Escher

[BaalChatzaf]

Do you consider the visual works of Mortiz Escher art, or do you think it is something else. Moritz Escher does not imitate physical reality, rather he visualizes mathematical abstractions. Does this disqualify his work as art? What do you think Rand would have though of Escher's work?

Ba'al Chatzaf

[James Heaps-Nelson]

Do you consider the visual works of Mortiz Escher art, or do you think it is something else. Moritz Escher does not imitate physical reality, rather he visualizes mathematical abstractions. Does this disqualify his work as art? What do you think Rand would have though of Escher's work?

Ba'al Chatzaf

I think this qualifies as design, not art. Impressive design, though!!

Jim

[Dragonfly]

First, it is not Moritz but Maurits Escher.

Second, I don't see these as design (just to give a few examples):

[Jonathan]

I don't think that computer hardware and software qualifies as technology, but as mystical voodoo magic. Impresive mystical voodoo magic, though! ;)

J

[Chris Grieb]

I think it is art. Art as fantasy.

I like it. Escher's work is always interesting.

[BaalChatzaf]

I think it is art. Art as fantasy.

I like it. Escher's work is always interesting.

If M.C.Escher's work is art is is NOT a metaphysical recreation of reality (many of his items cannot exist in physical space) nor is it an imitation of reality (as Aristotle would have it). So it must be a different kind of art than either Rand or Aristotle had in mind. His picture of the hands drawing each other sure looks like art to me. And Escher seems to be having fun by laying a self-referential trip on us.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Roger Bissell]

I think it is art. Art as fantasy.

I like it. Escher's work is always interesting.

If M.C.Escher's work is art is is NOT a metaphysical recreation of reality (many of his items cannot exist in physical space) nor is it an imitation of reality (as Aristotle would have it). So it must be a different kind of art than either Rand or Aristotle had in mind. His picture of the hands drawing each other sure looks like art to me. And Escher seems to be having fun by laying a self-referential trip on us.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Robert, as I see it, Escher's work most definitely ~is~ art, and it most definitely ~is~ a re-creation of reality and an imitation of nature.

Try to set aside all the misconceptions of re-creation and imitation that see them as portraying specific things from this world, or as somehow trying to copy or portray this world. Instead, think of art as presenting an imaginary world.

As Leonard Peikoff wrote in OPAR (1991): "[A]rt is a re-creation of the universe from a personal perspective[;] it offers man, in effect, a new reality to contemplate." (p. 446) And in his article on Baumgarten, a German Rationalist and the founder of aesthetics, Georgio Tonelli wrote in Encyclopedia of Philosophy (1967): “The [fine] artist is not an imitator of nature in the sense that he copies it . . . he imitates nature in the process of creating a world or a whole” (p. 256, emphasis added).

I have killed a lot of trees and squid in arguing for this viewpoint. I believe that it truly and accurately represents Rand's view, and it flies in the face of a lot of confused argumentation by rather prominent writers on aesthetics such as John Hospers and Suzanne Langer, both of whom I respect a great deal.

You might want to peruse my JARS essay, "Art as Microcosm: The Real Meaning of the Objectivist Concept of Art," posted here on OL. It and a followup JARS essay comparing Rand to Camus and Langer in re art are my best current formulations of this view. Comments are welcome.

REB

[Dragonfly]

If M.C.Escher's work is art is is NOT a metaphysical recreation of reality (many of his items cannot exist in physical space) nor is it an imitation of reality (as Aristotle would have it). So it must be a different kind of art than either Rand or Aristotle had in mind.

Who gives a damn about what kind of art Rand or Aristotle had in mind?

[BaalChatzaf]

If M.C.Escher's work is art is is NOT a metaphysical recreation of reality (many of his items cannot exist in physical space) nor is it an imitation of reality (as Aristotle would have it). So it must be a different kind of art than either Rand or Aristotle had in mind.

Who gives a damn about what kind of art Rand or Aristotle had in mind?

Arrrgggh! Smarrrrrt as paint ye be! You asked the right question, ye did!

I used the example of M.C. Escher's work as a flank attack on Rand's concept of art.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Chris Grieb]

Dragonfly;

The name of the site is Objectivist Living. Objectivism is a philosophy created by Ayn Rand.

The site cares and I know I care.

Bob;

Miss Rand would consider Escher's work art.

[BaalChatzaf]

Dragonfly;

The name of the site is Objectivist Living. Objectivism is a philosophy created by Ayn Rand.

The site cares and I know I care.

Bob;

Miss Rand would consider Escher's work art.

Why? Most of M.C.Escher's work is neither a recreation of metaphysical reality (selective or otherwise) nor is it a representation or imitation of physical reality as Aristotle would argue. Escher is conjuring mathematical ideas of symmetry and self reference. That is what makes his visual presentations witty and fascinating. In one of Escher's works he makes a Moebius Strip really come alive with ants walking all over its single side. In another one of his works he illustrates beautifully one of the models for hyperbolic geometry. In many of his works he shows the duality or complementarity of background of and foreground which illustrates Bohr's principle of complementarity elegantly. Most of Escher's work is very mathematical and very abstract and has no resemblance to physical reality, at least the physical reality that shows itself to the unaided senses. His work point to ideas beyond the concrete and visible, so it has a very Platonic ambiance. Escher's works are beautiful shadows on the the Wall of the Cave (see Plato's -Republic).

Here was my point. If an Objectivist denies Escher's work is art, then he has too restrictive a notion of what art is. On the other hand if he accepts Escher's work as art, he has denied Rand's definition. So I raised the question. It is a Ju Jitsu move.

I would never argue the definition of art with an Objectivist. I would simply provide for him the material with which he could either contradict himself or demonstrate his narrowness of concept. I would also point out that is nothing the least bit Romantic about Escher's visual material. It is not an idealization of what is or a perfection of what is. It is a clever and witty demonstration of some mathematical concepts. And that is what makes his work worth looking at.

You might see this as an opposition or objection to the artistic principles of Rand, but using the tactics of Sun Tzu.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Newberry]

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Michael,

A picture is worth a thousand words!

If an Objectivist denies Escher's work is art, then he has too restrictive a notion of what art is. On the other hand if he accepts Escher's work as art, he has denied Rand's definition. So I raised the question. It is a Ju Jitsu move.

Bob,

There's a third possibility. You don't understand art, much less Rand's definition. Checkmate.

Michael

[BaalChatzaf]

Michael,

A picture is worth a thousand words!

If an Objectivist denies Escher's work is art, then he has too restrictive a notion of what art is. On the other hand if he accepts Escher's work as art, he has denied Rand's definition. So I raised the question. It is a Ju Jitsu move.

Bob,

There's a third possibility. You don't understand art, much less Rand's definition. Checkmate.

Michael

I read and understand English. I read Rands definition of art verbatim exactly as she wrote it. I did not interpret it. I take Rand's advice to take people literally. So I took her literally. No checkmate. Either Rand was right and her notion of art excludes M.E. Escher's visual works, in which case her definition of art is rather narrow, or she is wrong. Which is it? You cannot have both Rand's definition or Escher's art. I really do not see why a Russian born novelist and screen writer has any particular standing as either a definer or critic of music, visual arts or statue making. On the other hand I would take Rand's views on written material, literature, very seriously since she knows her business in this area.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Jonathan]

Bob,

Is your point that an artistic expression of a "metaphysical value-judgment" is a comprehensive view of the "essence of existence," and that Escher's images, as well as perhaps most works by other artists that everyone thinks of as art, don't present such "essential" or all-encompassing views?

If so, I don't know that Escher's art necessarily conflicts with Rand's definition so much as with her further elaborations on what art is. Her definition only states that a work of art is created "according to" an artist's metaphysical value-judgments, not that the art work must represent or express those judgments. So it's possible that Escher's "metaphysical value-judgments" or "comprehensive view of existence" did indeed influence the creation of his art in conjunction with his more specific interests, while his work was perhaps not intended to express his "metaphysical views."

As far as what Rand would have thought of his work, I don't think that any of us could guess, and I think she'd say the same thing: that we don't know her tastes, so don't bother.

I think she'd most likely have a very strong opinion about Escher, as she did about everything else. She'd probably judge his work as the most amazing imagery that has ever existed, or she'd abruptly dismiss it as trash (or perhaps hector those who liked it with sermons about what was defective about them).

J

Edited November 12, 2007 by Jonathan

[Dragonfly]

I think she'd most likely have a very strong opinion about Escher, as she did about everything else. She'd probably judge his work as the most amazing imagery that has ever existed, or she'd abruptly dismiss it as trash (or perhaps hector those who liked it with sermons about what was defective about them).

I'm fairly sure she would have condemned his work: impossible figures, confusing stairways that deny the laws of physics, an apparent reality that is no reality, contradictions, all that must surely be the result of a malevolent and evil psycho-epistemology!

[Jonathan]

I think she'd most likely have a very strong opinion about Escher, as she did about everything else. She'd probably judge his work as the most amazing imagery that has ever existed, or she'd abruptly dismiss it as trash (or perhaps hector those who liked it with sermons about what was defective about them).

I'm fairly sure she would have condemned his work: impossible figures, confusing stairways that deny the laws of physics, an apparent reality that is no reality, contradictions, all that must surely be the result of a malevolent and evil psycho-epistemology!

Yeah, we are talking about Rand, so the odds are that she would have detested Escher. I think the smart money would have always been on Rand hating any given work of art as opposed to finding anything of value in it, but once in a while she did have some surprisingly pleasant things to say about stuff that she could have just as easily hated. It's possible that she might have seen some sort of childlike purity or joyous mathematical precision in Escher, much in the same way that she saw Marilyn Monroe as an innocent kitten where she could have condemned her as a ditzy slut, or how she saw Charlie's Angels as refreshingly romantic rather than corny.

J

[Chris Grieb]

Jonathan;

Your examples about Rand's tastes are very good.

Diminishing Returns a painting by Frank O'Connor is example of a whimsical fantasy that I once heard Mary Ann Sures praise.

I am guessing Ayn Rand liked the painting since she may have had it in their apartment.

[Roger Bissell]

Michael,

A picture is worth a thousand words!

If an Objectivist denies Escher's work is art, then he has too restrictive a notion of what art is. On the other hand if he accepts Escher's work as art, he has denied Rand's definition. So I raised the question. It is a Ju Jitsu move.

Bob,

There's a third possibility. You don't understand art, much less Rand's definition. Checkmate.

Michael

I read and understand English. I read Rands definition of art verbatim exactly as she wrote it. I did not interpret it. I take Rand's advice to take people literally. So I took her literally. No checkmate. Either Rand was right and her notion of art excludes M.E. Escher's visual works, in which case her definition of art is rather narrow, or she is wrong. Which is it? You cannot have both Rand's definition or Escher's art. I really do not see why a Russian born novelist and screen writer has any particular standing as either a definer or critic of music, visual arts or statue making. On the other hand I would take Rand's views on written material, literature, very seriously since she knows her business in this area.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Robert, with all due respect, you do not know what you are talking about. And the reason for that is that you have not taken the time to read and listen to the necessary items that would entitle you to say you know what Rand meant by her definition. You assume that her use of the term "re-creation of reality" is intended in the naive sense that other theoreticians and critics assume when they trash this perspective. Instead, she meant exactly what I said it did in my previous post, and in my JARS essays, which you apparently have not taken the time and effort to read. (They are posted here on OL.)

Please, at minimum, consider the following, excerpted from my JARS essay "Art as Microcosm." It establishes that as early as 1976, Leonard Peikoff with Rand at his side, monitoring his every word, gave the same interpretation of Rand's definition as I have.

Peikoff (1976) acknowledged that the artist “creates a universe anew.” Peikoff first publicly stated the microcosm view, with Rand’s endorsement, in his book on Nazi Germany (1982). In it, he described how the work of artists in a given culture or period of history “becomes a microcosm embodying and helping to spread further the kinds of beliefs [advocated by] the prevailing consensus (or some faction within it)” (169). The explicit integration of the “re-creation” and “microcosm” views of art, however, was not officially made until 1991, in a passage that is largely a reworking of material from a 1976 lecture course in which Rand participated. Peikoff (1991, 417) wrote: The artist is the closest man comes to being God. We can validly speak of the world of Michelangelo, of Van Gogh, of Dostoyevsky, not because they create a world ex nihilo, but because they do re-create one. Each omits, rearranges,

emphasizes the data of reality and thus creates the universe anew, guided by his own view of the essence of the original one. . . . The result is a universe in microcosm.

You are welcome to take Rand literally, when AND ONLY WHEN you have no ADDITIONAL information that clearly establishes that she was using the term "re-creation of reality" in a sense different from the standard, naive sense of copying the world. Now you have that information. So take back what you said about her definition being wrong -- and about Escher not being art by her definition. Whether or not she would have LIKED Escher's art is a different matter; she probably wouldn't have. But so what??

REB

[Brant Gaede]

Jonathan;

Your examples about Rand's tastes are very good.

Diminishing Returns a painting by Frank O'Connor is example of a whimsical fantasy that I once heard Mary Ann Sures praise.

I am guessing Ayn Rand liked the painting since she may have had it in their apartment.

I have a copy I like very much. #6 of a hundred, with Frank O'Connor's autograph.

--Brant

[Brant Gaede]

Michael,

A picture is worth a thousand words!

If an Objectivist denies Escher's work is art, then he has too restrictive a notion of what art is. On the other hand if he accepts Escher's work as art, he has denied Rand's definition. So I raised the question. It is a Ju Jitsu move.

Bob,

There's a third possibility. You don't understand art, much less Rand's definition. Checkmate.

Michael

I read and understand English. I read Rands definition of art verbatim exactly as she wrote it. I did not interpret it. I take Rand's advice to take people literally. So I took her literally. No checkmate. Either Rand was right and her notion of art excludes M.E. Escher's visual works, in which case her definition of art is rather narrow, or she is wrong. Which is it? You cannot have both Rand's definition or Escher's art. I really do not see why a Russian born novelist and screen writer has any particular standing as either a definer or critic of music, visual arts or statue making. On the other hand I would take Rand's views on written material, literature, very seriously since she knows her business in this area.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Robert, with all due respect, you do not know what you are talking about. And the reason for that is that you have not taken the time to read and listen to the necessary items that would entitle you to say you know what Rand meant by her definition. You assume that her use of the term "re-creation of reality" is intended in the naive sense that other theoreticians and critics assume when they trash this perspective. Instead, she meant exactly what I said it did in my previous post, and in my JARS essays, which you apparently have not taken the time and effort to read. (They are posted here on OL.)

Please, at minimum, consider the following, excerpted from my JARS essay "Art as Microcosm." It establishes that as early as 1976, Leonard Peikoff with Rand at his side, monitoring his every word, gave the same interpretation of Rand's definition as I have.

Peikoff (1976) acknowledged that the artist “creates a universe anew.” Peikoff first publicly stated the microcosm view, with Rand’s endorsement, in his book on Nazi Germany (1982). In it, he described how the work of artists in a given culture or period of history “becomes a microcosm embodying and helping to spread further the kinds of beliefs [advocated by] the prevailing consensus (or some faction within it)” (169). The explicit integration of the “re-creation” and “microcosm” views of art, however, was not officially made until 1991, in a passage that is largely a reworking of material from a 1976 lecture course in which Rand participated. Peikoff (1991, 417) wrote: The artist is the closest man comes to being God. We can validly speak of the world of Michelangelo, of Van Gogh, of Dostoyevsky, not because they create a world ex nihilo, but because they do re-create one. Each omits, rearranges,

emphasizes the data of reality and thus creates the universe anew, guided by his own view of the essence of the original one. . . . The result is a universe in microcosm.

You are welcome to take Rand literally, when AND ONLY WHEN you have no ADDITIONAL information that clearly establishes that she was using the term "re-creation of reality" in a sense different from the standard, naive sense of copying the world. Now you have that information. So take back what you said about her definition being wrong -- and about Escher not being art by her definition. Whether or not she would have LIKED Escher's art is a different matter; she probably wouldn't have. But so what??

REB

Kudos.

Roger, do you know what GhS considered the greatest loss when the original Atlantis petered out? That you did not migrate to AtLII.

--Brant

[Roger Bissell]

Michael,

A picture is worth a thousand words!

If an Objectivist denies Escher's work is art, then he has too restrictive a notion of what art is. On the other hand if he accepts Escher's work as art, he has denied Rand's definition. So I raised the question. It is a Ju Jitsu move.

Bob,

There's a third possibility. You don't understand art, much less Rand's definition. Checkmate.

Michael

I read and understand English. I read Rands definition of art verbatim exactly as she wrote it. I did not interpret it. I take Rand's advice to take people literally. So I took her literally. No checkmate. Either Rand was right and her notion of art excludes M.E. Escher's visual works, in which case her definition of art is rather narrow, or she is wrong. Which is it? You cannot have both Rand's definition or Escher's art. I really do not see why a Russian born novelist and screen writer has any particular standing as either a definer or critic of music, visual arts or statue making. On the other hand I would take Rand's views on written material, literature, very seriously since she knows her business in this area.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Robert, with all due respect, you do not know what you are talking about. And the reason for that is that you have not taken the time to read and listen to the necessary items that would entitle you to say you know what Rand meant by her definition. You assume that her use of the term "re-creation of reality" is intended in the naive sense that other theoreticians and critics assume when they trash this perspective. Instead, she meant exactly what I said it did in my previous post, and in my JARS essays, which you apparently have not taken the time and effort to read. (They are posted here on OL.)

Please, at minimum, consider the following, excerpted from my JARS essay "Art as Microcosm." It establishes that as early as 1976, Leonard Peikoff with Rand at his side, monitoring his every word, gave the same interpretation of Rand's definition as I have.

Peikoff (1976) acknowledged that the artist “creates a universe anew.” Peikoff first publicly stated the microcosm view, with Rand’s endorsement, in his book on Nazi Germany (1982). In it, he described how the work of artists in a given culture or period of history “becomes a microcosm embodying and helping to spread further the kinds of beliefs [advocated by] the prevailing consensus (or some faction within it)” (169). The explicit integration of the “re-creation” and “microcosm” views of art, however, was not officially made until 1991, in a passage that is largely a reworking of material from a 1976 lecture course in which Rand participated. Peikoff (1991, 417) wrote: The artist is the closest man comes to being God. We can validly speak of the world of Michelangelo, of Van Gogh, of Dostoyevsky, not because they create a world ex nihilo, but because they do re-create one. Each omits, rearranges,

emphasizes the data of reality and thus creates the universe anew, guided by his own view of the essence of the original one. . . . The result is a universe in microcosm.

You are welcome to take Rand literally, when AND ONLY WHEN you have no ADDITIONAL information that clearly establishes that she was using the term "re-creation of reality" in a sense different from the standard, naive sense of copying the world. Now you have that information. So take back what you said about her definition being wrong -- and about Escher not being art by her definition. Whether or not she would have LIKED Escher's art is a different matter; she probably wouldn't have. But so what??

REB

Kudos.

Roger, do you know what GhS considered the greatest loss when the original Atlantis petered out? That you did not migrate to AtLII.

--Brant

Brant, I appreciate your encouragement and your mentioning AtlII. Actually, if I recall correctly, GHS regretted that I did not ~stay~ on AtlII. I was an active participant there for a while, several years ago, but I then dropped into lurk mode--still a member, but non-participating.

GHS is a really smart guy, as are some of the others there, but the list's chemistry is not always good. In particular, I've developed a very limited tolerance for contentious threads, and there is far too much baiting on AtlII for my comfort.

Even here on OL, I have to pull back and let threads go where they will, when I find that people are not receptive to my arguments.

Anyway, thanks.

REB

[Brant Gaede]

Michael,

A picture is worth a thousand words!

If an Objectivist denies Escher's work is art, then he has too restrictive a notion of what art is. On the other hand if he accepts Escher's work as art, he has denied Rand's definition. So I raised the question. It is a Ju Jitsu move.

Bob,

There's a third possibility. You don't understand art, much less Rand's definition. Checkmate.

Michael

I read and understand English. I read Rands definition of art verbatim exactly as she wrote it. I did not interpret it. I take Rand's advice to take people literally. So I took her literally. No checkmate. Either Rand was right and her notion of art excludes M.E. Escher's visual works, in which case her definition of art is rather narrow, or she is wrong. Which is it? You cannot have both Rand's definition or Escher's art. I really do not see why a Russian born novelist and screen writer has any particular standing as either a definer or critic of music, visual arts or statue making. On the other hand I would take Rand's views on written material, literature, very seriously since she knows her business in this area.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Robert, with all due respect, you do not know what you are talking about. And the reason for that is that you have not taken the time to read and listen to the necessary items that would entitle you to say you know what Rand meant by her definition. You assume that her use of the term "re-creation of reality" is intended in the naive sense that other theoreticians and critics assume when they trash this perspective. Instead, she meant exactly what I said it did in my previous post, and in my JARS essays, which you apparently have not taken the time and effort to read. (They are posted here on OL.)

Please, at minimum, consider the following, excerpted from my JARS essay "Art as Microcosm." It establishes that as early as 1976, Leonard Peikoff with Rand at his side, monitoring his every word, gave the same interpretation of Rand's definition as I have.

Peikoff (1976) acknowledged that the artist “creates a universe anew.” Peikoff first publicly stated the microcosm view, with Rand’s endorsement, in his book on Nazi Germany (1982). In it, he described how the work of artists in a given culture or period of history “becomes a microcosm embodying and helping to spread further the kinds of beliefs [advocated by] the prevailing consensus (or some faction within it)” (169). The explicit integration of the “re-creation” and “microcosm” views of art, however, was not officially made until 1991, in a passage that is largely a reworking of material from a 1976 lecture course in which Rand participated. Peikoff (1991, 417) wrote: The artist is the closest man comes to being God. We can validly speak of the world of Michelangelo, of Van Gogh, of Dostoyevsky, not because they create a world ex nihilo, but because they do re-create one. Each omits, rearranges,

emphasizes the data of reality and thus creates the universe anew, guided by his own view of the essence of the original one. . . . The result is a universe in microcosm.

You are welcome to take Rand literally, when AND ONLY WHEN you have no ADDITIONAL information that clearly establishes that she was using the term "re-creation of reality" in a sense different from the standard, naive sense of copying the world. Now you have that information. So take back what you said about her definition being wrong -- and about Escher not being art by her definition. Whether or not she would have LIKED Escher's art is a different matter; she probably wouldn't have. But so what??

REB

Kudos.

Roger, do you know what GhS considered the greatest loss when the original Atlantis petered out? That you did not migrate to AtLII.

--Brant

Brant, I appreciate your encouragement and your mentioning AtlII. Actually, if I recall correctly, GHS regretted that I did not ~stay~ on AtlII. I was an active participant there for a while, several years ago, but I then dropped into lurk mode--still a member, but non-participating.

GHS is a really smart guy, as are some of the others there, but the list's chemistry is not always good. In particular, I've developed a very limited tolerance for contentious threads, and there is far too much baiting on AtlII for my comfort.

Even here on OL, I have to pull back and let threads go where they will, when I find that people are not receptive to my arguments.

Anyway, thanks.

REB

The mega posters ruined AtlII for me. I never was bothered too much about lack of civility. The physical structure of the original Atlantis seemed to mitigate that somewhat, with its multiple threads, as here, but to have to confront them continually drove me away. Dan Ust, smart as he was, was and I guess still is, the worst. I have to say that when Atlantis disappeared, courtesy J. Wales, with to me its very valuable archives, I realized how ephemeral this list posting was--that this is just talk. Here today, gone tomorrow. Better to write it down and publish it on paper.

--Brant

[Roger Bissell]

Michael,

A picture is worth a thousand words!

If an Objectivist denies Escher's work is art, then he has too restrictive a notion of what art is. On the other hand if he accepts Escher's work as art, he has denied Rand's definition. So I raised the question. It is a Ju Jitsu move.

Bob,

There's a third possibility. You don't understand art, much less Rand's definition. Checkmate.

Michael

I read and understand English. I read Rands definition of art verbatim exactly as she wrote it. I did not interpret it. I take Rand's advice to take people literally. So I took her literally. No checkmate. Either Rand was right and her notion of art excludes M.E. Escher's visual works, in which case her definition of art is rather narrow, or she is wrong. Which is it? You cannot have both Rand's definition or Escher's art. I really do not see why a Russian born novelist and screen writer has any particular standing as either a definer or critic of music, visual arts or statue making. On the other hand I would take Rand's views on written material, literature, very seriously since she knows her business in this area.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Robert, with all due respect, you do not know what you are talking about. And the reason for that is that you have not taken the time to read and listen to the necessary items that would entitle you to say you know what Rand meant by her definition. You assume that her use of the term "re-creation of reality" is intended in the naive sense that other theoreticians and critics assume when they trash this perspective. Instead, she meant exactly what I said it did in my previous post, and in my JARS essays, which you apparently have not taken the time and effort to read. (They are posted here on OL.)

Please, at minimum, consider the following, excerpted from my JARS essay "Art as Microcosm." It establishes that as early as 1976, Leonard Peikoff with Rand at his side, monitoring his every word, gave the same interpretation of Rand's definition as I have.

Peikoff (1976) acknowledged that the artist “creates a universe anew.” Peikoff first publicly stated the microcosm view, with Rand’s endorsement, in his book on Nazi Germany (1982). In it, he described how the work of artists in a given culture or period of history “becomes a microcosm embodying and helping to spread further the kinds of beliefs [advocated by] the prevailing consensus (or some faction within it)” (169). The explicit integration of the “re-creation” and “microcosm” views of art, however, was not officially made until 1991, in a passage that is largely a reworking of material from a 1976 lecture course in which Rand participated. Peikoff (1991, 417) wrote: The artist is the closest man comes to being God. We can validly speak of the world of Michelangelo, of Van Gogh, of Dostoyevsky, not because they create a world ex nihilo, but because they do re-create one. Each omits, rearranges,

emphasizes the data of reality and thus creates the universe anew, guided by his own view of the essence of the original one. . . . The result is a universe in microcosm.

You are welcome to take Rand literally, when AND ONLY WHEN you have no ADDITIONAL information that clearly establishes that she was using the term "re-creation of reality" in a sense different from the standard, naive sense of copying the world. Now you have that information. So take back what you said about her definition being wrong -- and about Escher not being art by her definition. Whether or not she would have LIKED Escher's art is a different matter; she probably wouldn't have. But so what??

REB

Kudos.

Roger, do you know what GhS considered the greatest loss when the original Atlantis petered out? That you did not migrate to AtLII.

--Brant

Brant, I appreciate your encouragement and your mentioning AtlII. Actually, if I recall correctly, GHS regretted that I did not ~stay~ on AtlII. I was an active participant there for a while, several years ago, but I then dropped into lurk mode--still a member, but non-participating.

GHS is a really smart guy, as are some of the others there, but the list's chemistry is not always good. In particular, I've developed a very limited tolerance for contentious threads, and there is far too much baiting on AtlII for my comfort.

Even here on OL, I have to pull back and let threads go where they will, when I find that people are not receptive to my arguments.

Anyway, thanks.

REB

The mega posters ruined AtlII for me. I never was bothered too much about lack of civility. The physical structure of the original Atlantis seemed to mitigate that somewhat, with its multiple threads, as here, but to have to confront them continually drove me away. Dan Ust, smart as he was, was and I guess still is, the worst. I have to say that when Atlantis disappeared, courtesy J. Wales, with to me its very valuable archives, I realized how ephemeral this list posting was--that this is just talk. Here today, gone tomorrow. Better to write it down and publish it on paper.

--Brant

Brant, you are exactly right about this last point. That is why I have been endeavoring to get my main ideas published in JARS, and why I have outlined and am working on several books on philosophy, including one on epistemology/logic and one on art/aesthetics.

I think it's unconscionable that the archives of the original Atlantis and OWL (and their predecessor, Objectivism-L) were allowed to disappear. Some of us managed to archive the material, but accessing the material from computer files of list digests is just not the same as being able to see the posts in chronological order. I made an effort to glean what I thought were my most useful posts/insights and have tucked them away for later use. Occasionally, I recycle some of that material when it seems apropos here on OL or RoR.

On the other hand, there are some really embarrassing exchanges on the old lists. Some of the people in those exchanges are probably glad that the material has disappeared down the memory hole. (The nasty interchanges between Jonathan and Michael N., for instance, are "sweetness and light" compared to some of these. And some absolutely ignoramus Randroids infested those lists, too. For the most part, the ignoramuses on OL are ~not~ Randroids. :-)

REB

[Dragonfly]

You guys should learn some posting etiquette: do not quote complete posts (unless they are very short)!! There are few things I find as irritating as a long series of nested quotes (now 7 levels!) followed by a few new lines. This is just laziness and a huge waste of bandwidth.