Art as Microcosm (2004)

[Jonathan]

I'm afraid that I have to completely disagree with you on this view. Yes, Wright often designed structures around the scale of the average height man of his day.

Why the "average man"? That's kind of "Naturalistic" in the Randian sense, isn't it? Why not the heroically tall man?

What about the guests that the "average man" might have in his home? Or was he to not have taller than average guests? Was avoiding friendships with taller people one of the heroic lessons that the owners were to learn when having their souls improved by living in one of Wright's buildings?

But Taliesin wasn't designed for the general public, it was designed for Wright himself and he was correct in selecting his own standards of scale for that project.

I wasn't speaking of just the home, but of Hillside as well, specifically its most public of spaces, the theater. The theater was being used on the day that I last visited, so many people were moving about, in and out. Several, about half, as I mentioned, were forced to duck uncomfortably or tilt their heads for long periods while waiting for the crowd to open up so they could get to areas with more headroom.

Anyway, I agree with much of what you say about letting the architect do what he does best. I hope to comment more on that in the future.

I must also take strong exception to the characterization of Wright as not caring greatly about his clients.

I didn't mean to characterize him that way. I simply meant to point out that he sometimes ignored the physical and psychological requirements of the occupants. There are many well-known complaints. Some are probably legitimate gripes, some probably aren't, and I'm sure that some have been exaggerated or even made up.

What are the complaints from Gehry's clients?

Btw, Jim, thanks for the web address. You've got some fabulous work there. Damn, what a talented bunch of people on OL!

J

[cjsmall]

Quickly following up on Ellen's post, I would say that my judgment of Gehry's work as nihilistic is focused on the values (or lack thereof) conveyed by the work itself. I could care less about the man himself. But I think it would be instructive for people that are interested to read some of Gehry's own words about his process of creation in these works. I don't have any immediate pointers, but a search should result in some articles on the internet. To make these assessments, it is not necessary to engage in psycho-epistemology. One must only refer to the facts of the built work itself.

Another interesting comparison might be to investigate the social values embodied in Wright's work as contrasted with those expressed by the buildings of the traditional European International Style typified by the white-box structures of Le Corbusier.

Regards,

--

Jeff

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

One note.

I never said that Gehry was nihilistic. I mentioned some works I saw that sure look nihilistic to me, though, especially that building that looks like a crumpled piece of paper or the squashed clay buildings. I also said some of his work was amusement-park kind of fun. I do admit that he has to be one hell of an architect technique-wise to have those things built and make sure they stay up.

I am in full agreement with using EXTREME CAUTION in labeling any artist. That even includes pop artists.

I happen to like new stuff and abstract style (when done with talent), but I don't think I would like to live or work in any of those buildings by Gehry I saw. I would not be adverse to trying, though. They sure are conversation pieces.

Jeff,

I would like to see more of your work. That's some beautiful stuff, but it is an appetizer. I want the meal.

Jim,

I went to your site. Your work is gorgeous, all of it, even the abstract collages. Jonathan is right about the talented people here. I liked Karen's quirky sculptures, too. But it all paled beside Genevieve's masterpieces.

Michael

[James Shay]

Quickly following up on Ellen's post, I would say that my judgment of Gehry's work as nihilistic is focused on the values (or lack thereof) conveyed by the work itself. I could care less about the man himself. But I think it would be instructive for people that are interested to read some of Gehry's own words about his process of creation in these works. I don't have any immediate pointers, but a search should result in some articles on the internet. To make these assessments, it is not necessary to engage in psycho-epistemology. One must only refer to the facts of the built work itself.

Another interesting comparison might be to investigate the social values embodied in Wright's work as contrasted with those expressed by the buildings of the traditional European International Style typified by the white-box structures of Le Corbusier.

Regards,

--

Jeff

I second Jeff's remarks. Architectural forms do convey beliefs, values, and emotions. He mentions le Corbusier. The critic Charles Jencks has a monograph on him entitled Le Corbusier and the Tragic View of Architecture. To me, that tragic view is quite apparent in many of his buildings. He may have been a "non-tragic guy", but the work has definate tragic aspects to it. That's part of his artistry - his ability to evoke strong emotion. Whether or not Gehry is nihilistic, much of his work certainly is. Incidentally, I do agree that the detailing in most of them is really so-so, but he has said, "I am not a detail man". It shows.

And much currently fashionable art is thoroughly and totally nihilistic, if I may use that word yet again.

Thanks for your comment on my work, Jonathan. Jim

[James Shay]

Quickly following up on Ellen's post, I would say that my judgment of Gehry's work as nihilistic is focused on the values (or lack thereof) conveyed by the work itself. I could care less about the man himself. But I think it would be instructive for people that are interested to read some of Gehry's own words about his process of creation in these works. I don't have any immediate pointers, but a search should result in some articles on the internet. To make these assessments, it is not necessary to engage in psycho-epistemology. One must only refer to the facts of the built work itself.

Another interesting comparison might be to investigate the social values embodied in Wright's work as contrasted with those expressed by the buildings of the traditional European International Style typified by the white-box structures of Le Corbusier.

Regards,

--

Jeff

I second Jeff's remarks. Architectural forms do convey beliefs, values, and emotions. He mentions le Corbusier. The critic Charles Jencks has a monograph on him entitled Le Corbusier and the Tragic View of Architecture. To me, that tragic view is quite apparent in many of his buildings. He may have been a "non-tragic guy", but the work has definate tragic aspects to it. That's part of his artistry - his ability to evoke strong emotion. Whether or not Gehry is nihilistic, much of his work certainly is. Incidentally, I do agree that the detailing in most of them is really so-so, but he has said, "I am not a detail man". It shows.

And much currently fashionable art is thoroughly and totally nihilistic, if I may use that word yet again.

Thanks for your comment on my work, Jonathan. Jim

Thanks, Michael, and I will pass on your praise to Genevieve. She is now 13 and a bit shy about putting new work on the site, but I'm encouraging her. Jim

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Jim.

I hope Karen does not get offended by my word, "quirky." I meant that in a good way: "Quirky-primitive."

(Er... ahem... I think I'll stop now because this seems to be digging me in deeper... I really do like it, though...)

Michael

[Ellen Stuttle]

Quickly following up on Ellen's post, I would say that my judgment of Gehry's work as nihilistic is focused on the values (or lack thereof) conveyed by the work itself. [....] To make these assessments, it is not necessary to engage in psycho-epistemology. One must only refer to the facts of the built work itself.

Another interesting comparison might be to investigate the social values embodied in Wright's work as contrasted with those expressed by the buildings of the traditional European International Style typified by the white-box structures of Le Corbusier.

Regards,

--

Jeff

I second Jeff's remarks. Architectural forms do convey beliefs, values, and emotions. He mentions le Corbusier. The critic Charles Jencks has a monograph on him entitled Le Corbusier and the Tragic View of Architecture. To me, that tragic view is quite apparent in many of his buildings. He may have been a "non-tragic guy", but the work has definate tragic aspects to it. That's part of his artistry - his ability to evoke strong emotion. Whether or not Gehry is nihilistic, much of his work certainly is. Incidentally, I do agree that the detailing in most of them is really so-so, but he has said, "I am not a detail man". It shows. [....]

So the two of you agree that it's possible objectively to identify what's there in the work itself, yes? I'd be interested in comments from either or both providing specifics of features of architecture which (in Jim's words) "convey beliefs, values, and emotions."

On the other side, I'll give some examples, one from music and a couple from architecture, to indicate why I think that such assessments are in the eye (or ear) of the beholder.

Once upon a time, in regard to music, I thought that the emotion was "there" in the piece. But then, back in late '69 or early '70, I got into a conversation which challenged this opinion, and ever since I've thought it was incorrect. The conversation occurred during a break between a couple meetings of the Grants Committees of the American Cancer Society. I was working as exec. secretary. to the head of the Research Department, and among the things I did was to take minutes of Grants Committees proceedings. One of the research oncologists who was there was a classical music aficionado. He well knew the repertoire. We got to talking about performers, and then about composers. I told him that my overall personal favorite was Beethoven. He replied that he didn't much like Beethoven and then said that he thought "there's more emotion in any two measures of Debussy than in all of Beethoven." I stood there feeling, and I expect looking, dumbfounded, didn't know what to say, how to process his remark. About then the meeting resumed, and I didn't get a chance to try to find out where his reaction was coming from, what he was hearing differently from the way I heard the two composers.

I hear Beethoven's music as characterized by passionateness -- as well as by logicality. On the other hand I hear Debussy as lovely in sound but cool in emotion. My belief is that if a poll of persons familiar with the classical repetoire were taken, the much larger percentage would hear the two composers more similarly to the way I do than the reverse. I think that there are musical features which can be identified and which would produce these differences in a "significant" percentage of listeners. But what I realized after my conversation with X (I've forgotten his name) was that I saw no way of justifying a claim that I was right and he was wrong -- a claim that "objectively" the music IS how I hear it rather than how he heard it. I think the differences of hearing come from some internal differences of processing between the two of us, instead of being "there" outside us in the music.

--

An architectural example: the Communist-style apartment and office buildings built in the Budapest area while Hungary was under the rulership of the Soviet Union. When I read the description of Gehry's architecture as "nihilist," the buildings which came to my mind as those I'd choose were I to describe architecture as "nihilist" were those buildings. I find the style horrendously ugly: unadorned rectangular shapes, maybe with balconies but otherwise stark, a barred-window look, and muddy colors, murky green or gray or dingy yellow. Depressing to see, I feel. And from what I was told by Budapest residents, I was far from alone in the reaction. Furthermore, many of the people felt -- and from what I was told, correctly -- that the buildings had been a deliberate attempt to add depression to the woes of a subjugated populace.

Thus I could say that in this case malicious intent was a factor in the architectural design (along with Communist ideology which was opposed to frivolousness). But I don't see that it would be legitimate to say that the buildings as such -- their form, their style -- somehow objectively make a nihilist statement.

(Adding to the gloom, there were no funds during the Soviet years for cleaning the old-style architecture, with the result that the central area of Pest came to be a city coated by black -- dirt thick in cornices and crevices. The first time I was in Budapest was the summer of 2003. At that time, the attempt to clean up the city's buildings had hardly made a noticeable dent. The populace, too, seemed still buried under the mood of the dark years. The second time I was there, the summer of 2006, the appearance had changed dramatically for the better. Most of the buildings were at least partly cleaned, and I understood why Budapest has been called "the jewel of the Danube.")

Another example is the old walled city on the Buda hills. To me, and to lots of others, that area today is an enchanting sight, a romantic place to stroll, especially after sunset with the stone lit by soft light looking like lantern light, and the spire of Matjus church -- lit by spotlights -- glowing in its colors. But I couldn't say that the architecture objectively symbolizes romance. Nor was it built with romance as a theme. Instead, those walls were a functional fortress, intended to protect against marauders from the East.

Ellen

___

[Jonathan]

Whether or not Gehry is nihilistic, much of his work certainly is.

In the way that you're using "nihilistic" here, would the term also describe Roark's work?

J

[Victor Pross]

Same here re the labeling, especially since the terms aren't precisifiable in meaning; they're vague, mushy terms which are so often used by Objectivists as if the Objectivists think they know exactly what they're talking about and can objectively assess and diagnose the artist's -- or anyone's, for that matter -- "sense of life" or "psycho-epistemology." In fact the judgments are highly subjective, and in regard to particular artists I've often found them laughable; e.g., the old chestnuts of Rand's describing Beethoven's "sense of life" as "malevolent" and decreeing that Rembrandt had a poor "psycho-espistemology." But I've often noticed that even Objectivists who disagree with these evaluations continue to talk as if they can confidently say what an artist's -- or anyone's -- "sense of life" and "psycho-epistemology" are. They argue that Rand was wrong in these, and other, particular cases, not that the whole procedure is wrong.

I’m inclined to agree with Ellen’s estimation of this whole business of “psych-epistemology” as being rather too subjective. At least for my taste it is—although I’m not prepared to toss Rand’s approach onto the trash heap so soon. I find it fascinating observing history with its broad periods of time—periods that are categorized as “Renaissance” or “Middle ages,” etc and to witness the art of these periods can really speak of the corresponding philosophy. But to declare someone (an individual, not a culture) who loves, say, Beethoven's music as having a “malevolent soul" (and to do so as if it were a scientific process) has always struck me as strange. Still, is it any wonder that we can look at some people who are violent and nasty and who---big shock--are into violent music? But then we are in a state of confusion if we see them weeping at a Bing Crosby tune. ;] Yeah, it can be complex.

-Victor

Edited February 8, 2007 by Victor Pross

[cjsmall]

So the two of you agree that it's possible objectively to identify what's there in the work itself, yes? I'd be interested in comments from either or both providing specifics of features of architecture which (in Jim's words) "convey beliefs, values, and emotions."

Ellen:

I hope I am not misinterpreting you, but after carefully reading your post and your challenge above, it seems to me that your position is that no objective evaluation of a work of art can be made by anyone. Since people can and do experience specific pieces of artwork differently, it must all be a subjective experience and we must leave it at that. I disagree and will attempt to explain why.

You state that you once thought that "the emotion was 'there' in the piece" but later decided that it wasn't. Well, I do agree that neither artworks nor music nor buildings contain emotions. Emotions are automatic physiological responses to subconscious evaluations. They are the mechanism by which our subconscious communicates to our conscious awareness and as such, reside "in" the observer and not in the object being contemplated. When a person has an emotional response to a piece of art, music or architecture, it is the byproduct of their subconscious evaluation of the work in relation to the personal value hierarchy which they have constructed throughout the course of their life. When your associate said "there's more emotion in any two measures of Debussy than in all of Beethoven." he was speaking imprecisely and should have said "I experience more emotion in any two measures of Debussy than I do in all of Beethoven." By making such a statement, this fellow was saying everything about his own values while stating absolutely nothing about either Debussy's or Beethoven's work. The reason you were unable to grasp where this person was coming from is easily explained. He was basically a stranger to you and during the course of your brief encounter you had no way of divining and comprehending his complex value hierarchy which certainly differed from your own.

As an aside, this example points to a serious error that runs rampant throughout all of humanity and is responsible for a great deal of the worlds problems. Because the majority of people do not consciously understand the nature of their own emotional responses, let alone those of others, when confronted by someone who exhibits a different response than their own to a common subject, many people mistakenly assume that that those conflicting emotions are a statement about the subject matter rather than properly recognizing that they are actually a statement about (and a window into) the inner working of the other person. If people would properly understand this, then there would be less misunderstanding and conflict in the world.

Getting back to the example at hand, you stated that "I saw no way of justifying a claim that I was right and he was wrong -- a claim that 'objectively' the music IS how I hear it". As I've pointed out above, this conclusion follows from failing to differentiate a persons emotions (aka, internal value hierarchy) from the subject matter. I agree that without a very deep understanding of another person's life context, value hierarchy and internal psychology, not to mention one's own, you cannot speak objectively about comparing differing emotional responses. Of course, this is the point Nathaniel Branden raised through his critical reevaluation of the abuses of phyco-epistemology in the early days of the Objectivist movement. However, that is not to say that you cannot speak objectively about the subject. How you evaluate the music may be personal, but you can still have an objective discussion about "how and what you hear in it". After all, the music exists "out there" as a physical entity and is equally subject to exploration and objective understanding as any other aspect of reality.

Now, let's tie all this back to your request for some comments about finding the expression of objective values in a work of architecture. I will use Frank Gehry's "Fred and Ginger" building in Prague as an example.

Everything is more fun with visual aids! :-)

What do we see here? We have a basically rectangular plaster-faced corner building which had two wildly different forms crashing into one another at the corner. One is a truncated inverted cone set on a circular concrete pier while the other is an amorphous glass curtainwall draped over an exposed concrete structure. One section of the middle floor protrudes through the curtainwall and is unceremoniously supported by two brackets to the floor below. It is very reminiscent of a typical Salvador Dali painting where a drawer might be seen protruding from the belly of a woman. The rectangular windows are not integral to the building but appear to be hung on the facade like pictures on a wall. At the left we see that the windows of this structure line up approximately with the adjacent preexisting building, but subsequent columns of windows have been jostled around into various patterns of misalignment.

Well, those are all objective statements about this building. The next thing one might be tempted to do in response to all these observations is very reasonably ask WHY? Why were each of these decisions made by someone who professes to be an architect? What are they in service of and what is accomplished by the overall expression of the structure? It has been reported that Gehry derived his inspiration for this assemblage from watching Fred Astaire and Ginger Rodgers dancing in old movies. So we have Ginger on the left with her whirling legs at the sidewalk, pinched waist and a drawer extending from her belly (hey, why not) as she twirls around the rigid Fred who appears to be having a bad hair day. I guess the windows are the sequins on their costumes. Again, I ask a bit more forcefully, what the hell does this have to do with architecture?

* How does his building fit into its surroundings? What does it contribute to the urban landscape of Prague?

* What type of building is it? Commercial? Residential? Is that even an important consideration?

* How does it accommodate and support its human occupants? Were the occupants even a consideration?

* Yea, but it's a pretty funny joke! To the tune of many 10 of millions of dollars in construction costs.

I'm still asking why and I'm not getting any answers. I'm the kind of person who starts to have a negative emotional experience when I can't make sense out of something as monumental as this. When I see all the different building materials crashing into one another with no particular purpose, my sense of rational order is challenged and I have a negative emotional response. The misaligned windows, the tilted wall planes, the protruding section of floor and undulating surfaces strongly suggest an unstable building that is in a state of collapse and for some strange reason, as a professional who spends a lot of time trying to make things stand up, that just doesn't make me feel very good. The way everything connects here seems haphazard and inelegant. Again, I like finely crafted objects and I have an adverse reaction to shoddy merchandise. Well, that certainly says a lot about me!

The question is, can we make any sort of objective assessment about the building itself irrespective of our emotional appraisals? What human values does it support and which ones does it deny? Overall, is this an expression of rationality or the irrational? Is it an example of order or chaos? Does it wish to be taken seriousness or is it an expression of whimsy? Does it demonstrate craftsmanship or does it come off as more of an accident? Does it respect or shun humanity?

I'm sure that there are people who, upon seeing this building, are filled with overwhelming positive emotions. That's OK with me. However, neither my emotional response nor theirs has any bearing on how the question in the preceding paragraph should be answered. The answer to those questions lie in the form, expression and execution of the building itself and not in our emotional appraisals.

From the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary:

nihilism 1 a: a viewpoint that traditional values and beliefs are unfounded and that existence is senseless and useless 1b: a doctrine that denies any objective ground of truth and especially of moral truths 2a: a doctrine or belief that conditions in the social organization are so bad as to make destruction desirable for its own sake independent of any constructive program or possibility

I'll let each of you decide if any of these definitions is applicable to this structure.

Regards,

--

Jeff

[Dragonfly]

What do we see here? We have a basically rectangular plaster-faced corner building which had two wildly different forms crashing into one another at the corner. One is a truncated inverted cone set on a circular concrete pier while the other is an amorphous glass curtainwall draped over an exposed concrete structure. One section of the middle floor protrudes through the curtainwall and is unceremoniously supported by two brackets to the floor below. It is very reminiscent of a typical Salvador Dali painting where a drawer might be seen protruding from the belly of a woman. The rectangular windows are not integral to the building but appear to be hung on the facade like pictures on a wall. At the left we see that the windows of this structure line up approximately with the adjacent preexisting building, but subsequent columns of windows have been jostled around into various patterns of misalignment.

Well, those are all objective statements about this building.

Far from it, this is a highly subjective description, full of loaded terms: wildly, crashing, unceremoniously, jostled around, misalignment. For example, instead of "crashing into one another" you could equally well have said "embracing each other", as an admirer of the building might have done. A really objective description would be a dry enumeration of lengths, angles, materials, etc. Your description is like a show trial, however. There is of course nothing wrong in telling why you dislike some artwork, and you may use colorful and suggestive language in doing so. But please don't pretend then that it is an objective description.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Dragonfly,

You find "misalignment" to be a colorful subjective term? Doesn't it just mean out of alignment (with some standard)? That sounds pretty objective (cognitve) to me.

Michael

[Dragonfly]

You find "misalignment" to be a colorful subjective term? Doesn't it just mean out of alignment (with some standard)? That sounds pretty objective (cognitve) to me.

Not to me. The prefix "mis-" has negative connotations; in this case it suggests that something should be aligned (that it is the "standard" in your words); according to the dictionary it means "incorrectly aligned". A neutral term would be something like "displaced with regard to".

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Dragonfly,

That seems stretching it to me, but I won't belabor the point.

With Gehry's Fred and Ginger building, I am reminded of Kurt Vonnegut in Cat's Cradle. He said the whole problem with the little children's string pastime was "No damn cat. No damn cradle." (I am going from memory, but I think that is accurate.)

With Gehry's building, a major problem I see (or don't see) is "No damn Fred. No damn Ginger."

(If I removed the "damn," maybe this would be objective? )

Michael

[cjsmall]

Far from it, this is a highly subjective description, full of loaded terms: wildly, crashing, unceremoniously, jostled around, misalignment. For example, instead of "crashing into one another" you could equally well have said "embracing each other", as an admirer of the building might have done. A really objective description would be a dry enumeration of lengths, angles, materials, etc. Your description is like a show trial, however. There is of course nothing wrong in telling why you dislike some artwork, and you may use colorful and suggestive language in doing so. But please don't pretend then that it is an objective description.

Dragonfly:

Is this the sum of your argument in support of the claim that it is impossible to speak objectively about human values being conveyed through a work of art, music or architecture? Can you articulate your own view on the subject and provide some supporting evidence so that I can get a better understanding of your position as well as your criticism of my approach? What is your own analysis of this Gehry building?

Regards,

--

Jeff

Edited February 8, 2007 by Jeffery Small

[James Shay]

Whether or not Gehry is nihilistic, much of his work certainly is.

In the way that you're using "nihilistic" here, would the term also describe Roark's work?

J

Jonathan, In my imagination his buildings are far from nihilistic. When I read the book in my twenties I saw them as somewhat Wrightian creations of stone, glass and steel augmented with a lot of landscaping within and without the structures. They sure didn't look like the monstrosities in the movie. I believe I read that the producers wanted Wright to design Roark's work for the movie, but he wanted too much money. Jim

[Victor Pross]

Whether or not Gehry is nihilistic, much of his work certainly is.

In the way that you're using "nihilistic" here, would the term also describe Roark's work?

J

Jonathan, In my imagination his buildings are far from nihilistic. When I read the book in my twenties I saw them as somewhat Wrightian creations of stone, glass and steel augmented with a lot of landscaping within and without the structures. They sure didn't look like the monstrosities in the movie. I believe I read that the producers wanted Wright to design Roark's work for the movie, but he wanted too much money. Jim

The thing about Roark's buildings wasn’t so much about any funky designs as was the fact that he was a brilliant engineer—and that alone was enough for him to be an object of hatred and envy. The work seen above in the picture looks like the aborted embryo mess after the “mob” got their hands on the Cortland project. B)

[Roger Bissell]

When I read Roger Scruton's book on architecture as background for the related section of my microcosm paper, I was intrigued with the photos he included of what he called "Expressionist" buildings (I call them "Harry Potter buildings") somewhere in Europe. His argument was that architecture is not supposed to express emotion, so any building that deliberately warps the standard geometric shapes (especially cubes, spheres, etc.) in order to "express" some kind of personal slant on the world is not good architecture. Instead, it's sculpture aspiring to be architecture, I guess.

Well, surprise, surprise, I found that I liked and accepted those Expressionist buildings, and I thought they were well within the boundaries of acceptable architecture. In particular, I thought that I would like at least ~visiting~ the universe that they created.

Further surprise: for much the same reasons, I find that I very much like Gehry's "Fred and Ginger." It's just a name for a building, for Pete's sake! And what's wrong with the building? Do the residents or users of the building resent its design, or do they appreciate and enjoy it? Does the design enhance their living or other experience in the building, or does it detract from or impede it? That would be a good, ~objective~ fact to ascertain before condemning the building on either utilitarian or aesthetic grounds. If they like it AND it is conducive to their well-being, then it might behoove critics to find out why, and see if that is explained by their being nihilistic, perverted subjectivists or -- people using and enjoying something different from what the critics approve of.

REB

[Ellen Stuttle]

You [ES] state that you once thought that "the emotion was 'there' in the piece" but later decided that it wasn't. Well, I do agree that neither artworks nor music nor buildings contain emotions.

Um. OK, I confused things with my wording. I didn't literally think what I wrote, that "the emotion was 'there' in the piece." I was much more sophisticated in my views of music and knew that the idea of music being a language of the emotions was incorrect. Why I put it like that was (1) because of a phrasing I'd picked up from Jim Shay; he'd written (post #105) "Architectural forms do convey beliefs, values, and emotions." And (2) because the person a coversation with whom I reported had used that style of speech in saying "there's more emotion in any two measures of Debussy than in all of Beethoven." He, too, had more musical sophistication than to have literally meant that. A more precise way of saying where we differed was in our respective evaluations of whether the music was "passionate" or "cool." At that time I did think that because of formal characteristics analogous to emotional (and/or motion) processes, one could objectively assign such characteristics as "passionate" or "cool" to the composition. E.g., I thought that Rand was incorrect -- not just hearing differently but actually incorrect -- in her description of Mozart as just "formal," or lacking in emotional content, however exactly she put it.

When a person has an emotional response to a piece of art, music or architecture, it is the byproduct of their subconscious evaluation of the work in relation to the personal value hierarchy which they have constructed throughout the course of their life. When your associate said "there's more emotion in any two measures of Debussy than in all of Beethoven." he was speaking imprecisely and should have said "I experience more emotion in any two measures of Debussy than I do in all of Beethoven." By making such a statement, this fellow was saying everything about his own values while stating absolutely nothing about either Debussy's or Beethoven's work. The reason you were unable to grasp where this person was coming from is easily explained. He was basically a stranger to you and during the course of your brief encounter you had no way of divining and comprehending his complex value hierarchy which certainly differed from your own.

I disagree with details of what you said there. By "emotional response," I think you mean liking or disliking (and all variations thereon; the variations can become complicated). But you're implying -- I think -- some differences between me and him such as, e.g., that I respond positively to "the heroic" and he didn't. But this way of describing the situation would still assign "the heroic" characteristic to the music itself; it would mean that I, discerning this characteristic, reacted favorably whereas he, ALSO discerning this characteristic, reacted unfavorably. Granted, I don't know the specifics with that particular person; I didn't have time to pursue the subject with him. But my bet is that he wasn't hearing Beethoven as "heroic" -- a description I'd use for at least some of Beethoven's music -- but instead as strident and just too damned noisy. If I recall right, this is what Debussy himself thought of Beethoven's music, more or less that it was a pain to his ears. I don't think one can know from differences in response alone that there's some necessary value-hierarchy difference in the responders. Maybe that guy would have responded as positively to what he considered "heroic" in music as I would to what I consider "heroic"; but we differed on what works we'd thus describe. Could one say on the basis of the work itself that it's "heroic" or not? This was the sort of question I was left with; I concluded that the answer was "no."

You wrote:

I hope I am not misinterpreting you, but after carefully reading your post and your challenge above, it seems to me that your position is that no objective evaluation of a work of art can be made by anyone.

It isn't my opinion that NO "objective evaluation of a work of art can be made by anyone." There are things about the structure, style, and even the skill which I think one can say are demonstrable features of a work. But the meaning of a work, I think can't be objectively stated -- although this can become trickier with verbal art. With verbal art there's denotation involved as well as "suggestion." In regard to visual and musical art, however, I think what a work "means" is personal to the responder.

You wrote:

How you evaluate the music may be personal, but you can still have an objective discussion about "how and what you hear in it". After all, the music exists "out there" as a physical entity and is equally subject to exploration and objective understanding as any other aspect of reality.

I'd agree that one can objectively discuss "how and what" specific people hear in specific compositions (or as general characteristics in a particular composer's work). But I think what you're meaning is objectively assessing some value characteristics or other which are "in" the music. Also, I disagree with the last sentence as written, since I don't think that "music" exists "as a physical entity." What exists is a sequence of sounds (I'm speaking of heard music, not the score). I don't think that other earth species besides humans hear the "music" in the sequence. And even for humans, it needs some learning to hear the structures.

Turning to the Gehry "Fred and Ginger" building (shown in your post #110): I hadn't previously seen a picture of the building. My immediate reaction was: That's interesting, imaginative, fanciful. I actually like it -- although you don't. I gather that you REALLY dislike it. So there we are. According to your views, I think you have to say that it shows something wrong with my whole value scheme if I respond at all positively to the building. But I agree with Dragonfly in his comment that your description of the building was full of subjective terms. E.g., "misaligned." By what standards? The shapes bother you; they offend your sense of architectural order. They don't bother me; I find them intriguing. Same building, different feeling.

I revert to an example I gave of the Old City on the Buda hills. When those walls were built, they were meant to be forbiding, and I expect would have looked forbiding to potential aggressors. Today the usual reaction is to find them enticing. Instead of presenting a "message" of "Stay away," they beguile, for most people, with a "Come hither." Most people would describe them as "romantic." Same walls, different context of background. I don't think the difference in response results from widespread differences in value hierarchies between then and now. Instead, I think it results from different interpretations -- in this case, because of large changes in cultural circumstances. Similarly, I think there's no way to demonstrate simply from different responses to a given art work a difference in value hierarchy between the responders -- as if "the work" is the same for both and only the values are different. It could of course be that the values are different -- no two person's values are identical. But my claim is that the work itself might be seen differently and thus responded to differently by two persons with quite similar value hierarchies.

Ellen

___

[Ellen Stuttle]

I find that I very much like Gehry's "Fred and Ginger."

That's two of us assigned to perdition. ;-) Which thought set a remembered song playing in my mind:

"Two lost souls on the highway of life...."

ES

___

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Roger,

That's not fair. You don't count. You work at Disneyland.

Michael

[cjsmall]

I find that I very much like Gehry's "Fred and Ginger."

That's two of us assigned to perdition. ;-)

Ellen:

I do see the smiley face, but I also know that you meant at least a glint of truth in this observation and I want to go on the record as not intending this interpretation from my views. I do stand on my observation that a person's emotional response to a work is a byproduct of their value hierarchy in conjunction with the particular values they perceive from that work. I also believe that a work of art can and does act as a medium of communication to convey human values. And like any form of communication between two complex consciousnesses, there is plenty of opportunity for miscommunication in addition to successfully getting one's viewpoint across. And I also believe that any "artist" that creates with no intention of embedding and communicating some message through their work, is in fact, not an artist at all and his product is not art. And finally, I do believe that since there must, by definition, be a message contained in a work of art, it is not unreasonable to explore that art work looking for objective clues as to what that message might be.

Now, just because I go looking for these clues, there is no more guarantee that I will correctly identify them then there is that when I go looking for an understanding of the fundamental forces of nature that I will correctly identify them. The subject matter is different, but the process of investigation is the same. A physicist is going to have disagreements with an astrologer because they do not agree upon a common set of basic principles and there is no point in having a high-level discussion about something like human motivation, when the underlying premises are so different. In a similar vein, there is not much point having a discussion about two peoples emotional response to a work of art if they have not first come to some mutual understanding of the underlying basic principles that generate those emotions. If I value killing puppies as a great tasting source of food and you value puppies as lovable cuddly pets, we are probably going to have a different emotional response to dogs in general and certainly in certain specific situations. This doesn't mean that we couldn't come to an objective understanding of one another's responses, but it would require each of us communication our value hierarchy to the other at a sufficient level where we could then understand the other person's value-context. if we were so inclined, we could do this without necessarily having to change either of our values or responses.

When two people look at the Gehry building above and one loves it while the other abhors it, there are many possible reasons for these different reactions. 1: They could have diametrically opposed value hierarchies which produce opposing emotions while interpreting the building's message in a similar way. 2: They could have similar value hierarchies but each focuses upon different aspects of the building when interpreting the message and come to completely different conclusions as a result. 3: One person may be more visually aware than the other, is capable of reading the building at a deeper level and may therefore draw a different meaning. 4: One person may be more intellectually focused and more widely read so they are able to make connections to external facts and/or draw inferences which escape the other person. 5: Or more likely, it is some combination of all of these and more. I have absolutely no idea how you, Roger or anyone else in this forum is actually approaching and interpreting this building so I'm in no position to condemn anyone for their reaction - and I have not done so. I might be disappointed when someone doesn't agree with my views, but disappointment is far different from condemnation. By the way, that's another fundamental distinction that, if more widely understood, would lead to better human relations all around.

I've hope that I have been pretty clear about my reading of and emotional response to "Fred and Ginger". The set of decisions that had to be made to arrive at this particular configuration and expression are so great and so internally consistent that I feel reasonably comfortable in my interpretation of message. Now, I'm not at all saying that Gehry's intent was to fill me with emotional pain by conveying a nihilistic message through his work. In fact, if I had to guess, I would speculate that Gehry is no Toohey, out to destroy the world, but actually finds these forms and the overall composition extremely pleasing and hopes that others do as well. Even if that were true and his intention was benevolent in so far as he saw things, it doesn't change the facts of how the building is actually assembled and what it communicates. It would instead show that Gehry and I have seriously different value systems.

This just scratches the surface of this subject, but I hope it clarifies some of my positions.

Regards,

--

Jeff

[cjsmall]

One more observation I intended to include in my last post is that, when I make the intellectual judgment (as opposed to emotional appraisal) about "Fred and Ginger" that it is a nihilistic work which expresses anti-values, I am of course, making a judgment about the objective aspects of the building in relation to my own value system. I would hope that this should be clear. After all, what is a judgment if it is not relative to someone's values? But based upon the direction of this conversation, I'm not sure that this is always well understood. Judgments are not something that exist in nature to be discovered like some fundamental law. They emanate from within each of us and will vary from person to person. So while judgments themselves are subjectively related to our values, they can still be objectively understood if you can gain a sufficient understanding of another person's value system.

So I have a very serious question. Since you know that I am operating from an Objectivist perspective which gives you a good starting point for guessing at least some of my values, and since you know that I am a professional architect who has studied a Wright's school, and since I have been explicitly articulating some of my specific methods of analysis and some of my values, is it still hard to understand how my appraisal of this work as nihilistic is objectively valid (i.e., not arbitrary, and tied to the facts of the building) in relation to my values? Can you not concede this even if your judgment happens to be different? This gets to the crux of my interest in this issue.

Regards,

--

Jeff

Edited February 9, 2007 by Jeffery Small

[Ellen Stuttle]

[...] is it still hard to understand how my appraisal of this work as nihilistic is objectively valid (i.e., not arbitrary, and tied to the facts of the building) in relation to my values? Can you not concede this even if your judgment happens to be different?

Jeff,

I didn't quote the whole post, since it's directly above. I picked out that part to draw attention to one place where I don't understand what you're getting at (there are other places, too, but maybe this one best focuses in on a key point). You seem to me to be saying that it would be possible for your calling this work nihilistic to be "objectively valid" and at the same time for someone else's calling the work non-nihilistic ALSO to be "objectively valid." Is that a correct reading of your views?

Ellen

PS: I don't know if you saw my post #119, which I hope provided some clarification from my side.

___

[Jonathan]

Whether or not Gehry is nihilistic, much of his work certainly is.

In the way that you're using "nihilistic" here, would the term also describe Roark's work?

J

Jonathan, In my imagination his buildings are far from nihilistic. When I read the book in my twenties I saw them as somewhat Wrightian creations of stone, glass and steel augmented with a lot of landscaping within and without the structures. They sure didn't look like the monstrosities in the movie. I believe I read that the producers wanted Wright to design Roark's work for the movie, but he wanted too much money. Jim

Okay, thanks. I thought that with what you had said in post #93, Roark might qualify with Gehry as being at least a bit "nihilistic" in your view.

Regarding Wright and The Fountainhead film, I heard that he wanted not only too much money, but control over everything from the script to casting to wardrobe. I don't know if that's true or just a rumor.

J