Robert Campbell on denunciation in Randland

[Christopher]

Remember that her career as a writer and philosopher gave her values subjectively related to career (such as enjoying perceptual seemingly philosophically-consistent epistemological based impressions, etc). Nothing wrong with that, it's personal taste. Not everyone is a philosopher, so not everyone is going to take the same mental appreciation of the artwork by this token.

[Brant Gaede]

The objectivity of aesthetics has to go with some valid criteria for good art mixed in with subjective value preferences. What is noteworthy about what one commonly thinks of bad art or trash is that the proponents can't tell you by what esthetic standards their idea of art was created and justified. They also don't tell you that Michelangelo was a bad artist. Who's he? or us too! They will tell you it's art because the "artist" says it's art and that they are pushing the envelope, etc. They will tell you technical standards are delimiting for none are used. If they don't use words that's what they project. It is the presence of standards by which we judge art as good or bad. It doesn't matter if someone claims they are subjective; maybe they are. What matters is the standards are consistent and provide a frame of reference. Now, using standards: here is how the paint is applied to get that effect; here is the type of paint to use; here is perspective--you may produce a painting that reflects great technical ability that people don't like even while acknowledging that ability. They just don't like it. Maybe nobody likes it including you. In this realm objectivity falls down. It's useless. The painting (or other art) is either liked or not. It may even have a powerful effect--and not be liked, which is another kind of (masochistic) liking. There is art judged solely by what someone likes or dislikes taken as a whole merely through contemplation. There is also art--expensive art--put on walls because it is expensive and other parvenus of your peer group have similar stuff from the same or similar in-artist blessed by social-artist-critic authority figures. These consumers are rich Peter Keatings who probably cheat on their sales taxes and end up in jail.

--Brant

[jeffrey smith]

Remember that her career as a writer and philosopher gave her values subjectively related to career (such as enjoying perceptual seemingly philosophically-consistent epistemological based impressions, etc). Nothing wrong with that, it's personal taste. Not everyone is a philosopher, so not everyone is going to take the same mental appreciation of the artwork by this token.

Christopher, no offense meant, but--

I've read the words I put in bold six time over and failed to discover any meaning in them.

In other words, what the Hades did you mean?

[Ellen Stuttle]

But I could be wrong.

Yeah, you could be.

Ellen

Uh huh, and your opinions on Rand's asethetic/moral judgments are just as speculative as mine, despite the certainty with which you've expressed some of them.

I'll emphasise the "some." I've tried to be clear on the difference between what she's on record as saying, what I've heard and believe from people close to her -- especially Allan Blumenthal, whose reports on her musical likes and dislikes I trust; also Joan Blumenthal, regarding her views on painters -- and what I think likely based on general knowledge of her.

Rand was unpredictable when it came to her tastes in art. She could be quite informed and objective while discussing one work of art and then uninformed and subjective while discussing another. She sometimes adhered to her definitions and her proposed methods of judgment and classification, and she sometimes deviated from them, or downright contradicted them. She might denounce or dismiss art which perfectly fit her concept of romanticism, and she might arbitrarily overlook subject matter which she felt represented the glorification of one type of evil or another.

I wonder if anyone but me notices the shift of key from your previous tune in that statement.

She was too complex and mercurial for anyone to know what she might have believed, and why, about any artist or his work.

You mean, even when she's on clear -- and sometimes lengthy -- record saying what she believed and why? Or do you merely mean about artists and works where she didn't explicitly say?

Ellen

[Jonathan]

Rand was unpredictable when it came to her tastes in art. She could be quite informed and objective while discussing one work of art and then uninformed and subjective while discussing another. She sometimes adhered to her definitions and her proposed methods of judgment and classification, and she sometimes deviated from them, or downright contradicted them. She might denounce or dismiss art which perfectly fit her concept of romanticism, and she might arbitrarily overlook subject matter which she felt represented the glorification of one type of evil or another.

I wonder if anyone but me notices the shift of key from your previous tune in that statement.

What do you think is the difference in my "key"?

She was too complex and mercurial for anyone to know what she might have believed, and why, about any artist or his work.

You mean, even when she's on clear -- and sometimes lengthy -- record saying what she believed and why? Or do you merely mean about artists and works where she didn't explicitly say?

I mean that we can't know what she believed about the artists and artworks that she didn't explicitly comment on. For example, the fact that she didn't like fairy tale content in one work of art doesn't mean that the reason that she didn't like another work of art was because of its fairy tale content. Likewise, the fact that she excused elements in one work of art which she took to be a perfect symbol for "decay and degradation" doesn't mean that she would have excused the same subject matter in another work.

J

[Ellen Stuttle]

Rand was unpredictable when it came to her tastes in art. She could be quite informed and objective while discussing one work of art and then uninformed and subjective while discussing another. She sometimes adhered to her definitions and her proposed methods of judgment and classification, and she sometimes deviated from them, or downright contradicted them. She might denounce or dismiss art which perfectly fit her concept of romanticism, and she might arbitrarily overlook subject matter which she felt represented the glorification of one type of evil or another.

I wonder if anyone but me notices the shift of key from your previous tune in that statement.

What do you think is the difference in my "key"?

The softening of the charges.

I'll comment on something I noticed but didn't have time specifically to mention last time:

You're presuming that she was "deviat[ing] from [...] or downright contradic[ing]" her "proposed methods of judgment and classification" in cases where you believe that some work of art "perfectly fit her concept of romanticism." Maybe she wouldn't have agreed that it did. Also, I think you're again confusing the two bases of judging, excellence of execution and content. She didn't hold that because a work of art might be romantic, it was therefore well done. (Nor did she say that because a work might be romantic, she would therefore like it. She only argued that the general category of romanticism was morally superior to that of naturalism.) You also presume with the "arbitrarily." For instance, in the case of the Capuletti example, she said that characteristics of the work made it an exception to what she would have expected.

She was too complex and mercurial for anyone to know what she might have believed, and why, about any artist or his work.

You mean, even when she's on clear -- and sometimes lengthy -- record saying what she believed and why? Or do you merely mean about artists and works where she didn't explicitly say?

I mean that we can't know what she believed about the artists and artworks that she didn't explicitly comment on.

Right; we can't. On what basis would you expect to know? I.e., you're criticizing on the basis of an unwarranted expectation. I think your complaint is just that you can't be sure what she'd have liked and what she wouldn't have liked.

For example, the fact that she didn't like fairy tale content in one work of art doesn't mean that the reason that she didn't like another work of art was because of its fairy tale content. Likewise, the fact that she excused elements in one work of art which she took to be a perfect symbol for "decay and degradation" doesn't mean that she would have excused the same subject matter in another work.

No, it doesn't. So, guess what, you'll just have to remain in ignorance where she didn't say.

As to her reaction to Parrish, a discrepancy from what you, and a number of her admirers, expected, I did not make the mistake of presuming on the basis of my hunch. I merely thought that those who had Parrishes on their walls presuming Rand would like his work might be in for a surprise. Turned out I was right on that one. As I said somewhere up thread, I was later told by someone who knew her that the basis of my hunch was on target. I don't remember which of two people told me, whether it was Joan Blumenthal or Edith Packer. Up to you whether you place any weight on the vague recollection.

Ellen

[Jonathan]

I'll comment on something I noticed but didn't have time specifically to mention last time:

You're presuming that she was "deviat[ing] from [...] or downright contradic[ing]" her "proposed methods of judgment and classification" in cases where you believe that some work of art "perfectly fit her concept of romanticism." Maybe she wouldn't have agreed that it did.

I was thinking more along the lines of Rand's comments on how to objectively judge a work of art, her statement that emotions are not a valid criterion of aesthetic judgment, and her view that one cannot know or judge the "sense of life" of fictional characters, or even real people whom one is not personally very close to, yet she rarely followed her stated method of objective aesthetic judgment, she instead gave her emotional responses to art (while sometimes phrasing her statements in the second person, telling the reader what he thinks or feels instead of simply stating what she thought or felt -- you wouldn't have believed that such beauty... you feel the exaltation of...), and she claimed to know the "senses of life" of ficitonal characters, entire works of art, and the artists who created them, based on her emotional responses to the art.

Also, I think you're again confusing the two bases of judging, excellence of execution and content. She didn't hold that because a work of art might be romantic, it was therefore well done. (Nor did she say that because a work might be romantic, she would therefore like it. She only argued that the general category of romanticism was morally superior to that of naturalism.) You also presume with the "arbitrarily." For instance, in the case of the Capuletti example, she said that characteristics of the work made it an exception to what she would have expected.

No, I think that in many cases Rand confused her feelings with the content of works of art, and that's especially true in regard to Capuletti's work. Vermeer's superbly painted characters, regardless of what they were doing or how they were dressed, represented "naturalism" to her, yet Capuletti's poorly executed "middle-aged peasants" and cracked plaster wall were romantic to her. What led her to classify them as such?. Her feelings. She didn't feel enough emotional impact when looking at Vermeer's characters to classify his work as romantic, where she did feel enough emotional impact to classify Capuletti's as romantic, regardless of content. She felt that Degas made ballerinas "look awkward and flat-footed," but that Capuletti's figures were "significant and imposing." Again, by any objective standard, it's Capuletti's malformed figures that are "awkward and flat-footed" in comparison to those of Degas (or Vermeer, Parrish, Rembrandt, etc.).

I mean that we can't know what she believed about the artists and artworks that she didn't explicitly comment on.

Right; we can't. On what basis would you expect to know?

If her definitions and criteria were objective and consistent, I'd expect to be able to know which artworks she would classify as romantic.

I.e., you're criticizing on the basis of an unwarranted expectation. I think your complaint is just that you can't be sure what she'd have liked and what she wouldn't have liked.

No, my complaint is that she didn't adhere to her stated methods of objective judgment and classification, but instead judged and classified according to her emotional responses -- her subjective tastes.

For example, the fact that she didn't like fairy tale content in one work of art doesn't mean that the reason that she didn't like another work of art was because of its fairy tale content. Likewise, the fact that she excused elements in one work of art which she took to be a perfect symbol for "decay and degradation" doesn't mean that she would have excused the same subject matter in another work.

No, it doesn't. So, guess what, you'll just have to remain in ignorance where she didn't say.

As will you, despite the certainty with which you've expressed your opinions about why she thought Parrish's work was "trash."

As to her reaction to Parrish, a discrepancy from what you, and a number of her admirers, expected, I did not make the mistake of presuming on the basis of my hunch. I merely thought that those who had Parrishes on their walls presuming Rand would like his work might be in for a surprise. Turned out I was right on that one.

Well, I would suspect that anyone who tried to guess what Rand would like would probably be wrong. She didn't seem to like much of anything, and, like most people, I think she generally judged art based on her emotional responses to it. Trying to guess which emotions she (or anyone else) might feel about something as complex as a work of art isn't easy. But, as I said above, if her definitions and judgments were objective and consistent, I'd expect people to be able to know which artworks she would classify as romantic.

J

[Ellen Stuttle]

As will you, despite the certainty with which you've expressed your opinions about why she thought Parrish's work was "trash."

I don't have time now to reply to the rest of your most recent; I'm headed for a conference.

Just answering for the Xth time on her Parrish answer. As I recall the sound of the question, the questioner was not asking a technical-merit question but a personal-liking question. I've requested, does anyone know which year it was?, does anyone have the tape?, can the question be made out? Either no one reading knows, or does, or anyone reading who knows, or does, is unwilling to say. You assume that Rand's reply pertained to whether she thought that Parrish was a good painter or not. I think that you're wrong in the assumption. (It could even be that what she meant to say was "trite" instead of "trash.") In any case, whether you're right or wrong that she was answering about technical merit, what I've been stating is why I thought that she wouldn't like Parrish. I repeat that I had confirmation from either Joan or Edith that my hunch as to why she wouldn't like Parrish was right. You needn't place any credence on my report, but your lack of credence wouldn't mean that I have no reason to think that I know in that particular case.

Ellen

[Jonathan]

I don't have time now to reply to the rest of your most recent; I'm headed for a conference.

Just answering for the Xth time on her Parrish answer. As I recall the sound of the question, the questioner was not asking a technical-merit question but a personal-liking question. I've requested, does anyone know which year it was?, does anyone have the tape?, can the question be made out? Either no one reading knows, or does, or anyone reading who knows, or does, is unwilling to say.

I don't have the tape, or, if I do it's somewhere in a dusty old box that I haven't looked through in years. I do have Ayn Rand Answers, The Best of Her Q&A, and, if Mayhew hasn't altered anything, this was the question:

"What do you think of the works of the artist Maxfield Parrish?"

You assume that Rand's reply pertained to whether she thought that Parrish was a good painter or not.

No, I think her reply was about his art as a whole, which would include, but not be limited to, whether or not he was a good painter. Primarily, I think that, for whatever reason, she didn't respond emotionally to his work, regardless of its content. If asked to explain her reasoning for calling his work "trash," I think there's a good chance that she would have done the same thing she did with Beethoven -- she would have rationalized or confused her emotional responses with the art's content.

And I think she would have done the same if she had happened to like Parrish's work instead, just as she did with Capuletti's. If you're right that she disliked what she saw as fairy tale contend in Parrish's work, she could have just as easily praised him for it. Borrowing from Rand's comments on Marilyn Monroe, I can hear her saying that Parrish's work represents the "pure, innocent, childlike joy in living. It projects the sense of people born and reared in some radiant Utopia, untouched by suffering, unable to conceive of ugliness or evil, facing life with the confidence, the benevolence and the joyous self-flaunting of a child or a kitten."

I also suspect that if Rand had learned through members of her inner circle in the 60s that Parrish was a fan her novels, she would have liked and promoted his work as enthusiastically as she promoted Capuletti's.

J

[Ellen Stuttle]

It was Joan who told me.

The following post is just to have the detail spelled out of who confirmed my hunch re AR and Parrish. Not being able to remember was bugging me.

I haven't time today for posting further on the issues.

~~

A funny thing happened at the conference (the physics conference Larry and I attended the last couple days)...

I'd been trying to remember which of two among "the usual suspects" -- meaning persons who were close associates of Rand's -- had confirmed my suspicion as to why Rand didn't like Maxfield Parrish's work.

I thought that it had to have been either Edith Packer or Joan Blumenthal. Why? Because of a vague visual memory of the physical setting. I often remember coversations from visual-memory cues. I recalled that I'd been sitting across from or approximately across from the person, who was a female and blonde. I.e., it wouldn't have been Susan Ludel or Elayne Kalberman -- besides which, I couldn't think of any context in which I might have been discussing AR's reaction to Parrish with either of the latter two.

Edith seemed plausible because of a dinner get-together I'd had with her and George Riesman, plus Harry Binswanger and a friend of theirs, I think his name was Jerry Lewis, and Ralph Epstein, who had arranged the dinner. (Ralph was a long-time friend of George Riesman. Harry and Jerry, if that was his name, were sub-invited by Edith; Ralph had originally had a foursome in mind.)

I was sure that among the multiple topics which came up that night was the reasons why AR didn't like the story of "The Sound of Music." Thus the topic of her similar dislike of Parrish seemed a plausible one to have arisen. However, a problem there was the year of the dinner, which was in 1971. I didn't think that Rand's Parrish answer could have been that early; I thought it was later in the '70s, and if I'd already heard as of 1971 that she didn't like Parrish, I wouldn't have had an "I thought so" response when she gave her cryptic one-word answer.

Joan seemed the more likely suspect -- and the context a conversation which would have occurred in Allan's meeting room before one of the sessions of the course I took with him in fall '79 through November '80. (Joan sat in on that course -- it was the first time he'd allowed her to sit in; she'd never heard his full course in all the years he and she had been associated with Rand.)

However, I couldn't bring back a context in which the subject might have arisen.

A painting which was on the wall of the hotel room where we stayed for the conference brought back the connecting link: Iris Bell.

The painting -- of a seacoast New England farm -- reminded me of a painting Iris had said she liked. Iris reminded me of Allan's course -- it was there that I met Iris. I then remembered, Ah, it was Iris Bell who brought up the subject of Rand's dislike of Parrish. Joan then chuckled and talked some about the whys of Rand's reaction.

I don't recall Joan's wording; I think she used the phrase "Arcadian bliss" -- I heard someone use that phrase discussing the issue; it's a good one; Joan might have been the person who used it; it sounds like a "Joanism," but I'm not sure if she did put the issue that way. In any case, she confirmed that the dislike pertained to what I've called the fairytaleishness, and to the sort of androgynous look of the figures in some of Parrish's idyllic scenes.

Ellen