Art as Microcosm (2004)

[cjsmall]

[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:

Yes, this is in fact what I am saying, IF (that's a big if!) all parties are making reference to the same objective criteria in the common subject and they can articulate their values. My point is that judgments are a type of relationship between a subject and one's value system, and as such, if the connection between the subject and the values can be validated, then I would say that the judgment is then objective. I think it is possible for it to be true that Beethoven is objectively better for you than Debussy (possible because it energizes and inspires you and you label that feeling "heroic") while at the same time Debussy being objectively better for your acquaintance than Beethoven (possibly because it provides the sense of calm he craves in an otherwise hectic life). Its possible because you each have different value systems.

Maybe to make the point less controversial let's move from the spiritual to the physical realm. Consider two people who both love the taste of peanuts, but one has a severe peanut allergy that causes their throat to swell shut when they are eaten. For the allergic person, there is nothing wrong in forming the judgment that eating peanuts is objectively bad as it threatens their very life, while at the same time forming the judgment that for the other person, eating peanuts is objectively good as it gives them great pleasure. The point here is that the judgment of good or bad is not being made about the people nor is it being made about the peanuts. The judgment is about the relationship between the person and the peanuts and it depends upon each individual's context. Just because the people in this example differ in their personal characteristics, this does not somehow make the judgments subjective. Moving back into the spiritual realm (i.e., the realm off values), I make the same argument. Just because people have different value systems, this does not, in itself, render subjective any judgments about how things relate to those values. I hope I have made this clear.

Of course, this begs a different sort of question. In the case of the peanuts, one can ask, "As a human, is it better to have or not have a peanut allergy?" In other words, can one make an objective determination that one state of health is better than another, or is any attempt to answer that question simply a subjective choice? I think you know where Objectivism stands on that issue. Well, you can also ask the question "Is one person's value hierarchy better than another's?" And this is where the controversy kicks in! Can we answer that question objectively? I would say yes, but it is extremely difficult as it requires accurate knowledge of both party's values and their respective contexts, which is difficult to ascertain, especially when most people do not explicitly understand their own values. This is why it can be dangerous to psycho-epistemologize. But just because something is difficult, that doesn't somehow magically transform it into the realm of subjectivity.

Ellen, I did read your subsequent posts and they did clarify a number of points. Thanks.

Now I am getting prepared for someone to read this post and respond with a convoluted scenario showing how having a peanut allergy would actually be objectively beneficial and life affirming for a certain person in a specific situation. I'm sure this will somehow involve Jack Bauer, Dick Cheney, waterboarding and taking the blue pill. I'm now sticking my fingers in my ears. Lalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalala... :-)

Regards,

--

Jeff

[cjsmall]

Roger:

I don't mean to be ignoring you in this discussion. This is all very interesting to me and I really appreciate your introducing the topic. I did read your post #118 and I hope that my last few posts address some of the issues you raise. If not, please post again with those that remain open or with which you still have a problem.

Regards,

--

Jeff

[Ellen Stuttle]

Jeff,

I might not have time to post again until Monday, but not to leave you in suspense, I would like to say that your post #126 VERY much clarified for me where you're coming from. For short, you're speaking of "objective" in this area using an Objectivist meaning which wasn't what I was "hearing" you to be using earlier. I now think I understand your approach. To be continued next week I hope. This discussion is very intersting to me also.

Ellen

___

[Jonathan]

Yes, this is in fact what I am saying, IF (that's a big if!) all parties are making reference to the same objective criteria in the common subject and they can articulate their values. My point is that judgments are a type of relationship between a subject and one's value system, and as such, if the connection between the subject and the values can be validated, then I would say that the judgment is then objective. I think it is possible for it to be true that Beethoven is objectively better for you than Debussy (possible because it energizes and inspires you and you label that feeling "heroic") while at the same time Debussy being objectively better for your acquaintance than Beethoven (possibly because it provides the sense of calm he craves in an otherwise hectic life). Its possible because you each have different value systems.

That's interesting, Jeff, but was your appraisal of "Fred and Ginger" objective? I agree with you that it's possible to speak objectively about a work of art, but were you doing so? Maybe you were, occassionally, but, as others pointed out, your were also highly subjective.

An example:

The rectangular windows are not integral to the building but appear to be hung on the facade like pictures on a wall.

If the intention was to create a free-flowing feeling, like the the feeling that one might get from things hung like pictures on a wall, and that free feeling is also echoed in the rest of the building's features, why would you claim that the windows are not "integral" to the building? It seems that "not integral" means "not the way Jeff would design window placements if he were working on a completely different vision." It sounds as though your "objective" standard of evaluation is not how well an architect expresses his own vision, but how well he conforms to yours.

More examples:

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?

Is that an "objective" requirement? Must a building fit into its surroundings? Like a man, can't it stand out from the herd? When Gehry improvisationally arranges plywood, corrugated metal and chain-link fence in his work because if reflects the landscape, you seem to complain that his work is designed to fit into its surroundings. So which is it? Must a building fit its surroundings or not?

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

Do you know? You seem to have made your "objective" evaluation already, so apparently you do know. Which is it, commercial or residential, and how well does it serve its inhabitants' needs?

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

You tell us. You've made your "objective" evaluation which is apparently based on the appraisal that the building doesn't accommodate its occupants. How doesn't it do so?

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

Yeah, we understand that you don't like it, and that you seem to be very emotionally invested in trying to find "objective" reasons to explain why you don't like it.

Your wrote,

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!

I think it says that you're not emotionally comfortable with artists who are capable of letting themselves go and relying heavily on their "stomach feelings" when creating art. I think you want nothing but "rational order" and you want to vilify those who are primarily improvisational or intuitive.

J

Edited February 10, 2007 by Jonathan

[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?

Sorry, I don't have the time now for an extensive analysis, I'll have to finish my piece for Roger first, he's already waiting for weeks. In the meantime read Ellen's and Jonathan's posts, I think their viewpoint isn't much different from mine in this regard, at least I agree with their posts on this subject so far.

[Brant Gaede]

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

This is a very fun building. I like it. I wouldn't like it repeated, though.

--Brant

Edited February 9, 2007 by Brant Gaede

[Jonathan]

Does anyone here agree with this:

"In essence, an objective evaluation [of a work of art] requires that one identify the artist's theme, the abstract meaning of his work (exclusively by identifying the evidence contained in the work and allowing no other outside considerations), then evaluate the means by which he conveys it — i.e., taking his theme as criterion, evaluate the purely esthetic elements of the work, the technical mastery (or lack of it) with which he projects (of fails to project) his view of life..."

J

[reason.on]

Does anyone here agree with this:

"In essence, an objective evaluation [of a work of art] requires that one identify the artist's theme, the abstract meaning of his work (exclusively by identifying the evidence contained in the work and allowing no other outside considerations), then evaluate the means by which he conveys it — i.e., taking his theme as criterion, evaluate the purely esthetic elements of the work, the technical mastery (or lack of it) with which he projects (of fails to project) his view of life..."

I think that this can be one of the ways in which to evaluate and analyze artistic choices, or the whole of a work, but it certainly isn't all inclusive, even of the creative process, let alone the evaluative one. In other words, I think it is certainly a valid perspective, but not the only one. I would say, an "objective evaluation" of a work of art does NOT require that one identify the artist's theme.

A quick example, I could admire (or not) Ayn Rand's plot structure in *Atlas Shrugged*, without identifying or considering its theme. Further, as ES has argued, HOW the train-wreck scene in *Atlas Shrugged* is written isn't necessarily excused by its "thematic" context. Rand's apparent relish in the *event* can't be swept away unconsidered, simply because of how the event fits into the theme.

Its funny, I actually argued with MD on A2 about this very topic in relation to a small scene from a James Webb novel, which salaciously (to my reading) portrays father/son oral sex on the beach. As I read the passage, it seemed to me like something out of a Daniel Steele novel (soft-core girly-porn), only the subjects were obviously quite different.

MD argued that I had no rational right (my conclusion was invalid) to call the scene (and the author for writing it) "creepy". MD maintained that without knowing the full scope of the novel's theme, any judgment about the passage was invalid. Further, since the author's theme was such and such, the scene as written was not "creepy" at all. He attempted to school me on exactly why with a lot of bluster, name calling, and irrelevant examples. I say irrelevant because my reaction to the passage was in HOW the "subject" was written about, the choice of words, the phrasing, etc. My reaction was not driven by the mere fact that someone would include such a scene in a novel, but that they would do so AND write it as if they were penning a romance novel. MD countered with a bunch of examples of other famous authors who write about horrible things happening to people, but didn't provide any actually examples of how they were written...Ultimately, MD's arguement was that authors "just write about things", and the things they write about can only be judged in relation to their chosen "theme", and that I could not make any aesthetic judgments, nor learn anything at all about the author by simply reading this:

His muscles were young and hard, but his face was devastated with wrinkles. His eyes were so red that they appeared to be burned by fire. A naked boy ran happily toward him from the little plot of

dirt. The man grabbed his young son in his arms, turned him upside down, and put the boy's penis in his mouth.

The argument become more complicated with points about fantasy vs. desire, fiction writing vs. journalism, cultural relativity, etc. But, at the root was the idea that one could not judge "events" in a novel without fully understanding their relation to the "theme" and the author's intention (this was MD's contention). I maintained that "events" (such as the above) in novels can reveal value judgments in-and-of-themselves just as "themes" do, and that there are valid judgments (certainly, also not all inclusive) that can be made based solely on how an author writes any given "event" (regardless of how said events do or don't fit into the author's "theme").

RCR

Edited February 10, 2007 by R. Christian Ross

[Roger Bissell]

Does anyone here agree with this:

"In essence, an objective evaluation [of a work of art] requires that one identify the artist's theme, the abstract meaning of his work (exclusively by identifying the evidence contained in the work and allowing no other outside considerations), then evaluate the means by which he conveys it — i.e., taking his theme as criterion, evaluate the purely esthetic elements of the work, the technical mastery (or lack of it) with which he projects (of fails to project) his view of life..."

J

Yes. It made sense to me the very first time I read it in the 60s, and it makes sense to me now. I try to follow this approach. (I believe that I said so in the essay that begins this thread. And/or in my earlier essay "The Essence of Art" (Objectivity, Vol. 2, No. 5).)

This is not all there is to ~understanding~ art. There is also the ~philosophical~ (and/or sense of life) evaluation of the art work's theme. But that is not an ~aesthetic~ evaluation, as Rand noted in "Art and Sense of Life" (from which the above quote is taken).

What I see some people doing, in effect, is rejecting the idea that an artwork should necessarily have an identifiable theme, and arguing that the attachment of a theme to an artwork somehow detracts from one's appreciation of the artwork "for itself."

I also see some people identifying (what they think is) the theme of the artwork, and then rejecting it as an artwork because they don't approve of the theme.

I also see some people rejecting the identification and championing of Romantic works of art, on the grounds that this is somehow focusing on a minor tip of the iceberg of worthy art. To me, the point of championing such art is not to exclude other art as aesthetically unworthy, but to act as a signpost for emotional fuel.

Lots more to say about this, but no time.

Anyway, Jonathan, why do you ask? :-)

REB

[Ellen Stuttle]

Further, as ES has argued, HOW the train-wreck scene in *Atlas Shrugged* is written isn't necessarily excused by its "thematic" context. Rand's apparent relish in the *event* can't be swept away unconsidered, simply because of how the event fits into the theme.

Hold the fort!! ES seems to have been remembered by two quite different people -- RCR and Michael Moeller -- as having "argued" or "said" something about that scene which ES didn't argue or say. As ES recalls, she posted two, or maybe three, short (a line or two) posts, the first one being merely the statement that (changing to first person) I, too, along with Mike Lee, had wondered about a comparison between the tunnel scene and some comments X Churchill -- is that the guy's name?; I'm drawing a question on the name -- had made in regard to 9/11 to the effect that the people who had died in the attack had deserved their fate. I think my remark was all of something like, "I've wondered about that, too." Michael Moeller then got on a soapbox and started reading in vast accusations which neither I nor Mike Lee had made. Mike Lee expressed the opinion that there is a "glee" or "relish" in the way Rand writes about the scene; I said I also thought that was in the text. More lectures from MM.

I did not argue, and don't think, that judging the scene as an expression of AR's psychology is pertinent to judging how well it works or doesn't novelistically.

Also, RCR, I was in basic agreement with MD about that novel you and he fought over on Atlantis, though as I recall I didn't say anything in the discussion. I thought you were reacting to some personal association which apparently (from MD's descriptions; I know nothing about the book of my own acquaintance) isn't what the scene was about.

I have more to say about the Rand quote Jonathan posted. I agree with the spirit of it but not with the letter of it, since I think what she's requiring isn't necessarily possible even in regard to literature let alone non-verbal art forms. Music isn't "about" a "theme," e.g., in the sense she means, so how can it be judged in terms of how well or poorly it expresses its "theme"?

More when I get a chance.

Ellen

___

[reason.on]

Hold the fort!! ES seems to have been remembered by two quite different people -- RCR and Michael Moeller -- as having "argued" or "said" something about that scene which ES didn't argue or say. As ES recalls, she posted two, or maybe three, short (a line or two) posts, the first one being merely the statement that (changing to first person) I, too, along with Mike Lee, had wondered about a comparison between the tunnel scene and some comments X Churchill -- is that the guy's name?; I'm drawing a question on the name -- had made in regard to 9/11 to the effect that the people who had died in the attack had deserved their fate. I think my remark was all of something like, "I've wondered about that, too." Michael Moeller then got on a soapbox and started reading in vast accusations which neither I nor Mike Lee had made. Mike Lee expressed the opinion that there is a "glee" or "relish" in the way Rand writes about the scene; I said I also thought that was in the text. More lectures from MM.

It was Ward Churchill...

Yeah, that's how I remember that discussion as well. I'm pretty sure I didn't have much of any opinion on the matter, in that context, but I will say I did not have the same kind of negative reaction to the train scene. Upon reflection, I find that I'm at least sympathetic to the points you mention above.

Btw, I also think you've discussed the example on RoR, though I don't recall the context... I certainly hope you don't think I'm lecturing you like MM. And I'm not clear on how I've misrepresented you.

I did not argue, and don't think, that judging the scene as an expression of AR's psychology is pertinent to judging how well it works or doesn't novelistically.

Well, that was my point, and contrary to both MM and MD's line of argument. I'm just addressing the reverse, that is to say, how well a scene works novelistically isn't necessarily pertinent to judging the scene itself.

Both MM and MD would say you can not rationally judge a scene aesthetically at all without filtering that judgment through the intended theme...weren't you saying with your comments, even if just tacitly, that you disagree? Were you not saying that you find Rand's rendering of the scene distasteful in some way, and isn't that an aesthetic judgment made apart from thematic/novelistic concerns?

MM argued that Rand's theme (her philosophic point) excused any arguable excesses or offenses in the particular way in which she wrote it, as I saw and have inferred from your comment, you judged the scene on its own merits (apart from any novelistic considerations) as a described event...right? Where as MM judged the event exclusively through the lens of AR's stated theme, and since the event was a "logical conclusion", there was nothing more to be said about it, no further aesthetic judgments to be made (thus, the lectures). As I see it, that was exactly what MD was arguing on A2 (complete with off-target lectures and name calling).

Btw, it isn't just an issue of judging any given scene as an expression of the author's psychology, there is also an aesthetic judgment involved in your negative (I think that is a fair assessment of what you've written about it) reaction to reading HOW AR penned the scene (ditto for me and Webb). As I'm interpreting it--you (and I) judged the scene(s), the "event(s)", fully apart from ANY thematic considerations, which is not something MD or MM would allow either of us to do; that's all I'm trying to draw from your comments.

Also, RCR, I was in basic agreement with MD about that novel you and he fought over on Atlantis, though as I recall I didn't say anything in the discussion. I thought you were reacting to some personal association which apparently (from MD's descriptions; I know nothing about the book of my own acquaintance) isn't what the scene was about.

This doesn't surprise me....(and I don't think it detracts from my point) although, I will say that I don't think my reaction (describing the scene as a creepy fantasy and "wondering" about the psychology that produced it...) is based on "some personal association"...I addressed MD's points about the scene supposedly reflecting some cultural tradition (the actual cultural tradition, btw, involves mothers and their infant sons).

But, I'm not particularly interested in dwelling on an defense of my reaction to Webb...

In both cases, as I'm presently seeing it, aesthetic judgments were made, based upon how a scene was written, further there were lingering thoughts (wonderings) about the psychological nature of what appear to be two disturbing (relative to each) fantasies. One involving the "logical" deaths of many people, and the other a "culturally relative" incestuous sexual relationship. MM sought to invalidate what ever discomfort you had with the scene by tying it "logically" back to the theme, MD tried to do the same thing with me and my discomfort with Webb.

Regardless of our differences over the particulars, what I think we share in both cases is a KIND of aesthetic judgment...a KIND of aesthetic judgment that both MM and MD argued against.

RCR

Edited February 10, 2007 by R. Christian Ross

[cjsmall]

In Post #110 I listed a number of considerations:

* 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?

In Post #129 Jonathan seems to be of the opinion that it is either non-objective or unfair or inappropriate of me to approach Gehry's building from this perspective. When I made this short list of questions I thought that it was totally non-controversial as these are all issues that any respectable architect would take into consideration when designing a building. If anyone thinks that these are arbitrary or unessential, then I would suggest that you are not understanding and appreciating architecture in a way which distinguishes it from mere structure or sculpture. Architecture has an overriding purpose to house human occupants in support of specific activities. In the course of performing that function its design can promote certain human values. If this human-centered approach isn't the starting point from which a building's design springs then I argue that the work is already seriously compromised as architecture. And as a building's design is further removed from considerations of the physical, psychological and spiritual requirements of its occupants as defining criteria, the less meaningful and successful it is. So I stand by my position that these are wholly appropriate questions to ask of any work by someone calling themselves an architect.

I'll take a moment to address the criticism that some of my statements about Ghery's building aren't "objective".

Back in Post 111 Dragonfly complained about my characterization of "Fred and Ginger" as "two wildly different forms crashing into one another and suggested that an admirer might have said "embracing each other". His position is that my statement is non-objective because others might characterize things differently. my position is that both statements can be objective as they describe a very real fact about the building in relation to two significantly different value systems. For a full explanation see my post #126.

The rectangular windows are not integral to the building but appear to be hung on the facade like pictures on a wall.

If the intention was to create a free-flowing feeling, like the the feeling that one might get from things hung like pictures on a wall, and that free feeling is also echoed in the rest of the building's features, why would you claim that the windows are not "integral" to the building? It seems that "not integral" means "not the way Jeff would design window placements if he were working on a completely different vision." It sounds as though your "objective" standard of evaluation is not how well an architect expresses his own vision, but how well he conforms to yours.

No, "not integral" means not integrated into the structure of the building's facade just the way a picture hung on a wall is "not integral" with the structure of the wall. I thought this was clear through my comparison to pictures on a wall. If you interpreted this to say that the windows were not integrated into the building's design, then I would agree that that is not true, but this is not what I intended.

Yeah, we understand that you don't like it, and that you seem to be very emotionally invested in trying to find "objective" reasons to explain why you don't like it.

Jonathan:

Thanks for understanding my position and stating it so clearly. I am always searching for an "objective" understanding of my emotional responses and I do get a lot of emotional pleasure from the process. I have now written a great deal here on this topic explaining the nature of objectivity in the act of formulating judgments and have stated my position on what differentiates Gehry's work from others such as Wright. I'm curious as to your position. Do you like the building pictured above? Do you have any intellectual appraisal you would be willing to share? Do you think that your judgments are subjective or objective?

Regards,

--

Jeff

Edited February 10, 2007 by Jeffery Small

[cjsmall]

Does anyone here agree with this:

"In essence, an objective evaluation [of a work of art] requires that one identify the artist's theme, the abstract meaning of his work (exclusively by identifying the evidence contained in the work and allowing no other outside considerations), then evaluate the means by which he conveys it — i.e., taking his theme as criterion, evaluate the purely esthetic elements of the work, the technical mastery (or lack of it) with which he projects (of fails to project) his view of life..."

Jonathan:

What's your position on this quote?

Regards,

--

Jeff

[Ellen Stuttle]

Christian,

Your reply (post #136) has gotten me so confused as to what you think I said and what you are saying and where you think we agree, I don't know if we agree or don't.

Maybe if I take just this section and try to talk about it:

[ES] I did not argue, and don't think, that judging the scene as an expression of AR's psychology is pertinent to judging how well it works or doesn't novelistically.

Well, that was my point, and contrary to both MM and MD's line of argument. I'm just addressing the reverse, that is to say, how well a scene works novelistically isn't necessarily pertinent to judging the scene itself.

Both MM and MD would say you can not rationally judge a scene aesthetically at all without filtering that judgment through the intended theme...weren't you saying with your comments, even if just tacitly, that you disagree? Were you not saying that you find Rand's rendering of the scene distasteful in some way, and isn't that an aesthetic judgment made apart from thematic/novelistic concerns?

I don't think that MM and MD were saying the same thing. What you describe is close to my understanding of what MD was saying, but Michael Moeller was going "all over the place" being offended by my, and Mike Lee's, expressing any reservation about the justice of the scene. If he was presenting an argument about aesthetic standards, I don't recall what his argument was. Frankly, I've never considered his posts worth spending the mental effort on trying to figure out what postitive point he might be making. What I recall is his negative point of being incensed at what he was taking as a criticism of Rand herself.

When you write, "how well a scene works novelistically isn't necessarily pertinent to judging the scene itself," in what respect do you mean? I think it's the only thing pertinent to judging the scene technically. In saying that I find the scene "distasteful in some way," no, I don't consider this "an aesthetic judgment," in the sense in which I understand "aesthetic judgment." It isn't a statement about how well done the scene is. It's instead a statement about how well I like the scene or don't. It's an "aesthetic reaction" but not an "aesthetic judgment."

Maybe this will help: There are certain scenes in Atlas which bother me. Actually, there are lots of scenes which "bother me" in one way or another, but it would have to be an entirely different book written by a whole different person to eliminate all of them. At one time I expended a fair amount of thought trying to think of how to re-write certain specific delimited scenes, especially the one where they let Hank continue to believe that Dagny is dead. In the end I concluded that the needed changes would be so many as to change the character of the book, and that the book works so very well as it is, leave it alone.

One place where I think there is an actual aesthetic glitch pertains to a key plot feature, Dagny's not knowing the names of Francisco's friends from college. I thought that this didn't scan even within the context of the book, that it was much too far-fetched. But you realize it would wreck the plot if she did know. So I think of that as a necessary "literary license" flaw in order to get the story to work.

The other things I don't consider issues of how well the book is done qua artwork. For instance, the speech. There's a certain amount in that which makes me actually angry because of its psychologizing unfairness. But as a work of writing, I think the thing is superb -- and I know only too well how tremendously difficult maintaining the tone she maintains would have been as a technical feat. Thus I give it very high marks aesthetically, while objecting to some of its content. I do not consider my objecting to some of the content an "aesthetic judgment."

Does that help in clarifying what I think -- leaving aside whatever the respective Michaels, Moeller and DeVault, think?

As to MM, though, you wrote:

Btw, I also think you've discussed the example on RoR, though I don't recall the context... I certainly hope you don't think I'm lecturing you like MM. And I'm not clear on how I've misrepresented you.

MM brought it up on RoR, when he was angry with me because of my agreeing with something Hong had said. As I recall, I ignored that issue and only corrected a couple immediate misstatements he'd made.

No, I don't think you're lecturing me like MM. I don't think you're capable of lecturing a person like that!! ;-) The way in which it seems to me you're misrepresenting me -- although now I'm confused as to what you thought I was saying -- is in taking my views about Rand's personal psychology, as exhibited in Atlas, as statements about how well done the book is. I consider these two different judgments.

Ellen

___

[Roger Bissell]

I have more to say about the Rand quote Jonathan posted. I agree with the spirit of it but not with the letter of it, since I think what she's requiring isn't necessarily possible even in regard to literature let alone non-verbal art forms. Music isn't "about" a "theme," e.g., in the sense she means, so how can it be judged in terms of how well or poorly it expresses its "theme"?

Oh, Kant rare, Ellen! Oh, Kant rare!

I will be interested to see what Ellen suggests as an example of non-thematic literature -- thematic in the Randian-aesthetic sense, as discussed in The Romantic Manifesto.

But as for music, I think that music -- much of it, anyway -- really DOES have a theme. It has long been my conviction that the emotional-philosophical meaning of many, many memories can be identified, at least in general terms. And that's really all that we could need or want for aesthetic evaluation purposes, not the minutely detailed, programmatic details some composers and critics and listeners seem to think necessary. This is the very project I have been yammering about for months now, and which I will take up specifically in regard to Schubert, unless Dragonfly succeeds in selecting some particularly bland, undramatic melodies for me to paw over. :-)

But I have looked at enough popular songs and classical melodies to know that the kind of themes I think exist in music really are there, and that they fall into some fairly well-definable categories (with hybrids and intermediate examples abounding). From my perspective, the lyrics serve as aesthetic training wheels. A very good song-writer knows how on a subconscious level to match lyrics and tune, so that the "message" or theme is consistently being conveyed by both. With enough good examples, it is possible to inductively identify the general musical patterns that convey various kinds of emotional experiences (and the worldview implicit in them), and those patterns can be found in music without accompanying lyrics. The acid test will be to select a number of non-lyric'd musical examples that the lyric'd musical patterns dictate ought to convey a particular kind of emotion, and then to see whether listeners identify those emotions in listening to the pieces. That's the approach, anyway.

And for the umpteenth time, I do not propose to analyze ALL music this way. Nor do I propose to REJECT music that is not easily analyzable in this way. I'm just trying to explore a large body of music written during the past 300 years and find out what makes it "work", and not just fall back on the tired old cliche that "music is the language of the emotions."

All 4 now,

REB

[Jonathan]

In Post #129 Jonathan seems to be of the opinion that it is either non-objective or unfair or inappropriate of me to approach Gehry's building from this perspective. When I made this short list of questions I thought that it was totally non-controversial as these are all issues that any respectable architect would take into consideration when designing a building.

The implication, at least to me, of your asking these questions in regard to Gehry's building, in conjunction with your appraisal that the building is nihilistic, is that you've determined that the building does not take into consideration the physical, psychological and spiritual requirements of its occupants. So, all I'm asking you is if you are indeed claiming that the building does not serve the requirements that you listed, and, if so, how you've determined that those requirements have not been considered or served. Have you visited the building, studied the blueprints or interviewed Gehry or the occupants?

If anyone thinks that these are arbitrary or unessential, then I would suggest that you are not understanding and appreciating architecture in a way which distinguishes it from mere structure or sculpture. Architecture has an overriding purpose to house human occupants in support of specific activities. In the course of performing that function its design can promote certain human values. If this human-centered approach isn't the starting point from which a building's design springs then I argue that the work is already seriously compromised as architecture.

Why would the occupants' needs have to be the starting point? Couldn't they be the second or third, or seventh or twenty-third concern out of hundreds of issues, as long as the architect addresses them at some point? If an architect has had an itch to create, say, a spiral design - perhaps, an inverted Tower of Babel - and then along comes a client who wants him to create an art museum, and he finds a way to make the inverted Tower of Babel idea fit the purpose, serve the occupants and promote human values, what's the problem?

And as a building's design is further removed from considerations of the physical, psychological and spiritual requirements of its occupants as defining criteria, the less meaningful and successful it is. So I stand by my position that these are wholly appropriate questions to ask of any work by someone calling themselves an architect.

Again, have you answered those questions in regard to "Fred and Ginger," and have your answers formed the basis for your negative appraisal of the building? If so, in which ways were the occupant's needs ignored by Gehry?

I'm curious as to your position. Do you like the building pictured above? Do you have any intellectual appraisal you would be willing to share?

I like the sense of playfulness that it evokes, but I don't know enough about the building to say much more than that. If it has serious functional issues, as you seem to suggest, I'd like to hear about them and factor them in to my opinion.

Do you think that your judgments are subjective or objective?

Both.

J

Edited February 11, 2007 by Jonathan

[Jonathan]

Does anyone here agree with this:

"In essence, an objective evaluation [of a work of art] requires that one identify the artist's theme, the abstract meaning of his work (exclusively by identifying the evidence contained in the work and allowing no other outside considerations), then evaluate the means by which he conveys it — i.e., taking his theme as criterion, evaluate the purely esthetic elements of the work, the technical mastery (or lack of it) with which he projects (of fails to project) his view of life..."

Jonathan:

What's your position on this quote?

Regards,

--

Jeff

I don't see the need to identify the artist's theme. I think that one identifies a theme based on observing the evidence that the work contains along with any relevant "outside considerations." (I don't think that "outside considerations" need to be excluded in trying to make an objective evaluation. Works of visual art which include strong narrative elements often have "outside" historical or mythological references, and it would be ridiculous to not take them into consideration.)

J

[reason.on]

Ellen,

I think, in short, and after having written a very long reply which I've decided not to post, that I did miss read you, and consequently misrepresented you. But, not quite as you thought I did.

The way in which it seems to me you're misrepresenting me -- although now I'm confused as to what you thought I was saying -- is in taking my views about Rand's personal psychology, as exhibited in Atlas, as statements about how well done the book is. I consider these two different judgments.

I understood them as two different judgments.

What I did think, erroneously, was that you were making an "it isn't good" (cognitive) kind of statement AND an "I don't like it" (normative) kind of statement, with regard to the specific *way* in which she wrote that scene. I took you to mean that if she had written the scene with less relish, it would have been better. I imagined that you had in mind some alternate description of the scene, an alternate aesthetic approach to the scene, which wouldn't have bothered you.

But I see now that that wasn't what you were thinking, and that you were only making a normative comment about the scene's asthetics.

Sorry for the confusion.

RCR

[cjsmall]

Jonathan:

In Post #141 you once again step through my previous article sentence by sentence, finding nothing of value, but much to criticize. After a careful reading of your comments, it seems that your basic complaint against me is that I continue to make arbitrary observations about Gehry's work and therefore any conclusions that I formulate are unfounded. You also criticizes any general observations about architecture that I hold. Since your critical comments always denounce the appropriateness of what I am saying without offering any alternative, I really cannot divine whether you simply think that my particular approach towards architecture is wrong, or whether you are implying that any explicit architectural philosophy is wrong. I have tried to prompt you to make some positive statements on these subjects of your own so that I could get a better idea of where you are coming from and we could have a dialog. You provided a few short responses such as "I like the sense of playfulness that it evokes" or "both", which do not give me much work with, while continuing to spend 95% of your effort on attempts to discredit my views. I don't mind the fact that we disagree. However, I don't think that I have any insights left that you would would find illuminating, so I am going to bow out of further discussion on this subject.

Have you visited the building, studied the blueprints or interviewed Gehry or the occupants?

Oh yes, as to whether I have any qualifications to speak of Gehry's work. Well, I've studies and practiced architecture for 35 years; I read four monthly architectural magazines which have covered most of Gehry's building at one time or another with photos, basic floor plans and commentary; I've read a few interviews of Gehry where he talks about his design methodology; I have been inside Gehry's "Experience Music Project" here in Seattle; and yes, I've stood on the banks of the Vltava River and viewed "Fred and Ginger" in context. Sorry, I did not conduct occupant interviews. And to all that I say, "So what?" In the sequence of articles I've written on this topic I believe I have contributed a couple of important insights and I will let my words speak for themselves rather than make appeals to authority. If I have failed to convince anyone of my viewpoint, I accept that the internal logic of my arguments was not up to the task.

Regards,

--

Jeff

[Jonathan]

...while continuing to spend 95% of your effort on attempts to discredit my views. I don't mind the fact that we disagree. However, I don't think that I have any insights left that you would would find illuminating, so I am going to bow out of further discussion on this subject.

I'm not trying to discredit your views. I'm asking for simple, specific examples in which Gehry has not taken the needs of his building's occupants into consideration, and I'm asking precisely because I want to be illuminated. Are the ceilings so low that the occupants' taller-than-average guests are uncomfortable in the building? If so, that might be an example of how human needs were not fully considered. Does "Fred and Ginger" have darkened hallways with grease and ball bearings on teflon floors which slope downward toward open elevator shafts into which people can fall and impale themselves on spears at the bottom if they're not extremely careful? If so, that would probably be a good example of why the building is nihilistic architecture.

I'm simply asking if you've answered the questions that you've suggested we ask. In what ways does "Fred and Ginger" not serve the needs of its occupants?

J

[Ellen Stuttle]

Ellen,

I think, in short, and after having written a very long reply which I've decided not to post, that I did miss read you, and consequently misrepresented you. But, not quite as you thought I did.

The way in which it seems to me you're misrepresenting me -- although now I'm confused as to what you thought I was saying -- is in taking my views about Rand's personal psychology, as exhibited in Atlas, as statements about how well done the book is. I consider these two different judgments.

I understood them as two different judgments.

What I did think, erroneously, was that you were making an "it isn't good" (cognitive) kind of statement AND an "I don't like it" (normative) kind of statement, with regard to the specific *way* in which she wrote that scene. I took you to mean that if she had written the scene with less relish, it would have been better. I imagined that you had in mind some alternate description of the scene, an alternate aesthetic approach to the scene, which wouldn't have bothered you.

But I see now that that wasn't what you were thinking, and that you were only making a normative comment about the scene's asthetics.

Sorry for the confusion.

RCR

No problem about the confusion, RCR. I said very little on the thread, and I didn't go into details about my views on aesthetics. Mostly, I was just trying to get to the exit door fast after having made what I soon considered the mistake of saying anything. As I recall, Michael Moeller had been silent for some while on that list (NB's list, to fill in for others reading), and I didn't stop to think of the likelihood of bringing his wrath down upon me and finding myself in a discussion I didn't want to have. Not the first or the last time I've posted some quick quip -- in this case "I wondered about that, too" -- on an elist and then wished I'd kept quiet.

I think you're now understanding my reaction to the scene. I wasn't saying that it's bad art, just that I don't like it. But a further clarification: I don't use "cognitive" and "normative" in this area the way you did. By "cognitive" I'd mean the issue "What art is." By "normative" I'd mean "What good art is." Thus I'd say I'm making a "normative" statement in assessing Atlas as very good qua art (and in particular in not objecting to the Winston Tunnel scene on artistic grounds). Referring to MSK's threesome of categories, I'd classify my negative response as what he calls "subjective" -- i.e., a statement that there's something about the scene which I don't like.

Ellen

___

[cjsmall]

I'm not trying to discredit your views. I'm asking for simple, specific examples in which Gehry has not taken the needs of his building's occupants into consideration, and I'm asking precisely because I want to be illuminated. Are the ceilings so low that the occupants' taller-than-average guests are uncomfortable in the building? If so, that might be an example of how human needs were not fully considered. Does "Fred and Ginger" have darkened hallways with grease and ball bearings on teflon floors which slope downward toward open elevator shafts into which people can fall and impale themselves on spears at the bottom if they're not extremely careful? If so, that would probably be a good example of why the building is nihilistic architecture.

I'm simply asking if you've answered the questions that you've suggested we ask. In what ways does "Fred and Ginger" not serve the needs of its occupants?

All of your questions focus on the physical needs of the occupants. While I do believe that many or most of his buildings fall short of great architecture in that area, what I am primarily focused upon is the spiritual side of the work. What human values do you think his work conveys? How does it mesh with your value system? I find much of his work (and this building is a prime example) to convey messages that are antithetical to my own values.

Let's take Frank Lloyd Wright again as a point of contrast. Wright's buildings were unique, sophisticated and complex and when initially presented, I'm sure that uniqueness and complexity puzzled and confused many people who didn't have the skill to "read' the buildings' language. I'm sure many people were horrified and had strong negative responses to his work. Yet, despite this problem, there were people who did respond positively to his early work, and these clients tended to by strongly individualistic entrepreneurs as identified in the book Two Chicago Architects and Their Clients: Frank Lloyd Wright and Howard Van Doren Shaw by Leonard K. Eaton. It is not a mystery to me why this was the case, as Wright's buildings project a message of strong individuality and independence (through their uniqueness), integrity (through the fully integrated nature of the building, its details and the site), strength (through the way the building elements are assembled and the way the structure was anchored to the ground), intelligence (through the originality of the ideas), serenity (through the manner in which spaces were organized, details were integrated and the interior was connected to the exterior natural landscape), intellectual challenge (through the many surprises that await the patient an alert observer - such as the way light interplays with the interior space, to name but one example of many) and seriousness (as all of this was done without any self-referential joking). It seems clear to me that these are all things that a confident, independent business man at the turn of the century would appreciate as it reinforced and honored values he possessed and which guided his life. I too respond to these values and that is what has attracted me to Wright's work.

Now, in contrast, I have a completely different reaction to Gehry's work. I do favor the rational over the irrational and I find Ghery's work to be exemplary in projecting the irrational through the disorder and seeming arbitrariness of the many design decisions. This should not to be confused with complexity. As I said, Wright's work is extremely complex and I love the interplay of sophisticated jazz. But in these cases I am able to discern the theme of the work and come to see the complex interplay of components in support of the overall theme. Of course, as I said previously, this takes some time and study to train oneself to be able to read the language. In the case of Fred and Ginger, I don't find the design adding up to anything positive other than a big joke. Now, I like a joke as well as the next guy, but I do get offended when maybe $30-$50 million dollars get spent in service of whimsy and humor. I see structures like this as a huge lost opportunity to be an advocate for those types of values that I find in Wright's work. The overall message I get from this building is that we should laugh at ourselves and our foolish attempts to achieve greatness by applying our rational minds in service of rational goals. Let's let it all hang out - especially our guts, which we will rely upon to design for our infrastructure needs. This is about as far as you can get from the aesthetic goals of Objectivism, and this is why I consider the building to be nihilistic. Unlike Wright's work, it does not command me to rise up to meet its challenge.

OK, maybe I'm the uninitiated one this time that hasn't learned to read Gehry's language. So I would like to ask anyone who likes this building to try and enlighten me as to what it's theme is and what messages it conveys with regard to human values.

Regards,

--

Jeff

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Jeff,

As you have probably perceived, I am reluctant to trash highly successful people simply because Rand did, especially in cases where I see a caricature of independent thinking by Randian zealots who spout off standard jargon-laden condemnations derived from her views.

However, I fully appreciate your perspective on Gerhy. It echoes something very deep inside myself and I am more than grateful that you are able to articulate these views without all the usual bombast. You are even willing to entertain the possibility of stepping outside this perspective and looking at it from another, and when you have done so, you still stand convinced. Your arguments are anything but superficial. They represent to me the application of the Objectivist argument at its finest.

I am also grateful to Jonathan for raising the all-important questions that must be asked by any intelligent thinker. More often than not, I find myself asking these kinds of questions and seeing all kinds of holes in the standard Objectivist opinions on art. I usually find myself in agreement with Jonathan precisely because of this.

What is refreshing is that this discussion is being carried on by people who can back up their words with solid achievements and you guys are able to disagree and challenge each other civilly.

I wish to make it clear that my negative reaction to Gehry is a personal one and, like you stated, I am open to being convinced otherwise if someone can do so within my value structure. I have thought long and hard about what I have seen so far and Gehry simply does not speak to me in a positive voice.

Michael

[cjsmall]

Michael:

Thanks for your comments on the civility of the discussions. I too appreciate that we aren't having a flame fest here.

On a completely unrelated matter, there have been a couple of mentions of the fact that some of Frank Lloyd Wright buildings had low ceilings. I thought some of you might be interested in why this was the case. First, the average height of people back at the turn of the century was considerably shorter than it is today, so we have unfortunately outgrown (literally, not spiritually) these early works! But that is not the reason.

1: When we reside in a space, we perceive its size to a good degree by it's proportions. That is why it is critical when you design a large space such as a meeting room or the lobby of a performance hall, that the ceiling height also be increased. It would be more efficient to light and heat these spaces if we kept the ceiling lower, but our psychological perception of the room would be oppressive. We would feel the ceiling "crushing" down on us and the sense of confinement would be very disquieting. So, as architects, we learn to take this into account and try to design spaces that will be perceived in a positive way. In the case of Wright, most of his buildings were residences, and like almost all buildings architects get to design, there were usually tight budgets which restricted the overall size of these homes. Having to often work with small spaces, Wright realized that if he lowered the ceiling, our perception of the length and width of the room would increase (again, because our perception of the proportion of the space is significant). So, he set the ceiling height where he did, not because he was insensitive to the needs of the occupants, but just the opposite, because he wanted to maximize the architectural experience for the client while adhering to their budget as much as possible.

2: Wright didn't just lower ceilings indiscriminately. He modulated space in subtle ways that gave his interiors great vitality. I will use the previously posted picture of my living room to illustrate.

When I moved into this house, the living room was a very narrow 12' wide x 24' long with ceilings just over 8' high. These are terrible proportions and the high ceiling in relation to the width made it feel like you were in a boxcar. I knew I needed to lower the ceiling, but there were clerestory windows all around the perimeter which provided most of the light for the space. The solution was to construct a soffit at 7' above the floor which would run around the perimeter while leaving the 8' ceiling exposed in the center and allow the light to bounce into the space. This was a trick Wright often used in his houses, because he knew, as I do, that the soffits would set the psychologically perceived height close to the 7' level, making the width and length of the room feel much larger. The added benefit is that the space of the room is no longer a static cube but has been modulated in all three dimensions to be more complex and much more interesting. The light from the clerestory windows spills over the edge of the soffits but often you cannot see the windows themselves. This adds an element of mystery to the space which increases the dynamic tension for the occupant, challenging you to move about and explore. Wright knew exactly what he was doing when he set his soffit low.

3: Building upon the theme of spatial modulation, Wright understood that our sense of scale could be further manipulated. He realized that the overall size of a space would be perceived as much larger if you approached it through a constriction. So, to maximize the effect of the great central rooms in his buildings, he often designed the entry paths to be rather small with extra low ceilings. You would traverse these spaces and often make a 90-degree turn just as you were ceremoniously projected into the targeted space. The effect can be dramatic. So again, the decision for setting the low ceiling height was a very conscious one in support of the strongest possible architectural experience.

I thought it might be instructive to get a little window into the type of thinking that an architect does when designing. Notice that in every case regarding where to set the ceiling height, the decision can ultimately be traced back to the human occupants. This is what I mean when I speak of a human-centered approach towards architecture.

Regards,

--

Jeff

[reason.on]

No problem about the confusion, RCR. I said very little on the thread, and I didn't go into details about my views on aesthetics. Mostly, I was just trying to get to the exit door fast after having made what I soon considered the mistake of saying anything. As I recall, Michael Moeller had been silent for some while on that list (NB's list, to fill in for others reading), and I didn't stop to think of the likelihood of bringing his wrath down upon me and finding myself in a discussion I didn't want to have. Not the first or the last time I've posted some quick quip -- in this case "I wondered about that, too" -- on an elist and then wished I'd kept quiet.

I think you're now understanding my reaction to the scene. I wasn't saying that it's bad art, just that I don't like it.

Yes, yes...it is that line between "not liking" and "objecting on artistic grounds" that is tripping me up for various reasons.

For example, I can say that I don't like the scene for completely personal, subjective reasons, but I can also say I don't like the scene because of its specific artistic qualities.

Hypothetically, I could make the statement that I don't like the scene because Rand writes it with too much relish, and if she had changed her wording I wouldn't then find it so objectionable, further, if she changed her wording, the scene would support/reflect/serve the overall theme better (or so I could argue).

Now that seems to me like an fully normative aesthetic judgment which judges the technical aspects of the scene against the context of the theme of the novel (the standard) and prescribes an alternate method in support of that standard.

Would you agree?

With regard to "theme" as the technical standard, I think I understand were you (and Rand) are coming from when you say it is the only way to "objectively" (Rand's) judge the technical merits of the work (its aesthetics), since technical aesthetic merits are relative to the artist's particular purpose, his theme, as it were. We can't quite define, for example, what "good painting" is without referencing a context or purpose. "Good painting" for Picasso wouldn't be same as "good painting" for Vermeer...

Still, among other questions I have with this thinking, I want to be able to defend a kind of holoarchy in the creative process and in art appreciation with allows us to judge components independent of the whole. I'm struggling with getting this off the ground, but that's where I am coming from.

A few other things that are tripping me up: if I lined up 5 individual brush strokes on 5 canvases, could we not discuss their "aesthetic" qualities in some objective way? Can we not objectively discuss the aesthetic qualities of the mountain range out my window? Or a field of tulips? If I don't have a "theme" to hang my judgments on, can I have "aesthetics" at all?

But a further clarification: I don't use "cognitive" and "normative" in this area the way you did. By "cognitive" I'd mean the issue "What art is." By "normative" I'd mean "What good art is." Thus I'd say I'm making a "normative" statement in assessing Atlas as very good qua art (and in particular in not objecting to the Winston Tunnel scene on artistic grounds). Referring to MSK's threesome of categories, I'd classify my negative response as what he calls "subjective" -- i.e., a statement that there's something about the scene which I don't like.

Ah, thanks for that clarification, I get it. I understood the "subjective" bit, but I was trying to stretch "cognitive" beyond the category of "ART" itself, to cover objective "aesthetic judgments". I has been awhile since I've given much thought to this stuff with precise technical terms :-).

RCR

Edited February 12, 2007 by R. Christian Ross