Art as Microcosm (2004)

[Ellen Stuttle]

Oh, I see your point now. If Rand didn't understand harmonic progression's role in emotion (and plot) in music, then it's no wonder she couldn't appreciate pre-tonal (especially pre-Romantic) music for what it ~was~ able to convey.

Right. Likewise it's no wonder that she called Mozart "pre-music."

[ES speaking] Roger, can you specify the names of some of the persons you mean? Although I agree with a sketchy general comparison, in the sense of the possibility of dramatic form in music, the details of what you quote from Allan I find carrying this too far, as if there's some sort of conflict amongst melodies, the protagonist and the villian, that sort of thing. The main problem I had with your article about music (I've forgotten what was the title of that) was this same sort of problem; I thought you were carrying the analogy too far.

I wondered if Rosen was one of the authors you were talking about. I've read Rosen, and as I recall I didn't think that he was carrying the analogy too far. The difference is in the details of wording. I'll have to leave textual analysis for a later time.

Ellen

___

[Roger Bissell]

Ellen, thank you for all your time and effort in this thread. Your questions and your reminiscences and your speculations were all very stimulating. It is just the kind of interaction I was hoping for!

Now, go do your other writing! :-)

REB

[Ellen Stuttle]

You have put your finger on a problem in Rand's aesthetics, but it is not (IMO) a problem for her definition of "art."

Again, I'll have to leave discussing for a later time. That particular post would be a good one to come back to for detailed analysis. In general, I still think that you're putting together a better theory from what she wrote than I think is there in what she said.

About the definition, suppose she'd used "creation of a symbolic reality" (instead of "selective re-creation of reality"); or...suppose she'd used your definition: "an artwork is a symbol that conveys basic perspectives on the world and man by embodying them in an imaginary world"...

Till later,

Ellen

___

[Victor Pross]

"an artwork is a symbol that conveys basic perspectives on the world and man by embodying them in an imaginary world"...

Yes, why not? Such a definition would exclude abstract painting. I'm all for it.

[Roger Bissell]

You have put your finger on a problem in Rand's aesthetics, but it is not (IMO) a problem for her definition of "art."

Again, I'll have to leave discussing for a later time. That particular post would be a good one to come back to for detailed analysis. In general, I still think that you're putting together a better theory from what she wrote than I think is there in what she said.

About the definition, suppose she'd used "creation of a symbolic reality" (instead of "selective re-creation of reality"); or...suppose she'd used your definition: "an artwork is a symbol that conveys basic perspectives on the world and man by embodying them in an imaginary world"...

Till later,

Ellen

I appreciate your opinion about my approach to Rand's aesthetics. Like my work on the other areas of her philosophy, I've always thought of it as being true to the basic implications of Rand's ideas, in some cases truer than Rand was. IMO, of course. Being a trained, educated, experienced musician helped me see things from a quite different angle, and I'm very gratified though not surprised to see that Allan B. and I came to quite a few of the same conclusions.

Just speculating, but it's very possible that she would have angrily rejected my ideas, had I been in a position to share them with her back in the 70s when I first started fussing with all this. I have them more clearly formulated and can better defend them now than then, but the essentials of my revision or interpretation of her ideas were all in place then. (My original 1974 submission to Reason Papers is quite interesting, if a bit archaic. I still have the rejection letter.)

I think my definition is clearer or less misleading than Rand's definition, but I think they are equivalent. I mean, my definition is my restatement of what I think Rand means in her definition. You will not likely hear anyone from ARI endorse this -- nor, probably, from TOC/TAS -- nor the reigning non-orthodox authorities on Rand's aesthetics, Torres and Kamhi. We all gots our ax to grind, ya know. :-)

Do I think that the past 40 years of Randian/Objectivist aesthetic theorizing would have been different if something more like my definition had been used? I don't know. Randians still, for the most part, treat architecture as an important form of art, even though it does not (seem to) fit Rand's definition and was totally omitted from Binswanger's Ayn Rand Lexicon.

I think the general understanding of music could have been better and more sophisticated, even though it is unlikely that would have brought about a general level of musical literacy (score-reading ability) comparable to people's being able to read books and plays. Music is a very difficult case, because of its imaginary world's being presented through a system of non-verbal, auditory metaphors. Getting it right requires a philosopher who is also a trained composer/performer. Whether I have been adequate to the task remains to be seen, of course....

I still have a mammoth melody-analyzing project to carry out and write up, and precious little spare time to do it in. But the data from that project will help me push my point about meaning and emotion in music quite a ways down the road. I'm hoping to have it in finished form by the time I retire from Disneyland in 2013, so that I can travel around the country lecturing on it to colleges and Objectivist groups. Of course, I plan to sleep now and then in the meantime. :-/

REB

[Roger Bissell]

You have put your finger on a problem in Rand's aesthetics, but it is not (IMO) a problem for her definition of "art."

...About the definition, suppose she'd used "creation of a symbolic reality" (instead of "selective re-creation of reality"); or...suppose she'd used your definition: "an artwork is a symbol that conveys basic perspectives on the world and man by embodying them in an imaginary world"...

Just a quick followup on this -- would my definition rule out abstract art as being art?

I don't think so. At least, not some of it.

First of all, consider the typical piece of abstract art -- a painting on canvas surrounded by a frame, with the painting consisting of a certain pattern of lines and colors, but no recognizable object.

Now, the frame for a painting functions like the proscenium in a theater -- it divides reality between the real world of the viewer and the imaginary world of the artwork. So, by presenting us with a framed painting -- of whatever -- an artist is inviting us to focus our attention into an imaginary realm. In other words, he already has one foot in the door.

But next, we have to get a handle on what basic ideas about the world and man are being conveyed by the artwork. A large expanse of blue might evoke serenity, as blue things in general seem to do, but it does not ~embody~ serenity, certainly not in the same way that a relaxed, untroubled subject of a painting or a placid, calm melody does. So, you have to sort out evocation effects of that kind. (Certainly evocation and embodiment can co-exist.)

It would be good of the painter to tell us what he is trying to convey and how he is doing it. But even if he cannot tell us, and even if we cannot discern anything of the kind, we can still come to the conclusion that his imaginary world is a world barren of significant values (and things to embody them). That's not a world that ~I~ want to contemplate, but some people do. (I'm not personally acquainted with any of them, thank goodness.)

The same goes to imaginary worlds that do contain discernable objects, but which are behaving chaotically and which do not have clearly graspable natures, etc. -- the so-called "unintelligible universe." Some dyed-in-the-wool Randians (and others) would probably want to disqualify such works as being art. But that is sure bigotry. It's an imaginary world conveying a certain perspective on reality, right? It's false, but false sentences are still sentences, aren't they? And false art is still art. Also sprach Bissellustra. :-)

REB

PS -- Now, if the painter wants to ~deny~ that he is presenting an unintelligible universe, or any universe at all, that is his privilege, but he is engaging in a stolen concept. The whole purpose of painting on a canvas with frame is to set up a world in miniature for a person to contemplate, and if a painter says instead that he just wanted to present some colors, shapes, patterns, etc. that mean nothing and are not part of an imaginary world, he is in the same category as someone who pounds a hammer not to drive a nail but to make noise. The latter are not so brazen as to be hired and paid carpenter wages, but quite a few such painters have managed to have their works hung in museums. That, I think, is what enrages most Objectivists about modern art, the sheer nihilism of some of it. I'm with them on that.

[Victor Pross]

"Some dyed-in-the-wool Randians (and others) would probably want to disqualify such works as being art. But that is sure bigotry"

Huh?

Trudging through Roger’s liberal arts diplomacy-- before arriving at this...

“PS -- Now, if the painter wants to ~deny~ that he is presenting an unintelligible universe, or any universe at all, that is his privilege, but he is engaging in a stolen concept. The whole purpose of painting on a canvas with frame is to set up a world in miniature for a person to contemplate, and if a painter says instead that he just wanted to present some colors, shapes, patterns, etc. that mean nothing and are not part of an imaginary world, he is in the same category as someone who pounds a hammer not to drive a nail but to make noise. The latter are not so brazen as to be hired and paid carpenter wages, but quite a few such painters have managed to have their works hung in museums. That, I think, is what enrages most Objectivists about modern art, the sheer nihilism of some of it. I'm with them on that.”

…is what it boils down to. 'Art as Microcosm' is an excellent work.

-Victor

[Ellen Stuttle]

Sorry to blip back in again. In my late-night musings, the thought surfaced that I'd misplaced a word when I quoted Franz Liszt on "The Moonlight" sonata of Beethoven's.

I wrote (post #48): "Re the Moonlight, Franz Liszt described the composition as 'a flower between two chasms.' Perfect, I think." The word he used (in French) was "abysses."

Here's the source, from the von Bulow notes to my edition (almost in tatters) of the Beethoven sonatas:

"Allegretto means poco allegro. The movement [the 2nd movement] should not exceed a moderate minuet-tempo, in this point precisely resembling the analogous movements in the Sonatas Op. 2, Nos 1 and 2; Op. 10, No 2; Op 14, No 1, not to speak of later ones. This anti-Scherzo is, indeed, a lyrical Intermezzo between two tragical Nocturnes. Franz Liszt's clever mot: 'Une fleur entre deux abimes' (a flower betwixt two abysses) gives the key to the true interpretation."

I LOVE von Bulow's notes. They are so pedantic -- for instance, one in which, after some lengthy discussion, he concludes that the measure must simply be extended by an extra semi-demiquaver -- but almost unfailingly, imo, on target as to the interpretive issues.

(Please excuse the lack of the proper accent in "Bulow" and in "abimes." There's a way to code those, but I don't know the way.)

Ellen

Edit: Damn, I wrote "The" instead of "Une" first try. Good night.

___

Edited January 17, 2007 by Ellen Stuttle

[Dragonfly]

I'm not aware that Beethoven's 5th has ever been cited as an example of "triumph of the hero." I'm more familiar with the fatalistic interpretation of the 4-note motif in its opening movement. That movement is a perfect example (as is the finale of his Moonlight Sonata or Chopin's Scherzo in B minor) of Byronic defiant, pessimistic striving.

But the Symphony just doesn't consist only of its opening movement! Of course we all know the story about "fate knocking at the door" (blah-blah-blah blaaah!), but the symphony ends in a triumphant finale in C major. It has become the archetypical example of an artwork that describes triumph over adversity. To give only a few examples: here, here, and here.

As for upward melody/major tonality themes, we can give examples all day long, but I like to also toss in popular songs to get the point across quickly.

That doesn't help much, as I don't know any of your popular songs.

But, I maintain, there are people who are also tone-deaf to yearning, surging melodies, to morose, pessimistic melodies, etc., too. They just stomp their feet and say that music does not represent emotion or convey emotion, it just "is," and it is to be appreciated for its "significant form" or some such rot.

It's not clear to me whether you imply that I am "tone-deaf", but I certainly don't deny that music can convey emotion, I only think that this cannot be reduced to simplistic schemes like upward/downward melody, minor/major, etc.

Well, I think that the real refutation of this notion is found by a good look at popular songs.

Well, I don't give a damn about popular songs. Perhaps you can give examples from Schubert's songs? After all he was one of the greatest song writers that ever lived.

[Dragonfly]

That strong a negative reaction, huh? "Detest." I love his fifth symphony, though these days I don't want to listen to it more than every now and then. He himself thought, and I agree, that his fourth symphony was every bit as good a symphony, and he was reportedly somewhat irritated at the fifth's getting more attention.

My beef is especially with the last movement (although I no longer can listen to the first movement either, I've heard it far too often), it's of a staggering banality, all those blaring C major themes, not to mention the endless repetition of the C major chord at the end, this is really Beethoven at his worst (as I wrote earlier, he could do better, I like to play the Waldstein, even if it is also in C major! Further he wrote some great chamber music.) Another piece that I can't stand is the first movement of the Appassionata, the banality of the first theme when it is repeated with bang-a-bang-a-bang-a-bang-a-bang-a-bang bang!! I find that so cheap and vulgar. It's a pity, as the second and the third movement are wonderful.

[Dragonfly]

Regarding Rachmaninoff, I think a MUCH better case for "malevolent" sense of life (granting any meaning to the term, which I hardly do) could be made in his case. He did tend to be morose and beset by melancholy, and I think that there's a fair amount of "melancholy" in his music.

I agree! I've found it always quite ironic that Rand with her rants against a "malevolent" sense of life was such a fan of Rachmaninoff, whose music is characterized by an all-pervading melancholy, which renders it rather monochromatic.

[Dragonfly]

Re the Moonlight, Franz Liszt described the composition as "a flower between two [abysses]*." Perfect, I think. (The first movement is powerful IF it's played right, but playing it right needs a much better pianist than "every girl in junior high school."

Those girls usually don't play the dotted rhythm in the theme, but a sixteenth triplet. I agree that the first movement is powerful when played well.

[Roger Bissell]

But, I maintain, there are people who are also tone-deaf to yearning, surging melodies, to morose, pessimistic melodies, etc., too. They just stomp their feet and say that music does not represent emotion or convey emotion, it just "is," and it is to be appreciated for its "significant form" or some such rot.

It's not clear to me whether you imply that I am "tone-deaf", but I certainly don't deny that music can convey emotion, I only think that this cannot be reduced to simplistic schemes like upward/downward melody, minor/major, etc.

Not ~completely~ reduced to those schema, but ~partly~ -- in much the same manner as personality psychologists have identified over 50% (I don't recall the exact figure) of the variation in personalities as being due to differences along 5 dimensions. (See the Big 5 aka Neo-PI of McCrea and Costa.)

I'm not trying to explain ~everything~ about music's emotional effects, but I do think that there are valid and significant avenues for chipping away at it. (Similarly, in focusing on ~dramatic~ music's emotional effects, I am not arguing that ~all~ music must be like this in order to have an emotional effect.)

As I said previously, people reject this approach for various reasons, only ~one~ of which is that they are "deaf" to the presence and effectiveness of these factors. Another is that they are ideologically and/or temperamentally opposed to it. Etc. I am just conceding that there are various types of people I am not going to be able to convince with even my best arguments. I don't yet know where you fit in...

As for upward melody/major tonality themes, we can give examples all day long, but I like to also toss in popular songs to get the point across quickly.

That doesn't help much, as I don't know any of your popular songs....

Well, I think that the real refutation of this notion is found by a good look at popular songs.

Well, I don't give a damn about popular songs. Perhaps you can give examples from Schubert's songs? After all he was one of the greatest song writers that ever lived.

OK, I don't mind coming to the Mountain -- or to Mohammed, whichever. Please share with me the names of your three favorite Schubert songs, particularly in regard to their emotional content, and why you like them. I will then reflect on them and provide my own analysis of that content in the terms of which you are skeptical. You can then get an idea of what I intend to joyously frolic through in American popular songs and Classical musical themes.

REB

[Roger Bissell]

Regarding Rachmaninoff, I think a MUCH better case for "malevolent" sense of life (granting any meaning to the term, which I hardly do) could be made in his case. He did tend to be morose and beset by melancholy, and I think that there's a fair amount of "melancholy" in his music.

I agree! I've found it always quite ironic that Rand with her rants against a "malevolent" sense of life was such a fan of Rachmaninoff, whose music is characterized by an all-pervading melancholy, which renders it rather monochromatic.

I agree more with Ellen's assessment: there is a "fair amount of 'melancholy' " in Rachaninoff's music. I don't agree with Dragonfly that it is "all-pervading." Nor do I see his music as "rather monochromatic." He certainly has a distinctive style, but it has quite a bit of variety in it, mood-wise. There are morose, defiant, jubilant, serene, lushly lyrical passages, some with sparkling orchestration, others with more muted orchestration. So, how Dragonfly manages to reduce his music to "all-pervading melancholy," I don't know.

REB

[Ellen Stuttle]

But [beethoven's Fifth] Symphony just doesn't consist only of its opening movement! Of course we all know the story about "fate knocking at the door" (blah-blah-blah blaaah!), but the symphony ends in a triumphant finale in C major. It has become the archetypical example of an artwork that describes triumph over adversity. To give only a few examples: here, here, and here.

When I was taking some musicology courses at Northwestern, the Beethoven fifth symphony was affectionately though humorously (with a twinkle in his eye) referred to by one of my professors as "the symphony that won World War II." I gathered from his further comments that it was played a lot in various broadcasts as a morale encourager.

Ellen

___

[Dragonfly]

OK, I don't mind coming to the Mountain -- or to Mohammed, whichever. Please share with me the names of your three favorite Schubert songs, particularly in regard to their emotional content, and why you like them. I will then reflect on them and provide my own analysis of that content in the terms of which you are skeptical. You can then get an idea of what I intend to joyously frolic through in American popular songs and Classical musical themes.

Mohammed, I'll think about it, but that may take some time.

The Mountain.

[Roger Bissell]

OK, I don't mind coming to the Mountain -- or to Mohammed, whichever. Please share with me the names of your three favorite Schubert songs, particularly in regard to their emotional content, and why you like them. I will then reflect on them and provide my own analysis of that content in the terms of which you are skeptical. You can then get an idea of what I intend to joyously frolic through in American popular songs and Classical musical themes.

Mohammed, I'll think about it, but that may take some time.

The Mountain.

Thank you, Mr. Mountain -- or should I say, Mr. The Mountain? :-)

Take your time. I'm on the road for the next 5 days, doing some pops concerts with the Grand Rapids Symphony Orchestra with the Side Street Strutters Jazz Band. When I return on Monday, if you have come up with several Schubert favorites, I will try to find some decent recordings and printed versions of them to guide me in my study.

This is going to be a really good way to jump-start my analysis project. Schubert is well reputed as a song-writer, perhaps, as you and others say, the greatest who ever lived. I sang his Standchen (or one of them) in college, and I liked it very much. I personally like both Michel LeGrand and Stephen Sondheim better, and some of the earlier 20th century song writers, too, but you can't go wrong starting with the Fountainhead of Western Song-writing.

Later, folks.

REB

[Danneskjold]

Roger, back to the first page you said:

That is rather tricky. I guess I'll have to retract what I said previously about furniture being art (in relation to architecture). The building is designed by the architect, and the furnishings are selected by the owner (and/or his interior decorator). So, the furnishings are not part of the artwork (the architecture). Given a specific building, what furnishings are selected is optional, so a specific set of furnishings is not essential to the nature of a given piece of architecture. Are the chairs, sofas, etc., themselves artworks? I don't think so. The microcosm created in architecture is that of a world where a certain kind of man lives in a certain kind of environment. How he furnishes his environment is the optional element and adds on the utilitarian element of an actual man living in a certain kind of dwelling with certain specific furnishings. That's a key aspect of why architecture is both aesthetic (embodying basic abstractions in a microcosm) and utilitarian.

There is much in our world that is optionally put there. A building itself (when looked at as part of the world not as a microcosm) is part of reality and can be depicted in art. It is completely optional. In the same way furniture is optional and therefore is as much a part of the microcosm as anything else. Optional things are part of reality and the world and therefore can be part of a microcosm. So furniture would remain art as long as architecture remains art by this definition, would it not?

Edited January 27, 2007 by Jeff Kremer

[Roger Bissell]

Roger, back to the first page you said:

That is rather tricky. I guess I'll have to retract what I said previously about furniture being art (in relation to architecture). The building is designed by the architect, and the furnishings are selected by the owner (and/or his interior decorator). So, the furnishings are not part of the artwork (the architecture). Given a specific building, what furnishings are selected is optional, so a specific set of furnishings is not essential to the nature of a given piece of architecture. Are the chairs, sofas, etc., themselves artworks? I don't think so. The microcosm created in architecture is that of a world where a certain kind of man lives in a certain kind of environment. How he furnishes his environment is the optional element and adds on the utilitarian element of an actual man living in a certain kind of dwelling with certain specific furnishings. That's a key aspect of why architecture is both aesthetic (embodying basic abstractions in a microcosm) and utilitarian.

There is much in our world that is optionally put there. A building itself (when looked at as part of the world not as a microcosm) is part of reality and can be depicted in art. It is completely optional. In the same way furniture is optional and therefore is as much a part of the microcosm as anything else. Optional things are part of reality and the world and therefore can be part of a microcosm. So furniture would remain art as long as architecture remains art by this definition, would it not?

Jeff, I stand by my earlier statement: it's tricky!

Unless the architect ~specifies~ or ~designs~ a certain set of furniture for the building he creates, I'd still have to say that the ~specific~ set of furnishings it happens to have are ~not~ an "essential" part of the artwork. The building ~is already~ an artwork and a microcosm, apart from whatever specific furnishings it happens to have. To put it in Randian epistemological jargon: an architectural microcosm "must have SOME furnishings but may have ANY," within a broad range of equivalent usefulness and acceptable taste to the creator and/or consumer. So, any specific set of furnishings is only, in a sense, "part of the artwork" (microcosm), in that SOME set MUST be present to fulfill the utilitarian aspect of the building, but ANY (i.e., any one of a number of options) MAY be present and still fulfill that function.

So, yes, the furniture a building does in fact ~function as~ "part of a microcosm," so it is part of the artwork, ~in that sense~. However, being included in a building does not elevate furniture to the status of art, any more than a picture's having a frame elevates the frame to the status of art. In other words, furniture is no more a form of art than are picture frames. They are just functional aspects, in one way or another, of the actual artworks, the microcosm created by the painting or the building.

You see why this must be so: if we were to admit that anything humanly made that is in a piece of architecture is art, then newspapers, milk cartons, Kleenexes, and cigarette butts are all art -- which is just what some modern art advocates argue in regard to their museum displays! So, we have to draw the line precisely where (I claim) Rand does: that which is a microcosm (an imaginary world) is an artwork. That which is an essential (even though optional) part of a microcosm is a part of an artwork, but not an artwork itself per se. (I can hang a painting or a photograph in my house, but doing so does not make either of them an artwork by that act. Indeed, the painting ~already is~ an artwork, apart from being so displayed, and the photograph ~is not~.)

I hope this helps.

REB

[Danneskjold]

First off, I agree completely that we must draw the line somewhere. What I am considering (and am by no means sure of) at the moment is that the place where you draw the line, separating architecture from furniture, is separating things into groups based on non-essentials.

You said,

Unless the architect ~specifies~ or ~designs~ a certain set of furniture for the building he creates, I'd still have to say that the ~specific~ set of furnishings it happens to have are ~not~ an "essential" part of the artwork. The building ~is already~ an artwork and a microcosm, apart from whatever specific furnishings it happens to have. To put it in Randian epistemological jargon: an architectural microcosm "must have SOME furnishings but may have ANY," within a broad range of equivalent usefulness and acceptable taste to the creator and/or consumer. So, any specific set of furnishings is only, in a sense, "part of the artwork" (microcosm), in that SOME set MUST be present to fulfill the utilitarian aspect of the building, but ANY (i.e., any one of a number of options) MAY be present and still fulfill that function.

I do not see why this means that the furniture that is in isn't art. Why is there a separation of what can be considered art in the microcosm, based on what is optional to put there, any more than there is a separation between what is and is not part of the world? Buildings are optional in the world, paintings of buildings are considered art, why not buildings being represented by furniture in the microcosm of a building (architecture)?

So, yes, the furniture a building does in fact ~function as~ "part of a microcosm," so it is part of the artwork, ~in that sense~. However, being included in a building does not elevate furniture to the status of art, any more than a picture's having a frame elevates the frame to the status of art. In other words, furniture is no more a form of art than are picture frames. They are just functional aspects, in one way or another, of the actual artworks, the microcosm created by the painting or the building.

I liked the analogy you used in your essay about a frame being a window into the microcosm. Keeping that in mind, a frame has a function and is not a part of the microcosm itself. The furniture is inside and therefore a part.

Class time, I'll add more later.

[Roger Bissell]

First off, I agree completely that we must draw the line somewhere. What I am considering (and am by no means sure of) at the moment is that the place where you draw the line, separating architecture from furniture, is separating things into groups based on non-essentials.

You said,

Unless the architect specifies or designs a certain set of furniture for the building he creates, I'd still have to say that the specific set of furnishings it happens to have are not an "essential" part of the artwork. The building is already an artwork and a microcosm, apart from whatever specific furnishings it happens to have. To put it in Randian epistemological jargon: an architectural microcosm "must have SOME furnishings but may have ANY," within a broad range of equivalent usefulness and acceptable taste to the creator and/or consumer. So, any specific set of furnishings is only, in a sense, "part of the artwork" (microcosm), in that SOME set MUST be present to fulfill the utilitarian aspect of the building, but ANY (i.e., any one of a number of options) MAY be present and still fulfill that function.

I do not see why this means that the furniture that is in isn't art. Why is there a separation of what can be considered art in the microcosm, based on what is optional to put there, any more than there is a separation between what is and is not part of the world? Buildings are optional in the world, paintings of buildings are considered art, why not buildings being represented by furniture in the microcosm of a building (architecture)?.

OK, let me try this analogy. Suppose I like a particular room for doing portraits, and the room's function as portrayed in my paintings is, in effect, to be the microcosm of each portrait I do. If I do a portrait of Michael K. and a portrait of Ellen S., the image of each of them in the painting is a part of the artwork/microcosm, but those images are not themselves art or a microcosm, but only part of that artwork/microcosm, the painted room that contains their painted images. It is still the same microcosm, whether I have Michael or Ellen as the subject (i.e., as a part of it), so in that respect they are not essential parts of the microcosm, whereas the room is essential to its being that imaginary world/microcosm. (We can also imagine my using a different room in which to paint Michael and Ellen, so one particular room and microcosm is not essential to their being parts of some microcosm. To be the subject of a painting, they must be a part of SOME microcosm, but may be part of ANY.)

The same applied, in parallel, to the issue of furniture and whether or in what sense it is an "essential" part of an architectural microcosm. This building/microcosm MAY have this furniture but MUST have some furniture. This furniture MAY be in this building/microcosm, but MUST be in some building/microcosm. Furniture is not a microcosm, any more than the subject of a painting is a microcosm. Furniture and painting subjects are in and parts of microcosms.

So, yes, the furniture a building does in fact function as "part of a microcosm," so it is part of the artwork, in that sense. However, being included in a building does not elevate furniture to the status of art, any more than a picture's having a frame elevates the frame to the status of art. In other words, furniture is no more a form of art than are picture frames. They are just functional aspects, in one way or another, of the actual artworks, the microcosm created by the painting or the building.

I liked the analogy you used in your essay about a frame being a window into the microcosm. Keeping that in mind, a frame has a function and is not a part of the microcosm itself. The furniture is inside and therefore a part.

Yes, that is the point I'm trying to make. That's why I went into the comparison between furniture and the subject of a painting (rather than the frame; the analogy to a painting frame might be the yard or grounds surrounding a piece of architecture, whatever sets it off from "the rest of the world").

REB

[Roger Bissell]

OK, I don't mind coming to the Mountain -- or to Mohammed, whichever. Please share with me the names of your three favorite Schubert songs, particularly in regard to their emotional content, and why you like them. I will then reflect on them and provide my own analysis of that content in the terms of which you are skeptical. You can then get an idea of what I intend to joyously frolic through in American popular songs and Classical musical themes.

Mohammed, I'll think about it, but that may take some time.

The Mountain.

Thank you, Mr. Mountain -- or should I say, Mr. The Mountain? :-)

Take your time. I'm on the road for the next 5 days, doing some pops concerts with the Grand Rapids Symphony Orchestra with the Side Street Strutters Jazz Band. When I return on Monday, if you have come up with several Schubert favorites, I will try to find some decent recordings and printed versions of them to guide me in my study.

This is going to be a really good way to jump-start my analysis project. Schubert is well reputed as a song-writer, perhaps, as you and others say, the greatest who ever lived. I sang his Standchen (or one of them) in college, and I liked it very much. I personally like both Michel LeGrand and Stephen Sondheim better, and some of the earlier 20th century song writers, too, but you can't go wrong starting with the Fountainhead of Western Song-writing.

Later, folks.

REB

Well, it has been "some time" now, Dragonfly -- a little over 2 weeks since you offered to "think about" what were your three favorite Schubert songs and why. I'm ready when you are!

Best,

REB

[Dragonfly]

Well, it has been "some time" now, Dragonfly -- a little over 2 weeks since you offered to "think about" what were your three favorite Schubert songs and why. I'm ready when you are!

Please have some more patience... I've been working on it, but it goes slowly, as I want to give some music examples, which involves using a music score program (with all its quirks and problems) and a graphics program as well, which is all rather time consuming. Further I'm quite busy with other work at the moment, so I can't spend much time on it now. I haven't forgotten you, but you'll just have to wait somewhat longer...

[Roger Bissell]

Well, it has been "some time" now, Dragonfly -- a little over 2 weeks since you offered to "think about" what were your three favorite Schubert songs and why. I'm ready when you are!

Please have some more patience... I've been working on it, but it goes slowly, as I want to give some music examples, which involves using a music score program (with all its quirks and problems) and a graphics program as well, which is all rather time consuming. Further I'm quite busy with other work at the moment, so I can't spend much time on it now. I haven't forgotten you, but you'll just have to wait somewhat longer...

Gee, sounds like a whole lot more trouble than I was expecting you to go to. You are so ambitious! I just wanted two or three song titles, along with your comments on why you liked them. But musical details are fine. And there is no hurry. Actually, I'm a lot less busy (so far) in March than this month. So, take your time.

REB

[Jonathan]

Roger wrote,

Please share with me the names of your three favorite Schubert songs, particularly in regard to their emotional content, and why you like them. I will then reflect on them and provide my own analysis of that content in the terms of which you are skeptical. You can then get an idea of what I intend to joyously frolic through in American popular songs and Classical musical themes.

Roger, when you have some time, would you mind providing some material to contrast against your future analysis of Dragonfly's favorite Schubert songs? Do a Google image search for Anish Kapoor, and then share with us the names of your three favorites of Kapoor's art, particularly in regard to their emotional content, and why you like them. I will then reflect on them and provide my own analysis of that content in the terms of which Objectivists might be skeptical.

J