Painting Frank O. Bought A.R.


Recommended Posts

I am of the ARI closed type of Objectivism (the Aristotelian proved vs. Platonic or open or socially-based type). I agree with everything that Ayn Rand and Leonard Peikoff have written, and that I mostly have read.

Ralph,

In the interest of full clarity, I think it is wise to point out that OL is a site devoted to checking premises. Even Ayn Rand's and Leonard Peikoff's.

The reason I made it this way is that I believe a person does not fully own a thought until he has checked it from all sides. In other words, I believe a person should value his own mind above that of any other person. If that leads him to suddenly disagree with fundamentals that he has held, or adopt others he previously rejected or never thought about, and even if that leads him to reject certain principles others hold, so long as it's his honest thinking to the best of his ability and understanding, in other words, if I sense goodwill, I make cordial space for it here.

I don't believe in varied truth, but I do believe that the path to discovery (of facts and objective values) is highly individual, with highly individual contexts. People grow and change. The only way I have found to make allowance for this and continue in a productive direction is to celebrate their use of their own minds. And I greatly value goodwill.

I, myself, have several premises of Rand (and Peikoff) I have checked with which I disagree. Mostly (not always), I disagree with scope when I disagree, but that is for another discussion. (I have written about this elsewhere.)

Unfortunately, this is seen as an attack on Ayn Rand by some. It isn't. An idea is an idea irrespective of who authored it and ideas are my concern. We actually get our share of Rand-bashers (for the sake of bashing) and they can be quite irritating.

Anyway, I respect your views on the quote above. We don't agree about it, but that's no big problem for me. In fact, I believe it could lead to some excellent premise-checking (by all). :)

As to your question about receiving email notifications, go to your name at the top right of the board, open the drop-down menu, choose "My Settings," choose the tab "Forums," then look at "View/Posting/Email Prefs" and choose what you like. When you are in a topic (thread) you want to "watch" (subscribe to), there is a "Watch The Topic" button at the top of the thread. It will send you the posts of everybody on that thread, not just your own. You can simply delete what you don't want to keep.

Michael

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 94
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Curious about your statement "I am of the ARI closed type of Objectivism (the Aristotelian proved vs. Platonic or open or socially-based type). I agree with everything that Ayn Rand and Leonard Peikoff have written, and that I mostly have read."

What do you mean by "Aristotean," "Platonic" and "socially-based"? I would think that a closed, monotlithic system of thought would be, metaphorically at least, Platonic and not Aristotelian (which suggests going heavy on empirical observation) or socially-based (whatever that may be).

In any case you seem to abandon this pretty quickly. The closed-Objectivism position is that Objectivism == just what Rand said. This is the first time I've heard anyone say that it includes Peikoff. If you don't buy his endorsement of Binswanger, you don't buy all of Peikoff.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Jonathan: "They'd [Objectivists] want their money being spent on creating an army of dedicated Romantic Realists."

Jonathan: "I just think that liberals and libertarians would be much more open to encouraging genuinely free artistic expression than the majority of Objectivists would."

What would it take to convince you to reconsider your policcy of making vast, global generalizations as if they were self-evident?

Barbara,

Your quoting of my statement above, with your insertion of the word "Objectivists," doesn't accurately represent what I wrote. This would be an accurate representation of my views:

Jonathan: "They'd [most Objectivists I've met] want their money being spent on creating an army of dedicated Romantic Realists™."

As for your question, I'm not making vast, global generalizations as if they were self-evident. I thought that I'd been clear that I'm stating opinions based on having heard many Objectivists' views on art and culture. I freely admit that I could be wrong about what the majority of them would or would not financially support if they were wealthy patrons of the arts. But, with the anger I've seen many of them express about various works of art which fall outside of the Romantic Realist range, I doubt that I'm wrong.

Anyway, what would it take to change my opinion? It would probably take seeing Objectivists commonly saying something like, "I didn't like or even understand the art that I was looking at this weekend, but a lot of the other people who were at the gallery while I was there seemed to love it. I saw only simple lines and colors on canvases, which were boring and which meant nothing to me, where others spoke enthusiastically of balance, structure and expressiveness. Maybe it's an acquired taste. Perhaps I need to study visual composition and familiarize myself with theories of proportion in order to one day understand what these other people seem to feel intuitively and automatically."

If that was a common attitude among Objectivists, I'd have a very different view of what type of patrons of the arts they'd be.

J

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 4 weeks later...

. . . . . .

Easy, easy there.

You have some wrong premises, that if you had them governing your ideas, you would be right and far more persuasive.

May I suggest watching the definitions being offered in the posts, and then mull them over, check them, and write your own versions. The arguments that are being posted will be sorted out.

Try lurking.

Evaluating ideas means taking more ideas and mulling them over to gain new conclusions.

Then, all you need to do to confirm or destroy an argument is to ask a question.

Ralph Hertle

Link to post
Share on other sites

John:

The photo shows some pastel pictures that I did. The photo image of the girls is blurry, and the drawings

are more crisp than they appear under glass. The digital print at the right is a portrayal of an idealistic historic event in space.

Ralph HertlePICTURES-ON-THE-WALL-SMALL-FRAMED.tif

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 years later...

Appears that the "boy" has an agenda...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Haven't followed this thread, but glancing at a few pages just now the following caught my eye:

... the viewpoint of Harry Binswanger that the entire science of mathematics that rests upon the scientific geometry of the Ancient Greeks should be discarded, and that a new mathematics based upon Modern Mathematics should replace it.

Sounds like the Bourbaki / Dieudonné craze of yesteryear: "Euclid must go!"

Anyone have a reference?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 year later...

This is from a reproduction, shot with my camera phone, but you'll get the idea. I'm sure the original was sharper and brighter - and bigger.

The artist is Ralph Hertle, and the name of the piece is "Until Now".

3153037100_b5c7541806.jpg

Rather vapid.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 years later...

OBJECTIVISTS ALL

Years have happened, and I got lost from Objectivism, practical living, and friendship.

Once again I may have more to say in paint and print.

If I wish to discuss art, new works, design, geometry, architecture, and designs for houses, which forum(s) are the most appropriate?

Ralph Hertle

[  ]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ralph,

You are already in the right place, the Art Gallery.

:) 

We also have an Aesthetics forum. Just click on the banner at the top, scroll down and choose that one or any other that catches your fancy. Then join a discussion that is underway or open a new thread and make the first post if you want to start a new topic.

Glad to see you again.

:)

Michael

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 year later...
On 8/18/2009 at 3:55 PM, Selene said:

Phil mentioned in #8 that:

"3. There is a modernist German/American architect who has done modernistic architecture that I like. His name is Helmut Jahn. If you've ever flown thru O'Hare and been in its newest? section, you have seen his work."

 

A new book has just been published on the work of Helmut Jahn.

Didn't Ayn Rand work at his office?

Perhaps the book may provide context for some of the ideas that she generated.

Ralph Hertle

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/31/2008 at 12:49 AM, jenright said:

This is from a reproduction, shot with my camera phone, but you'll get the idea. I'm sure the original was sharper and brighter - and bigger.

The artist is Ralph Hertle, and the name of the piece is "Until Now".

3153037100_b5c7541806.jpg

That is a sterile tableau.   

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/31/2008 at 1:13 AM, kiaer.ts said:

That's pretty. I did a google search on Hertle which turned up absolutely nothing but I came acroos this neat photo:

ura_comp-sml.png

from http://www.ssec.wisc.edu/media/Dec2004.htm

Is that Neptune?   Ooops. No, its Uranus,  the planet that is flopped over.  Its axis of rotation is almost on the plane of the ecliptic

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, HERTLE said:

 

A new book has just been published on the work of Helmut Jahn.

Didn't Ayn Rand work at his office?

Perhaps the book may provide context for some of the ideas that she generated.

Ralph Hertle

She worked at an architect's office with a vaguely similarly sounding name.

--Brant

Link to post
Share on other sites

From: "R. Christian Ross" <reason_on To: michaeldevaul Subject: RE:ATL: Quote about architecture

Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2001 05:38:35 +0000

 

Hi, First, it seems obvious to me, that the building you describe inspires in you a feeling of joy, of exaltation...that you are able to see within this construction, evidence of man's greatness, of his ability to build things of beauty, of value, and of reverence.   I glad to see that this experience is still of interest in Atlantis.

 

As you allude to in your quest for a quote--these things are, in great part, themes of Rand's "The Fountainhead"...however, they are applied in a manner that is contradictory to the specifics you provide about the building.  You have asked for a quote from “The Fountainhead” that describes these feelings and experiences, but Rand did not revere churches, nor did Howard Roark revere any of the architectural choices you outline below.

 

I want to be particularly sensitive in this post--to the motivating factor, and the importance of the abstract principal that I believe inspires the feelings and experiences that were expressed...and the tie-back to Rand's work (albeit abstract in this case). While I believe that Rand would mostly likely not "support" the preservation of such a building, I believe she would take care in explaining why....(and has, I might note, with her body of work).

 

Within “The Fountainhead”, the only positive reference to anything close to churches...is the construction, the controversy/trial, and the rebuilding of the Stoddard Temple.  But, you will not find anything that speaks to the greatness of flying buttresses, vaulted ceilings, painted ceilings, columns, or stained glass windows...what you will find are descriptions of exhalation and great architecture applied to the standards of value Rand spent her life developing and promoting.

 

The theme of this building (and the theme of greatness in architecture—in concrete form) is developed gradually through a variety of dialogues and narratives. Each of which contribute to the description of exhalation I think you are looking for.  I am going to include them all here.

 

First is the pitch--from Stoddard himself as "scripted" by E.Toohey (part 1 of Toohey's "trap")

 

"So you see Mr.. Roark, though it is to be a religious edifice, it is also more than that.  You notice that we call it the Temple of the Human Spirit. We want to capture--in stone, as others capture in music,--not some narrow creed, but the essence of all religion.  And what is the essence of religion?  The great aspiration of the human spirit toward the highest, the noblest, the best.  The human spirit as the creator and the conqueror of the ideal.  The great life-giving force of the universe.  The heroic human spirit.  That is your assignment, Mr.. Roark."

 

Next, Roark's description of the temple to Stephen Mallory--"the shooting sculptor".

 

"Just one figure.  It will stand here.  The place is built around it.  The statue of a naked woman.  If you understand the building, you understand what the figure must be.  The human spirit.  The heroic in man.  The aspiration and the fulfillment, both.  Uplifted in its quest--and uplifting by its own essence.  Seeking God--and finding itself.  Showing that there is no higher reach beyond its own form..."

 

Next, sample narrative descriptions of the temple, at the beginning of construction...

 

"The Temple was to be a small building of gray limestone.  Its lines were horizontal, not the lines reaching to heaven, but the lines of the earth. It seemed spread over the ground like arms outstretched at shoulder height, palms down, in great silent acceptance.  It did not cling to the soil and it did not crouch under the sky.  It seemed to lift the earth, and its few vertical shafts pulled the sky down."

 

"It was a joyous place, with the joy of exaltation that must be quiet.  It was a place where one could come to feel sinless and strong, to find the peace of spirit never granted save by one's own glory."

 

"The place was not sealed under vaults, but thrown open to the earth around it, to the trees, the river, the sun--and to the skyline of the city in the distance, the skyscrapers, the shapes of man's achievement on earth."

 

Finally, and perhaps the best description of what Howard builds, is given by Dominique--during the trial...

 

"Howard Roark built a temple to the human spirit.  He saw man as strong, proud, clean, wise, and fearless.   He saw man as a heroic being.  And he built a temple to that.  A temple is a place where man is to experience exaltation.  He thought that exaltation comes from the consciousness of being guiltless, of seeing the truth and achieving it, of living up to one's highest possibility, of knowing no shame and having no cause for shame, of being able to stand naked in full sunlight.  He thought that exaltation means joy and that joy is man's birthright. He thought a place built as a setting for man is a sacred place."

 

In the novel, the only explicit references to actual and historical "churches"--are in the smear campaign contrived by Toohey intended to destroy Roark's spirit--which is the only real threat to Toohey's quest for power.  These rally calls for "true churches" are, ironically, fairly well aligned with what you describe below.  ((with the addition of malevolent gargoyles and demons as well)).

 

Roark does also spend some time explaining early in the book, to the Dean who expels him, why Greek columns (the Parthenon) are NOT great architecture.

 

I hope you will see from these excepts, that the quote you are looking for doesn't really exist--and that soaring churches are antithetical to Rand's philosophy of living on earth.  They point man's attention and reverence to something other than himself--to something unknowable and outside of his own ability.  They send man's experience of exaltation in the wrong direction--they lie.

 

Rand (and I might add Frank Lloyd Wright) saw a great fault in this.  And tried to support the mind that thought otherwise.  Reverence, exaltation, profound serenity—are real experiences, are real values—but must be applied and taught in a context—and in conjunction with values.   Art is a way of expressing these abstract values in concrete form.  "The Fountainhead" is a study and artistic expression of this idea—and shows (to a degree) the source of values and the consequences of holding them.

 

I have to add to all of this--the continued observation that Rand's theories of art, and artistic appreciation are underdeveloped--that is they have much room to grow.

 

One clear example of this is the "Mozart issue".  Briefly summed up—Rand and others, have stated that Mozart was terrible, and that people who listen to and appreciate his music are non-Objective.  Now, while there may be some truth to Rand's way of coming to this specific value judgment--it is certainly not reasonable to infer that one finding value (pleasure) in Mozart's music is particularly harmful, or irrational. (As I mean to point out with reference to your admiration of this church)

 

The same argument can be made for many different forms of artistic appreciation.   The importance here, is to understand Rand was trying to define and integrate the "best" into everything thing she did.

 

It is healthy, in real life,  to be able to find value in things that may not be "the best"--that may not represent "the greatest possible" (I am sure that Rand understood this as well--read:"Tiddle Wink" music).   What is unhealthy--is finding value in those things which destroy or prevent the best, in crusading against the pursuit of the best, and in taking actions and making choices which hamper ones ability to be independent, happy, and free.

 

I hope all of this is helpful to you.

R. Christian Ross

 

From: BBfromM To: atlantis Subject: Re: RE:ATL: Quote about architecture Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2001 14:53:57 EDT

Christian Ross wrote: << . . . you will not find anything [in THE FOUNTAINHEAD] that speaks to the greatness of flying buttresses, vaulted ceilings, painted ceilings, columns, or stained glass windows...what you will find are descriptions of exhalation and great architecture applied to the standards of value Rand spent her life developing and promoting. >>

 

Ayn Rand's objection to the architecture you describe was not for that architecture in itself, but for the creation of such buildings today. Many of the cathedrals here and in Europe are exquisitely beautiful, but they belong in the past and not in a technological age. As for painted ceilings, what about Michelangelo's ceiling in the Sistine Chapel?

 

You wrote: <<Rand and others, have stated that Mozart was terrible, and that people who listen to and appreciate his music are non-Objective.  Now, while there may be some truth to Rand's way of coming to this specific value judgment--it is certainly not reasonable to infer that one finding value (pleasure) in Mozart's music is particularly harmful, or irrational.

 

Not "particularly harmful or irrational?" Some of Mozart's music is glorious, but Ayn Rand had heard very little of it. (By the way, you exaggerate her statements about Mozart; she did not say that his music was "terrible," nor that people who listen to and appreciate it are non-objective. She said she didn't like it because of its absence of melody (sic) and what she believed to be the sense of life it conveyed). But one day Alan Greenspan, whose favorite composer is Mozart, explained to her in considerable detail what is so remarkable about Mozart's work. She then granted the objectivity of his love of Mozart, although she did not personally enjoy him.

 

It is important to remember that at present we cannot validate our musical tastes, we cannot prove that what we hear is "in the music" except in a very limited way. We react to certain music very strongly, we hear certain things, a certain sense of life, in the music we love. But we have no right to pass judgment on people who respond to music that we do not like -- until and unless we can fully justify our judgments.

Barbara

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now