're compartmentalizing again. Just like Rand. The above does not apply to all art forms. If some don't have to "re-create reality," then none do. If some must, then all must follow the definition and criteria. No arbitrary exceptions.

9 hours ago, anthony said:

Did the artist have those words in mind when working on the picture? I think not. To try "prove" this, is again specious. As I see it, simply, an artist 'thinks visually'.

No, it's not specious. It's required if you're asserting that you've fucking identified the "artist's theme," and especially if you've then morally judged him and psychologically diagnosed him! If an aesthetic theory requires identification of a communicated theme/meaning, then proof is something that you don't just get to skip over because you feel it's difficult or inconvenient.

9 hours ago, anthony said:

The viewer completes the cycle by identifying that abstraction.

Prove that anyone has ever identified that abstraction in any work of alleged art.

9 hours ago, anthony said:

After which he can assess how well and skilfully the theme was technically executed.

I've already commented on the impossibility of judging skill without first confirming artistic intent via outside means. The same is true if any human activity. Go back and read my comments on NASA missions, the hypothetical plumber whom I described, and the woman visiting a store and purchasing ingredients.*

Youre not thinking logically. You're not applying the Objectivist Epistemology's method to the field of aesthetics.

J

 

[*Edited to add: Here's the post where I explained the need to verify the artist's intentions via outside means, and the fact that the same is true of judging any human activity:

"If one wanted to objectively judge, say, a NASA mission, it wouldn't be enough to marvel at the technology, power, motion and structural features displayed. One would have read the mission plan to discover if the events that were witnessed had achieved the goal."

"A worker installs pipes on the ceiling of a chemical factory and then turns on a faucet, and the pipes spray water from what appear to us to be random seams. How well did he perform the task? Were the pipes supposed to spray water, or did he fail to connect all of them properly?"

"Say that you're observing a woman who decides to go out and try to accomplish a specific task. She doesn't tell you what she's planning on doing or why -- you have no 'outside considerations' by which to judge her actions. She crosses the street and enters a grocery store. She walks through a couple of aisles, picks up a jar of nutmeg and a bag of sugar, and then purchases them. What's your objective evaluation of her mission? Has she succeeded?"

"I gave the example of trying to identify a woman's task by watching her buying items in a store, and then trying to evaluate how well the task was accomplished. In the scenario, we don't know that she went to the store with the purpose of sticking to a healthy diet and buying ingredients for a salad, but then quickly gave in to her craving for sweets and decided to bake and devour a large batch of her favorite high-calorie cookies, for which she realized that she needed to pick up some nutmeg and sugar. Without knowledge of her intentions, judging how well she performed her task is meaningless -- she did what we saw her do, therefore she appears to have accomplished her task rather than having abandoned it, and therefore only a positive appraisal is possible."

 

Do you understand yet, Tony? No? Well, here's more, please read it carefully:

"If a person wishes to claim that he has objectively identified the 'artist's theme,' then he has to verify that the artist has communicated his intended meaning. If we set out to judge how well an artist has projected his vision, we have to know which vision he intended to project.

"Let's say that an artist wants to present mankind as heroic, but he's somewhat lacking in skill, and the figures that he paints look distorted, which makes us interpret them as sickly and unhappy, among other negative things. If we don't know the artist's intentions, our interpretation of 'his theme' is likely to be that mankind is doomed to be sickly and unhappy. Since we think that he projected that vision very effectively, we come to the conclusion that even though we don't like his vision of existence, strictly aesthetically speaking he has done a tremendous job of expressing his horrible view of mankind (as Rand said, one need not like or agree with a painting in order to judge it as aesthetically great).

"Well, the problem is that it's not his view of mankind, it's not 'his theme,' and he's obviously not the great artist that we've rated him to be. If we don't know his intentions via external means, we have no objective standard by which to decide if he failed or succeeded in presenting his theme."

 

[anthony]

From The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy - 'Kant on Fine Art and Genius'.

Kant must overcome these paradoxes and explain how fine art can be produced at all. In sect.46, the first step is taken when Kant, in initially defining 'genius', conflates 'nature' in the first sense above with nature in the third sense. He writes,

Genius is the talent (natural endowment) that gives the rule to art. Since talent is an innate productive ability of the artist and as such belongs itself to nature, we could also put it this way: Genius is the innate mental predisposition (ingenium) through which nature gives the rule to art. (sect.46)

In other words, that which makes it possible to produce (fine art) is not itself produced - not by the individual genius, nor (we should add) through his or her culture, history, education, etc. From the definition of genius as that talent through which nature gives the rule to art follows (arguably!) the following key propositions. First, fine art is produced by individual humans, but not as contingent individuals. That is, not by human nature in the empirically known sense. Second, fine art as aesthetic (just like nature as aesthetic) can have no definite rules or concepts for producing or judging it. But genius supplies a rule, fully applicable only in the one, concrete instance, precisely by way of the universal structures of the genius' mental abilities (which again, is 'natural' in sense one).

[Jonathan]

I think that a big part of my point that many of Rand's followers miss is that her critical statements on various art forms play a part in informing us of her philosophy of aesthetics' criteria. The same is true of her followers' comments.

When someone explains what they experience in a work of abstract art, and Rand or her followers respond by demanding to know if the viewer's interpretation matches the artist's intended theme/meaning, and that if it doesn't, they say that it is therefore not art, that position logically reveals that they are using the communication of the artist's intended theme/meaning as a criterion for what qualifies as art and what does not. That criterion then must also apply to all other alleged artworks and art forms equally. No double standards allowed, since they would not be logical, or objective.

When someone explains what they experience in a work of abstract art, and Rand or her followers respond by demanding to know of which entities in reality the work presents immediately identifiable likenesses, and that if the viewer can't specifically identify any such likenesses, then the work is therefore not art, that position logically reveals that they are using the presentation of identifiable likenesses of entities in reality as a criterion for what qualifies as art and what does not. That criterion then must also apply equally to all other alleged artworks and art forms. No double standards allowed. That would not be logical or objective.

So, Rand's followers have to make up their minds. Do they want to keep the criterion of viewers being able to identify artist's intended themes/meanings? If so, then they must accept the consequences, and accept the idea that each alleged work that Rand-followers claim qualifies as art must be proven to meet that criterion, and if not proven, then it doesn't qualify. Do they want to keep the criterion that readily identifiable entities must be presented in art? If so, then they must accept the consequences, and abandon the art forms that don't comply with that criterion, such as music, architecture, and dance.

Make your choice. If  you value the Objectivist Epistemology and its embracing of logic and reason, then you have to reject the illogical, irrational mess that you and Rand have made of the Esthetics. Or you can stick with the illogical, irrational mess of the Esthetics and therefore reject the Epistemology, as Tony has been doing.

[anthony]

In counterpoint to Rand's theory, it's useful to read Kant's. His work after all is influential in art colleges and what young artists are learning, until now. After some good insights about art creation (which one sees similar in Rand) he goes off the rails. "Nature", is his particular and peculiar answer to what makes the artist tick. And that doesn't speak to the individual artist's consciousness, volitional or otherwise, or any consciousness at all. He does not pay those the least regard, that I've seen. To him "Nature" is the driving force behind art, and the natural "genius" - the artist - is Nature's 'channel', 'medium' or 'agent'. What contradictions that causes to the artist's mind, for positive or negative, I only can conjecture. Nice to be considered a "genius", very bad to be not much more than working subserviently under a Nature, "giving the rule to art". 

"Since talent is an innate productive ability of the artist and as such belongs itself to nature..."[IK]

The results in art and the thinking of art critics, intellectuals (etc.) speak for themselves. It also suggests anti-individualism in art (paradoxically, artists' works had to become "wild and whacky" to show and maintain their pseudo individualism I think) and the puzzling "art-collectivism": influencing how one is ~supposed~ to respond to artworks. Then of course, the uncritical reverence with which the paintings by "geniuses" are greeted, will always lead to art-authoritarianism.

This neo-mysticism we see in other places, like his article on war and collectivism. (There, to Kant's form of "Nature" man is a species to which the individual can and must be sacrificed i.e. in necessary wars - to the species' good, in short). Strange that Rand (I don't believe) did not respond to Kant's opinion of fine art creation, and its inherent mysticism. Maybe she didn't read it. Over all, if Kant is this suspect on art, he must be suspect on both reality and the consciousness.

[Jonathan]

13 minutes ago, anthony said:

Nice to be considered a "genius", very bad to be not much more than working subserviently under a Nature, "giving the rule to art". 

 

Tony, please explain what you think that Kant means when using the terms "genius" and "nature."

Then also explain what Rand meant by "nature" when using such terms as "man's nature," or the "nature of logic."

 

16 minutes ago, anthony said:

What contradictions that causes to the artist's mind, for positive or negative, I only can conjecture.

The idea would be to grasp what Kant is getting at. First one would have to understand how he is using terms rather than just assigning the terms Tony's vague semi-understanding of them. So, actually you can do more than "conjecture." When you run into something that you don't understand, what you should try to do is work harder at it, set aside your Rand-programmed emotions and predetmined conclusion, and focus on learning and understanding what is actually being said, rather than what you want to hear. The goal, contrary to your current belief system, isn't to condemn everyone whom St. Ayn told you to condemn, but to actually understand, think, and judge for yourself.

[anthony]

More fluff and bluster. Kant speaks for himself.

[anthony]

What I don't expect to see here is Kant's mystical "Nature" explained. Ha. Attempted conflation with Rand's clear and evident concept is not a smart route to go.

[anthony]

"Second, fine art as aesthetic (just like nature as aesthetic) can have no definite rules or concepts for producing or judging it". [IEP]

Now, where did I hear this before?

"No definite rules or concepts" for creating and judging art - might well be the theme of this thread.  Anything goes. Who has the gall to set any critical and objective standards - for art?!

I have taken part of this essay from only one source, IEP, of several on Kant's aesthetics. It seems about as impartial as any I saw, and anyone must feel free to quote other sources (for ~maybe~ other scholars' differing interpretations).

[Jonathan]

OMG, Tony! When Rand wrote about the "nature of logic," she had to mean that logic exists out there in nature independent of consciousness! Neo-mysticism. She meant that logic just naturally grows in nature, like on trees or something. Like it's a thing out there. The words speak for themselves, and that's her view because it just is! It's axiomatic because I thought of it with my consciousness, and consciousness is axiomatic, so therefore everything that I think is axiomatic. That's why you never want to discuss consciousness?

Um, concept formation? Duh. Hello?

Rand also wrote about "man's nature." That's even worse. It obviously means that nature is different from man's nature, because otherwise she would have just said nature, so therefore she believed that there was a separate nature that wasn't part of nature, in other words man's nature was independent from nature and therefore supernatural. She was saying that it was a parallel universe that no one could see, but that it was there anyway. 

[Jonathan]

4 hours ago, anthony said:

"Second, fine art as aesthetic (just like nature as aesthetic) can have no definite rules or concepts for producing or judging it". [IEP]

Now, where did I hear this before?

"No definite rules or concepts" for creating and judging art - might well be the theme of this thread.  Anything goes. Who has the gall to set any critical and objective standards - for art?!

Where are Rand's objective aesthetic criteria for producing and judging art???

She bitched about others' views on the subject, and pissed on them for either not having defined any criteria or for having been wrong in the attempt, but neglected to ever deliver any criteria herself. It was "outside the scope" of her presentation on aesthetics. Heh. NOTHING could be more relevant and inside the scope!

She's been dead a long time. Have any of her followers taken up where she left off and identified the criteria that she arbitrarily insisted must exist? No.

Have you, Tony? No, heh, most certainly not. Has bossypants Auntie Kamhi done so, or irascible Uncle Torres? Nope. How about His Royal Published Highness or His highly aesthetically knowledgeable and sensitive darling wife? No, give me a break. Pigero? No, don’t make me laugh. Peikoff? Nada. Binswanker, Sures, Bwook, York or Minsaas? Negative. Big zero.

But you still think that the quote that you cite above is wrong. Well, the only way to demonstrate that it's wrong would be to actually identify the aesthetic criteria for producing and judging art. Your being outraged by the quote doesn't do anything to refute it. Nor does ridiculing it. Your and Rand's looking down your noses at such comments by others hasn't gotten you any closer to invalidating them.

The comment actually describes the current state of reality. Asserting the opposite is what is laughable. Rand's or your claiming that there are objective criteria for producing and judging art is an irrational, subjective fantasy.

See, Tony, the old tricks don’t work anymore. The old Objectivist trick was to snark about something while acting as if Objectivism was above that which was being criticized, and that it had all of the truths, proofs and solutions.

“Abstract art isn’t art because it doesn’t convey the artist’s theme/meaning like Romantic Realism does.”

Bluff. Prove that Romantic Realism actually does that in reality. Oops, busted!

“Kant is a poopyhead because he says there are no criteria by which to produce or judge art. Rand said that there was, and huffed and puffed and sniffed and snarked while doing so, so of course she was right! Objectivism got it right, and solved all the problems and proved everyone else wrong!”

Bluff. Where are the Objectivist criteria for producing and judging art? Where are the missing principles of objective aesthetic judgment? Oops, busted!

There are indeed no criteria for producing and judging art. That's reality.

[Brant Gaede]

Well, at least "I know pornography when I see it."*

So Supreme Court justices went to the screening room to watch it--at least Douglas excepted--so to label it, porn yes or no. Something to do with "community standards" I believe.

--Brant

*or, "I know it if I see it"

[anthony]

On 1/10/2018 at 4:59 AM, regi said:

Hi Anthony,

That's partly Rand's fault, I suspect. I was always disappointed that Rand, in spite of her admiration of Aristotle and classical logic, never addressed this classical logic principle which is fundamental to epistemology.

To be knowledge a thing must be true. Something which can be neither true or false is not knowledge. A concept only identifies existents. The concept represented by the word "peach" identifies a certain fruit. Saying "peach" is neither true or false, even if one knows what "peach" identifies. 

I

Randy

 

Randy, we have an impasse when it comes to your and my ideas of the nature and purpose of concepts. You say: A concept only identifies existents and (earlier) isn't knowledge; I say a concept is the *consequence* of the identifications of existents - starting from the senses -  identified and integrated - so, "truthful" - and IS (growing) knowledge. And then, language, words and definitions are our means to make our concepts explicit and more importantly, self-explicit.

"A concept is a method of expanding man's consciousness by reducing the number of its content's units--a systematic means to an unlimited integration of cognitive data".  (The Cognitive Role of Concepts)

(Many a time I quote Rand, I get the same insinuated response i.e.: He would say that, Rand wrote it, he learned it from Rand! Of course, quite right, while quite dismissive of one's own thinking/observations. However, I was employing a kind of rough n ready conceptualization years before seeing O'ism, before appreciating it as a formal, philosophical methodology. Objectivist epistemology affirmed the validity of concepts for me. Some or many other Objectivists may have shared this - one may initially and instantly, if inchoately, "sense" the truth of Rand's thinking and theories (and art theory) - from one's own previous experiences and thoughts, way before further justification by her).

Her quote above rings hugely more true for me now with a greater conceptual base, as when I first read it, and while I like finding new ways to describe ideas, she is hard to beat for succinct precision..

You investigate propositions, and as my supposition, isn't that a form and sub-type of deduction? Applying one's concepts to further existents? 

 

[regi]

58 minutes ago, anthony said:

Randy, we have an impasse

Hi Anthony. I don't think we have an impasse, just a different way so seeing some things. I really am not trying to convince you. Most people who understand the nature of concepts do consider them to be knowledge. That is not a terribly wrong view. Every concept, at least for adults, does imply knowledge--knowledge of a concepts meaning provided by its definition. But a concept itself does not have a meaning without the definition, a proposition, e.g. "a [the word of a concept] is [the definiton]." 

When Rand wrote, "a concept is a method of expanding man's consciousness by reducing the number of its content's units--a systematic means to an unlimited integration of cognitive data," she was referring to universals (the only kind of concept she recognized) and was referring to her belief that a universal concept in some way subsumed all its referents or particulars (which she referred to as units). But, of course a concept doesn't subsume anything. A concept does not mean, "all possible referents, particulars, or units," it mean any possible referent, particular, or unit--that is, any existent with the attributes of any unit identified by that concept. Dog means any dog, past, present, or future, real or imaginary, not all dogs. The word [concept] dog identifies a particular kind of existent. Identifying an existent as, "dog," only identifies what kind of existent it is. It does not provide any other knowledge about dogs beyond what is necessary to identify a dog as a dog and differentiate it from all other kinds of existents.

The concept dog does not contain any knowledge about dogs beyond its definition. The vast store of knowledge about dogs consists of every proposition one knows that begins, "a dog is ...."

We don't have to agree. My best.

Randy

[Jonathan]

Hello? Tony? Are you there?

You had a mini hissy fit about your imagined enemies allegedly being upset about anyone who has the gall to set "critical and objective" standards for art:

On 1/10/2018 at 10:34 AM, anthony said:

"No definite rules or concepts" for creating and judging art - might well be the theme of this thread.  Anything goes. Who has the gall to set any critical and objective standards - for art?!

And I responded above by pointing out that Rand never identified any. Nor have you or any of her other followers.

Did you miss my post? You must not have seen it, since you haven't responded with either an explanation of the criteria or an admission that Objectivism hasn't offered any.

Do you not have the gall? Do you only have the gall to claim that you have "critical and objective" standards, but not the gall to actually identify them?

Heh.