Art: Who Needs It?

[Victor Pross]

ART: WHO NEEDS IT?

by Victor Pross

Everybody knows of Ayn Rand’s sales conference at Random House, prior to the publication of Atlas Shrugged, where one of the book salesmen asked Rand whether she could present the essence of her philosophy while standing on one foot. She did as follows:

1. Metaphysics: Objective Reality

2. Epistemology: Reason

3. Ethics: Self-interest

4. Politics: Capitalism

Rand went on later to explain: If you want this translated into simple language, it would read: 1. "Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed" or "Wishing won't make it so." 2. "You can't eat your cake and have it, too." 3. "Man is an end in himself." 4. "Give me liberty or give me death."

And: If you held these concepts with total consistency, as the base of your convictions, you would have a full philosophical system to guide the course of your life. But to hold them with total consistency—to understand, to define, to prove and to apply them—requires volumes of thought--which is why philosophy cannot be discussed while standing on one foot—nor while standing on two feet on both sides of every fence. This last is the predominant philosophical position today, particularly in the field of politics.*(1)

Question to other OL members:

Ayn Rand left out the final branch in philosophy as a part of her answer: esthetics, art. And yet, of course, she chose a vital art form, the novel, in which to carry her vision of life to the world. She could have stood for the extra 15 seconds to include art as a part of her answer, so why didn’t she? Would Rand agree with Peikoff, who stated in OPAR, that a complete philosophy must include the field of esthetics? With this question in mind, that is why I have called this thread --Art: Who Needs it?

Before answering these questions, some preliminary remarks on the nature of the inquiry. Let's take a look into the Objectivist esthetics [along side of anthropological facts] as understood by an artist, that being me.

The Purpose of Art

Rand stated that art fulfills an essential need of human life---not a material need, but a spiritual need.**(2.1) Art is inextricably tied to human kind’s survival---not to physical survival, but to that on which our physical survival depends: to the preservation, the nourishment and survival of the reasoning mind.***(3.1)

Human beings have always been spiritual beings by definition, and I use the world “spiritual” in a secular sense. This being so, it has always found some mode of expression, one such mode being: art. Some thirty to forty thousand years, human beings began making images in caves, as discovered in Southern France, and in other widely scattered areas of the world. The earliest confirmed musical instrument dates from this period as well, as does recently found stone sculptures. By this point our early ancestors were probably also telling stories as they clustered around fires against the Ice Age chill, stories of brave hunts and bitter winters, tales of gods and tribal heroes. It is not being said that Early man had the concept "art"--but rather that human beings engaged in these activities and that they served the same primary psychological function as they have ever since: that of integrating and objectifying experience in an emotionally meaningful way.

By the time the first civilizations emerged in Egypt, the Indus River, China, art was a well-established part of human life. Virtually every culture, at every period, has had some form of painting, sculpture, poetry, epic narrative, music, and dance.****(4.1) The claim that “art is a universal language”, as Peikoff stated, “is not a vacuous metaphor--it is literally true.”***(3.2)

Art is a universal phenomenon--it is a spiritual phenomenon, a human phenomenon. Just like language and mathematics---it is distinctively human. “That is why”, Peikoff further states, “art has always existed among human beings and why animals have neither art nor any equivalent of it whatsoever.”**(2.2)

As a branch of philosophy, aesthetics asks: what is art? What role does it play in human kind’s life?**(2.3) Why has art been such a pervasive feature in human life? Why did human beings engage in these activities? Unlike tools for hunting, cooking, building, scraping animal skins, and the like, these artefacts have no clear survival value. Why did people, whose daily life was a dire struggle for substance and whose life expectancy was probably less than twenty years, spend time and energy making instruments to produce rhythmic, tonal sounds? Why did they invent stories? Why did they paint representational depictions on caves? What was the purpose of these activities? What needs did they satisfy? Did they serve life?

Some anthropologists argue that the appearance of art reflects a significant advance in human cognitive development---the emergence of a spiritual capacity in our species, the final stage in the evolution of the human mind. Of course, Rand agreed with this summation: Art does satisfy needs that arise from our unique capacity: the ability to think in abstractions.****(4.2) Human kind’s need of art lies in the fact that our cognitive faculty is conceptual. We are aware of the world directly and immediately through sense perception, but we do much of our thinking at the conceptual level, using abstractions, language, and logic. Our concepts and theories have meaning only insofar as they are grounded in reality. But one cannot see a theory or feel an idea, nor can one perceive, in a single glance, all the facts of reality that validate a theory or idea. The wider and more fundamental the abstraction, the more difficult it is to experience it as having the reality of the concrete things we can see and feel in perception.*****(5.1)

**

According to Objectivism, the unique and vital function of art is to present, in concrete form, what is essentially an abstraction.*****(5.2) But abstractions do not have the immediacy, the power, the reality, and the sheer presence of the world as we perceive and react to it emotionally.****(4.3) We can use artistic techniques like pictorial representations or metaphor to show what an idea looks like: this is what a graph of economic growth does, for example. Art performs this function for the most fundamental abstractions: the elements of a world-view.*****(5.3)

The purpose of art is the objectification of values. The fundamental motive of an artist---by the implication of the activity, whether he knows it consciously or not---is to objectify, to concretize his values, his view of what is important in life.******(6.1) To objectify values is to make them real by presenting them in concrete form.******(6.2) A person’s world-view, his deepest values, his philosophy, are experienced most clearly when represented in concrete form, a work of art can touch the deepest places in us, feelings we often have trouble defining and making explicit.*****(5.4)

To keep our abstractions tied to the world, we need to re-embody them in concretes, to clothe them in specific forms that unite the universality of the abstraction with the specificity and immediacy—the reality---of the particulars.****(4.4) This is a principle to be practiced not just in art, but also in all area of human thought and endeavour.

Human cultures have invented countless ways to embody abstractions. rituals, ceremonies, and holidays help us appreciate the meaning of important events in personal life and social life, such as birth, marriage, death, victories, and achievements.****(4.5) Art has performed this function in every culture and religion. Ancient Greek culture, for example, placed a high value on physical beauty, grace, and, in men, athletic strength---as in the sculpture of Polyclitus, whose Doryphorus set the classical cannon for the proportions of the male body. ****(4.6)

In the many eras of history, in all the periods when human hopes and values were collapsing, there was one realm to which people could turn for support, to preserve their image of human worth, their vision of life’s possibilities, to enjoy the gift of laughter and to be awe struck and inspired by the human potential to create. That realm, of course, was art.*******(7.1) Myths and legends give us concrete images of our ideals embodied in the flesh.****(4.7) Every human society has recreated its world in stories and music, in pictures and sculpture, and in derivative forms of art such as theatre and dance.*****(5.5)

Examples like the above could be multiplied indefinitely.****(4.8) But regardless of the medium or the content of the ideal or abstraction, whether it is religious or secular, rational or irrational, malevolent or benevolent, happy or sad, inspired or horrific---the function of art is to embody the abstract standard in a specific concrete form that has the immediacy and motivating power of direct perception.****(4.9) A work of art, though an imitation of natural forms, is never a copy if it.********(8.1) The artist does not merely simulate reality: he stylizes it.********(8.2) The result is, as it has been said, a universe in microcosm. The artist does not create his work ex nihilo**(2.4) but, rather, bases it on objective, perceptible reality.

Art is the most powerful means of creating embodied abstractions. In art we can experience in a concrete form an extraordinary rich meaning through the artist’s work. In the hands of the talented, the masters, and the genius---artistic creation can provide the most complex, the most precise, the subtlest, the most evocative, the most powerful and effective form of an embodied abstraction.****(4.10)

A Work of Art is an End in Itself

According to Objectivism, a work of art is an end in itself, in the sense that it serves no purpose beyond a person’s contemplation of it. As Peikoff pointed out: “When one differentiates art from other human products, this fact is an essential point. A scientific treatise, a machine, a table, an automobile, an answering machine, an alarm clock, and a telephone are a means to a utilitarian goal----but a novel, a statue, a painting, a symphony are not.”**(2.5) Art serves no utilitarian end, like other man-made objects, but serves a function that no utilitarian object can serve: Art is an indispensable source of emotional fuel.**(2.6) It has been so for thousands of years. To subscribe some other function to art is not only to underestimate and devalue the crucial function it already serves---it is to totally empty it of its purpose.

As far as this artist is concerned, the value that art offers is incalculable. Can you even begin to conceive of a world without any form of art---in all of its glorious manifestations: painting, the novel, cinema, plays, sculpture, music, and dance? Now I am not speaking of so-called ‘high’ art versus ‘low’ art, I am not speaking of ‘bad’ art versus ‘good’ art---I simply mean art qua art. Forget it. It is an impossible projection: a world without any expression and experience of art would collapse. Just as a body would eventually collapse if it lacked sufficient nutrients, a culture without art would collapse from lack of nourishment of the mind. Or do you think that the only function of art is to entertain? Or worse: that the function of art is to ‘kill time’ or to ‘escape reality.’

Art is a human need as real as the need for food---it is a need of the mind. A person’s consciousness possesses a specific nature with specific cognitive needs.*******(7.2) Art, as I have stated, provides a conceptual stimulation. A person, or a culture, that regards all philosophy and art as ‘unrealistic’ ‘dispensable’ and ‘impractical’---is finished psychologically. Simply put: art is indispensable to the survival of a culture.

And so we return to my original question: is art—aesthetics--essential to human life, and is it necessary to complete a systematic philosophy to "live life on earth"?

***

NOTE FROM ADMINISTRATOR:

* Plagiarized from "Introducing Objectivism" (The Objectivist Newsletter, Vol. 1, No. 8, August 1962) by Ayn Rand. The original passage reads as follows:

(1)

At a sales conference at Random House, preceding the publication of

Atlas Shrugged

, one of the book salesmen asked me whether I could present the essence of my philosophy while standing on one foot. I did, as follows:

1. Metaphysics: Objective Reality

2. Epistemology: Reason

3. Ethics: Self-interest

4. Politics: Capitalism

If you want this translated into simple language, it would read: 1. "Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed" or "Wishing won't make it so." 2. "You can't eat your cake and have it, too." 3. "Man is an end in himself." 4. "Give me liberty or give me death."

If you held these concepts with total consistency, as the base of your convictions, you would have a full philosophical system to guide the course of your life. But to hold them with total consistency—to understand, to define, to prove and to apply them—requires volumes of thought. Which is why philosophy cannot be discussed while standing on one foot—nor while standing on two feet on both sides of every fence. This last is the predominant philosophical position today, particularly in the field of politics.

(NOTE: Although the plagiarized section quotes Rand, it is written as if it were original material quoting Rand. The whole section belongs to Rand's article, not isolated quotes.)

** Plagiarized from Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand by Leonard Peikoff. The original passages read as follows:

(2.1) (p. 414)

Art fulfills an essential need of human life, not a material need, but a spiritual need.

(NOTE: Incorrectly attributed to Rand.)

(2.2) (p. 413)

That is why, like philosophy itself, art has always existed among men, from prehistory to the present, and why animals have neither art nor any equivalent of it.

(NOTE: Not plagiarism

per se

, but a total misquote.)

(2.3) (p. 413)

Esthetics asks: what is art? what is its role in man's life? by what standards should an art work be judged?

(2.4) (p. 417)

The result is a universe in microcosm. (. . .) ... not because they create a world ex nihilo...

(2.5) (p. 414)

A work of art is an end in itself, in the sense that it serves no purpose beyond man's contemplation of it. When one differentiates art from other human products, this fact is an essential. A scientific treatise, a machine, a busy signal on the telephone are a means to a utilitarian goal; a novel, a statue, a symphony are not.

(NOTE: Only the first sentence above is plagiarized. The second, properly attributed to Peikoff, although the work was not mentioned, is included here to give correct punctuation.)

(2.6) (p. 421)

... it is an indispensable source of emotional fuel.

*** Plagiarized from The Romanic Manifesto, "The Psycho-Epistemology of Art," by Ayn Rand. The original passages read as follows:

(3.1) (p. 17)

Art

is

inextricably tied to man's survival—not to his physical survival, but to that on which his physical survival depends: to the preservation and survival of his consciousness.

(3.2) (p. 20)

The claim that "art is a universal language" is not an empty metaphor, it is literally true...

(NOTE: Not strictly plagiarism, but incorrectly attributed to Peikoff, who correctly attributes this phrase to Ayn Rand in OPAR, p. 419.)

**** Plagiarized from "Art and Ideals" by David Kelley. The original passages read as follows:

(4.1)

Some thirty to forty thousand years ago, human beings began making images in caves like Chauvet-Pont-d'Arc in southern France and in other, widely scattered areas of the world. The earliest confirmed musical instrument dates from this period as well, as does a recently found stone sculpture. By this point our early ancestors were probably also telling stories as they huddled around fires against the Ice Age chill—stories of glorious hunts and hard winters, tales of gods and tribal heroes.

By the time the first civilizations emerged in Sumer, Egypt, the Indus River, China, and the Americas, art was a well-established part of human life. Virtually every culture, at every period, has had some form of painting, sculpture, poetry, epic narrative, music, and dance.

(4.2)

Why did humans begin doing this sort of thing? Unlike tools for hunting, cooking, building, scraping animal skins, and the like, these artifacts have no clear survival value. Why did people whose daily life was a struggle for subsistence and whose life expectancy was probably less than twenty years spend time and energy making two-dimensional images in dark places? Why did they spend time and energy making instruments to produce rhythmic, tonal sounds? Why did they invent stories of things that never happened? What was the purpose of such activities? What needs did they satisfy? Why has art been such a pervasive feature of human life?

Some anthropologists argue that the appearance of art reflects a significant advance in human cognitive development—the emergence of a spiritual capacity in our species, the final stage in the evolution of the human mind. Although that is a speculative thesis, it is a plausible one, for art does satisfy needs that arise from our unique cognitive capacity: the ability to think in abstractions.

(4.3)

Abstractions do not have the immediacy, the power, the reality, the felt constraint, and the sheer presence of the world as we perceive and react to it emotionally.

(4.4)

To keep our abstractions tied to the world, therefore, we need to re-embody them in concretes, to clothe them in specific forms that unite the universality of the abstraction with the specificity and immediacy—the reality—of the particular.

(4.5)

Human cultures have invented countless ways to embody abstractions. Rituals, ceremonies, and holidays help us appreciate the meaning of important events in personal and social life, such as birth, marriage, death, seasons, victories, and achievements.

(4.6)

Art has performed this function in every culture and religion. Ancient Greek culture, for example, placed a high value on physical beauty, grace, and, in men, athletic strength—as in the sculpture of Polyclitus, whose Doryphorus set the classical canon for the proportions of the male body.

(4.7)

Myths and legends give us concrete images of our ideals embodied in the flesh.

(4.8)

Examples like these could be multiplied indefinitely.

(4.9)

But regardless of the medium or the content of the ideal, the function of art is to embody the abstract standard in a specific, concrete form that has the immediacy and motivating power of direct perception.

(4.10)

Art is the most powerful means of creating embodied abstractions. In art we can experience perceptual objects and worlds that achieve an extraordinarily rich meaning through the artist's work of selecting his subject and shaping the work to embody his vision. In the hands of a master, artistic creation can provide the most complex, the most precise, the most subtle, the most evocative—in short the most powerful and effective—form of embodied abstraction.

***** Plagiarized from FAQ: "What does Objectivism Consider to be Art (Aesthetics)" answered by William Thomas. The original passages read as follows:

(5.1)

The Objectivist epistemology teaches that humans are conceptual beings. We are aware of the world directly and immediately through sense-perception, but we do much of our thinking at the conceptual level, using abstractions, language, and logic. Our concepts and theories have meaning only insofar as they are grounded in reality, but one cannot see a theory or feel an idea, nor can one perceive, in a single glance, all the facts of reality that validate a theory or idea. The wider and more fundamental the abstraction, the harder it is to experience it as having the reality of the concrete things we can see and can feel in perception.

(5.2)

The unique and vital function of art is to present, in concrete form, what is essentially an abstraction.

(5.3)

We can use artistic techniques like pictorial representation or metaphor to show what an idea looks like: this is what a graph of economic growth does, for example. Art as such performs this function for the most fundamental abstractions: the elements of a world- view.

(5.4)

And because a person's world-view, his deepest values, are experienced most clearly in the emotional form of a sense of life, [see FAQ: What is Philosophy"] a work of art can touch the deepest places in us, feelings we often have trouble defining and making explicit.

(5.5)

Every human society has imagined and recreated its world in stories and music, in pictures and sculpture, and in derivative forms of art such as theater and dance.

****** Plagiarized from The Art of Fiction, "Literature as an Art Form" by Ayn Rand (edited By Tore Boeckmann). The original passages read as follows:

(6.1) (pp. 13-14)

The purpose of all art is the objectification of values. The fundamental motive of a writer—by the implication of the activity, whether he knows it consciously or not—is to objectify his values, his view of what is important in life.

(6.2) (p. 14)

To objectify values is to make them real by presenting them in concrete form.

****** Plagiarized from "Our Cultural Value-Deprivation" in The Voice of Reason by Ayn Rand. The original passages read as follows:

(7.1) (p. 109)

In the decadent eras of history, in the periods when human hopes and values were collapsing, there was, as a rule, one realm to which men could turn for support, to preserve their image of man, their vision of life's better possibilities, and their courage. That realm was art.

(7.2) (p. 101)

... man's consciousness possesses a specific nature with specific

cognitive

needs...

****** Plagiarized from What Art Is: Esthetic Theory of Ayn Rand by Louis Torres and Michelle Marder Kamhi. The original passages read as follows:

(8.1) (p. 48)

Similarly, Langer observed that a work of art, though an "imitation" of natural forms, "is never a copy in the ordinary sense..."

(8.2) (p. 47)

According to Rand, the artist does not merely simulate reality: "he

stylizes

it."

OL extends its deepest apologies to Leonard Peikoff—both as author and as Rand's heir, David Kelley, William Thomas.

Edited July 31, 2007 by Michael Stuart Kelly

[Judith]

The purpose of art is the objectification of values. The fundamental motive of an artist---by the implication of the activity, whether he knows it consciously or not---is to objectivity, to concretize his values, his view of what is important in life. To objectify values is to make them real by presenting them in concrete form. A person’s world-view, his deepest values, his philosophy, are experienced most clearly when represented in concrete form, a work of art can touch the deepest places in us, feelings we often have trouble defining and making explicit.

That pretty much says it all.

I'm reminded of that line in the film "Dead Poets Society". I can't remember it exactly (and I'm not going to play the entire thing just to get it right!), but it's something to the effect of "Medicine, engineering -- those are all good things. They help us to live. Poetry is about what we live for." One could substitute "art" in general for poetry.

Can you even begin to conceive of a world without any form of art---in all of its glorious manifestations: painting, the novel, cinema, plays, sculpture, music, and dance? Now I am not speaking of so-called ‘high’ art versus ‘low’ art, I am not speaking of ‘bad’ art versus ‘good’ art---I simply mean art qua art. Forget it. It is an impossible projection: a world without any expression and experience of art would collapse. Just as a body would eventually collapse if it lacked sufficient nutrients, a culture without art would collapse from lack of nourishment of the mind. Or do you think that the only function of art is to entertain? Or worse: that the function of art is to ‘kill time’ or to ‘escape reality.’

Art is a human need as real as the need for food---it is a need of the mind. A person’s consciousness possesses a specific nature with specific cognitive needs. Art, as I have stated, provides a conceptual stimulation. A person, or a culture, that regards all philosophy and art as ‘unrealistic’ ‘dispensable’ and ‘impractical’---is finished psychologically. Simply put: art is indispensable to the survival of a culture.

And so we return to my original question: is art—aesthetics--essential to human life, and is it necessary to complete a systematic philosophy to "live life on earth"?

Some form of art is essential to the individual human psyche. I think one needs it for precisely the reasons Rand stated in her play "Ideal": "A spirit, too, needs fuel. A spirit too can run dry."

The need to love is far more important than the need to be loved. When we stop finding things worth loving, we lie down and die. As you said above, art objectifies our values. So art can provide a "quick fix", so to speak, when our values seem distant and out of reach or a long, hard slog from completion of a goal. It can do for us what Roark's Monadnock did for the boy on the bicycle -- give us the courage to go on living.

So -- of course art is needed by the individual.

In terms of a culture?

I don't think easily in terms of collectives. But, to the extent that I can, I would have to say that a culture consists of the individuals that comprise it. And the dominant preferences in art of those individuals determines the art of that culture and the importance placed upon it.

I have to disagree with you in terms of how important it is to distinguish between bad art and good art, high art and low art. I think that the predominance of "bad" art and "low" art in a society indicates an attitude that the purpose of art is to kill time and/or escape reality, and that it is in fact dispensable. When people feed themselves garbage, it doesn't show a very high regard for the importance of good nutrition.

You asked if "art—aesthetics-- [is] essential to human life, and is it necessary to complete a systematic philosophy to "live life on earth". While art definitely is necessary, aesthetics is a means of judging what is good art and what isn't good art, isn't it? I loathe going to the symphony and hearing taxicab whistles and atonal music, and walking around various places and seeing ancient toilets labelled as sculpture. My first reaction is to say that aesthetics is important but not as essential as the first four branches that Rand mentioned, but I'm certainly open to being convinced otherwise.

judith

[Victor Pross]

You asked if "art—aesthetics-- [is] essential to human life, and is it necessary to complete a systematic philosophy to "live life on earth". While art definitely is necessary, aesthetics is a means of judging what is good art and what isn't good art, isn't it? I loathe going to the symphony and hearing taxicab whistles and atonal music, and walking around various places and seeing ancient toilets labelled as sculpture. My first reaction is to say that aesthetics is important but not as essential as the first four branches that Rand mentioned, but I'm certainly open to being convinced otherwise.

Judith, this section of your post asks an interesting [and related question] to this thread: What is art? Is there an objective definition of what constitutes a work of art--versus utilitarian objects, or things found in nature, like birds, rocks and trees—or junk? Given your above examples—toilets and taxicab whistles—I would agree that art is not as important as the other branches in philosophy. But as it stands, I would argue that those examples are not—objectively speaking—art. They are utilitarian objects, and if not functioning for the purpose for which they were created, then it is junk. And when being presented as art—it is an attack on the very concept of art. It is, in short, anti-art.

After a century of modernist control of the art world, many people think art is an indescribable, almost mystical aspect of human existence and that it is a self-contained realm cut off from the ‘real world’---as if it were a Platonic Ideal disconnected from logic, reason, definition. This subjectivism has given license to those who want to turn making art into a subject game--who say that art is anything one wants it to be and reject objective standards. This is the standard fare among art promoters, philosophers of art, and many self-proclaimed artists--and they have peddled this idea to a half-hearted resigned world. The result of this is that today the average person does not know what art is and what it isn’t. Many people believe that the only basis for aesthetic preferences is subjective opinion, personal tastes, mystical revelations, opinion polls or critics reviews.

Victor

Edited November 16, 2006 by Victor Pross

[Chris Grieb]

You asked if "art—aesthetics-- [is] essential to human life, and is it necessary to complete a systematic philosophy to "live life on earth". While art definitely is necessary, aesthetics is a means of judging what is good art and what isn't good art, isn't it? I loathe going to the symphony and hearing taxicab whistles and atonal music, and walking around various places and seeing ancient toilets labelled as sculpture. My first reaction is to say that aesthetics is important but not as essential as the first four branches that Rand mentioned, but I'm certainly open to being convinced otherwise.

Judith, this section of your post asks an interesting [and related question] to this thread: What is art? Is there an objective definition of what constitutes a work of art--versus utilitarian objects, or things found in nature, like birds, rocks and trees—or junk? Given your above examples—toilets and taxicab whistles—I would agree that art is not as important as the other branches in philosophy. But as it stands, I would argue that those examples are not—objectively speaking—art. They are utilitarian objects, and if not functioning for the purpose for which they were created, then it is junk. And when being presented as art—it is an attack on the very concept of art. It is, in short, anti-art.

After a century of modernist control of the art world, many people think art is an indescribable, almost mystical aspect of human existence and that it is a self-contained realm cut off from the ‘real world’---as if it were a Platonic Ideal disconnected from logic, reason, definition. This subjectivism has given license to those who want to turn making art into play--who say that art is anything one wants it to be and reject objective standards. This is the standard fare among art promoters, philosophers of art, and many self-proclaimed artists--and they have peddled this idea to a half-hearted resigned world. The result of this is that today the average person does not know what art is and what it isn’t, and believes that the only basis for aesthetic preferences is subjective opinion, personal tastes, mystical revelations, opinion polls or critics reviews.

Victor

Victor; Very well said. I get confused and I've read Rand. I think we first need a definition of beauty.

Edited November 16, 2006 by Chris Grieb

[Victor Pross]

Victor; Very well said. I get confused and I've read Rand. I think we first need a definition of beauty.

Beauty? The topic under discussion is art.

[Victor Pross]

Here is a question for Rich!

Rich, you are musician, and I was wondering if you would include MUSIC as apart of the arts and why?

I think it is, but from the mouth of the music man, I would like to hear your thoughts. :turned:

V, the visual guy, but I looooooove music!

Edited November 16, 2006 by Victor Pross

[Rich Engle]

Victor asks me if I think there's even more to it than getting your woman all horned up by prancing around onstage playing fiery solos:

Rich, you are musician, and I was wondering if you would include MUSIC as apart of the arts and why?

I think it is, but from the mouth of the music man, I would like to hear your thoughts.

V, the visual guy, but I looooooove music!

Of course, absolutely, without doubt. Some say perhaps the most powerful form of expression (I don't buy that, I think what they mean is that it can cause emotional reactions more quickly).

Another interesting thing to look at is art vs. craft. Guitarist Robert Fripp (King Crimson) has a lot to say about that. Is "all" music art? I dunno. Some of it is craft, I think, because it is put together for very functional purposes (folk dances, say). There's a gray area there, I think. And even the folk dance example: Is Bartok's "Microkosmos" art, or craft?

I write songs in what technically is a rock band. A song-based one. Compose, arrange, practice, perform. Words and music. So, even though it's a rock band, I view it as art, and I consider myself an artist, the guitar and songwriting skills being among the tools I use.

EDIT: And, I also consider dance to be an art. Of course, I consider lovemaking to be an art too, so... Art to me is the expression that is applied to a medium.

Edited November 16, 2006 by Rich Engle

[Victor Pross]

Victor asks me if I think there's even more to it than getting your woman all horned up by prancing around onstage playing fiery solos...

Although seducing a woman is an art in itself. :hyper:

[Rich Engle]

Yeah, Victor. Ain't it great? From where all good art flows, as far as I'm concerned...

rde

You want Romantic Realism, baby, I'll show you Romantic Realism...

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Victor,

It is good to revisit some traditional Objectivist concepts at times, but this kind of essay is of limited value. It is more a prompt for debate than a stand alone important work. In the sense of prompting debate, it is good because it works. If you have any ambitions of writing literature that will have lasting value, however, there are some points that need to be examined.

To start with, your style is getting much, much better than it used to be, but you still rely way too heavily on oversimplifications, especially when you talk about people--i.e., "all people" or "many people," etc. This puts those parts of your essay into the category of opinion and not well-reasoned thought. One makes a comment from observation about "many people." But using "many people" as evidence is very weak and sounds pretentious and without fundament.

I am confused about why you extensively quoted Peikoff on art of all things. All he did was rehash Rand--and even then, there are parts that can be disputed as to how he interpreted her. To be clear, Rand was an artist and Peikoff was not. Rand came up with the theories and Peikoff did not. So why not quote her instead of Peikoff, or at least, use Peikoff as a secondary source, not a primary one?

One of the good parts of reading this thread is that you and Rich are practicing artists, so some of the experience comes through. For as much as anyone may agree or disagree, there are two artists here talking about their craft. That is valuable--much more valuable than reading opinions by non-artists.

One word of caution, lest the non-artists get intimidated. When non-artists interact with artists, I also find that very valuable. But when non-artists discuss art with non-artists, this is valid, but it is more for having a good time than making important contributions or insights.

Once again, this is like the difference between Rand, artist/philosopher, and Peikoff, "student of philosophy," as he characterized himself in OPAR, which is where your quotes came from. I much prefer to read Rand. I personally do not consider Peikoff as an authority on art, not even on the philosophy of art. He is merely an interpreter of Rand.

If you read Roger Bissel's excellent but difficult essay, Art as Microcosm: The Real Meaning of the Objectivist Concept of Art, you will see the topic of utility discussed pretty thoroughly, especially as regards architecture. Rand apparently changed her views on utility over the years and my impression is that she still would have doubts had she lived longer.

I also have one other comment about categories of philosophy. To my knowledge, only Objectivism divides philosophy up into 5 categories and that's it. Here is a quote from another post I made on this:

Well I had a real eye-opener. Try doing a Google search on philosophical categories. I did and I was astounded. Apparently Objectivism (and direct derivatives) is the only philosophy in the world and in history that breaks philosophy into the five branches of metaphysics, epistemology, ethics, politics and aesthetics. I don't believe this was arbitrary on Rand's part, but seeing as how this was her division, not anything she gleaned from anywhere else in human history, I certainly see that it is a premise worth some serious checking. You know, maybe she missed something and maybe her focus was so strongly on one slant that she simply did not deal with other aspects.

I also noticed that in her division, there were only four branches for years. You can clearly see this in her writings. Aesthetics was tacked on later.

Then I read David Kelley in The Contested Legacy of Ayn Rand. He gave a good summary of the fundamental principles of (pp 81-84), but then stated outright (p. 84):

But notice what I have left out. I omitted a number of points in epistemology, ethics, and politics. I omitted the entire field of aesthetics, just as Ayn Rand did in her summary. I haven't said anything about the role of philosophy in history, or the identification of Kant as an arch-villain.

I've omitted these things, not because I disagree with them, or because they are unimportant, but because they are not primary.

Well, you do see the four usually mentioned among others in a Google search.

My own view, admittedly influenced by Nyquist, is that a couple other branches should be added to the Objectivist divisions of philosophy: Human Nature, and History (specifically, Philosophy of History). I have argued this with people at times - but I usually come up against the attitude that five is all there is. Why? Well, because. That's why.

Apropos, I came across an extremely interesting item while researching for an article. Get a load of this from the ARI site: Essentials of Objectivism.

There you have Human Nature just as big and bold as all get out - right in between Epistemology and Ethics. Here is a direct quote, but leaving out most of the text for copyright reasons (you can read it at the linked page).

Metaphysics

(...)

Epistemology

(...)

Human Nature

Man is a rational being. Reason, as man's only means of knowledge, is his basic means of survival. But the exercise of reason depends on each individual's choice. "Man is a being of volitional consciousness." "That which you call your soul or spirit is your consciousness, and that which you call 'free will' is your mind's freedom to think or not, the only will you have, your only freedom. This is the choice that controls all the choices you make and determines your life and character."Thus Objectivism rejects any form of determinism, the belief that man is a victim of forces beyond his control (such as God, fate, upbringing, genes, or economic conditions).

Ethics

(...)

Politics

(...)

Esthetics

(...)

My own view of what human nature is does not agree with ARI's oversimplification, but the part that ARI gets right is right. (I also don't agree with the ham-handed "rejections" for the same reason - oversimplification.) In ITOE, Rand defined man as a "rational animal," with "rational" being the differentia and "animal" being the genus. The ARI blurb on Human Nature starts thus: "Man is a rational being." They left out the "animal" part, thus oversimplified. They used the differentia only as his nature.

They airbrushed the genus!!!

The important thing, though, is that the lack of a philosophical category for Human Nature was perceived even at the ARI level.

Dayaamm!

This is the orthodoxy!

In the DIM Hypothesis lectures, Peikoff stresses a branch of philosophy that he calls "historiography." He should, too, because his Rand-endorsed first book, The Ominous Parallels, is a work of "historiography." So is the title essay in For the New Intellectual. Although he did not admit it, the philosophy of history has been a branch of philosophy at least since Augustine.

I am not trying to shoot holes in your essay, but instead, point out where your style and premises need to be tightened up to improve your rhetoric. My opinion is that you are shooting in the right direction, but you still need to work on your aim.

Michael

[Judith]

Judith, this section of your post asks an interesting [and related question] to this thread: What is art? Is there an objective definition of what constitutes a work of art--versus utilitarian objects, or things found in nature, like birds, rocks and trees—or junk? Given your above examples—toilets and taxicab whistles—I would agree that art is not as important as the other branches in philosophy. But as it stands, I would argue that those examples are not—objectively speaking—art. They are utilitarian objects, and if not functioning for the purpose for which they were created, then it is junk. And when being presented as art—it is an attack on the very concept of art. It is, in short, anti-art.

That is a question for philosophers in the branch of aesthetics to answer. People seem to know on an instinctive, gut level what is and what isn't art. Many have been intimidated, during the 20th century, by intellectuals into ignoring their own gut instincts for fear of appearing uncultured, and have accepted all kinds of nonsense because they were told to by the so-called "experts".

On the other hand, pioneers in the various art fields pushed the defined limits of their day to new and different levels. To take the field with which I am most familiar: Baroque music was popular and was replaced by Classical, which was replaced by Romantic, which was replaced by 20th Century. Each of the new phases would have sounded outrageous to people firmly rooted in the traditions of the former era. But eventually the new standards took hold.

What makes this kind of shift different from the kind of nonsense that the so-called "Modern Art" movement tried to foist off on people? That's a question for the aestheticians. I think that people instinctively vote with their wallets; the junk doesn't stand the test of time; the good stuff does. The job of the philosopher is to discover and define expressly what people know on a gut level.

Victor; Very well said. I get confused and I've read Rand. I think we first need a definition of beauty.

Beauty? The topic under discussion is art.

Does art have to be beautiful? Is tragedy beautiful? Is "The Scream" beautiful? Another question for the aestheticians.

Another interesting thing to look at is art vs. craft. Guitarist Robert Fripp (King Crimson) has a lot to say about that. Is "all" music art? I dunno. Some of it is craft, I think, because it is put together for very functional purposes (folk dances, say). There's a gray area there, I think. And even the folk dance example: Is Bartok's "Microkosmos" art, or craft?

I write songs in what technically is a rock band. A song-based one. Compose, arrange, practice, perform. Words and music. So, even though it's a rock band, I view it as art, and I consider myself an artist, the guitar and songwriting skills being among the tools I use.

EDIT: And, I also consider dance to be an art.

I'd like to see an elaboration on the distinction between art versus craft. I agree that dance is an art form. I'd certainly DISAGREE with anyone who said that the creative part of the process (artist, composer, writer) is art, while the interpretive part of the process (instrumentalist, singer, actor, dancer) is not art but craft.

One of the good parts of reading this thread is that you and Rich are practicing artists, so some of the experience comes through. For as much as anyone may agree or disagree, there are two artists here talking about their craft. That is valuable--much more valuable than reading opinions by non-artists.

One word of caution, lest the non-artists get intimidated. When non-artists interact with artists, I also find that very valuable. But when non-artists discuss art with non-artists, this is valid, but it is more for having a good time than making important contributions or insights.

I'm not so sure I buy this, Michael. What we're all talking about here is philosophy, and none of us are practicing philosophers. While I'm a practicing musician (I don't get paid as an individual, but the groups I sing for do on orchestral engagements), I don't think that the views of other people who don't practice any of the arts as regularly as those who do are any less valid or useful in this philosophical context.

Judith

[Victor Pross]

That is a question for philosophers in the branch of aesthetics to answer. People seem to know on an instinctive, gut level what is and what isn't art. Many have been intimidated, during the 20th century, by intellectuals into ignoring their own gut instincts for fear of appearing uncultured, and have accepted all kinds of nonsense because they were told to by the so-called "experts".

Judith, I am a professional and thoughtful artist. And I'm an armchair philosopher, especially in this area. B) I don’t feel that the discussion has to stop just because I’m not a professional philosopher [or you or anyone else]. I can articulate on the question of art versus non-art ---and not just on a gut level. Years and years and tons of thought on the subject here. I don't deal with the question of art or caricature with off-the-cuff opinions, like "Well, I feel that..."

Victor

Edited November 17, 2006 by Victor Pross

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I'm not so sure I buy this, Michael. What we're all talking about here is philosophy, and none of us are practicing philosophers. While I'm a practicing musician (I don't get paid as an individual, but the groups I sing for do on orchestral engagements), I don't think that the views of other people who don't practice any of the arts as regularly as those who do are any less valid or useful in this philosophical context.

Judith,

This wasn't meant aggressively. I am pretty sure that our contributions here on a discussion forum will not have the same historic weight and philosophical importance as, say, the correspondence between Ayn Rand and John Hospers. This does not mean that our contributions are without value. They just don't have that extra "something" that comes from a great deal of hands-on experience.

Also, I am speaking in general terms. Of course there will be exceptions. (Also, it is perfectly possible for a wonderful artist to be a complete dork on explaining what he is doing and why--I even know a few...)

If you want an example of what I mean, see the discussion on the Concerto of Deliverance. Apparently very intelligent people who were not artists were saying some very dumb things, trying to proclaim great art where there was only mediocrity, while the pros were protesting but trying to be diplomatic. There was one conductor saying a lot of baloney. I would have loved to have been a part of the discussion back then. I would have asked him why he didn't program this "Concerto" with his own orchestra or on a guest appearance with another orchestra. Outside of the work being not performance-friendly from too many overdubs and canned effects in the studio, I giggle a little at that prospect and what it would have done for his career...

This is the kind of thing one artist can do with another that is difficult for a non-artist.

I admit I was a bit hard on Victor, but I push him to get better at writing because I think he can. He knows I was not being nasty, but giving him the best advice I know.

Michael

[Judith]

Judith, I am a professional and thoughtful artist. And I'm an armchair philosopher, especially in this area. B) I don’t feel that the discussion has to stop just because I’m not a professional philosopher [or you or anyone else]. I can articulate on the question of art versus non-art ---and not just on a gut level. Years and years and tons of thought on the subject here. I don't deal with the question of art or caricature with off-the-cuff opinions, like "Well, I feel that..."

Oh, I'm not trying to stop discussion. Quite the contrary; I'm trying to stimulate it. When I say that an area is a question for the philosophers or the aestheticians, I'm saying that aesthetics has a place and an importance -- thereby addressing your original question -- and defining some of the questions those pros should be addressing. If anyone other than pros had no right to talk about this stuff, I'd have to shut up too, and that would make me VERY unhappy!

I don't mean in any way to show or imply disrespect for the "gut instinct" I mentioned in my previous post. In fact, I think it's at the root of truth in these matters. I have a similar view about ethics. If the fundamental value is life and that which supports it and makes it flourish, we often sort of "know" instinctively what does and does not meet these criteria. As Objectivists, we're interested in truth. Truth needs to be discovered, just like any other law of nature. Often our subconscious minds and emotions draw conclusions before we can articulate reasons for them or set them forth expressly.

For example: in the area of ethics: when we held the Nuremburg trials, the defendants were not professional philosophers. They were from a society in which what they were doing was considered correct. When we tried them, we didn't accuse them of "not following the dictates of society", and we didn't accuse them of "having bad premises". We expected them to know, on some fundamental level, that what they had done was wrong, even if they were of average intelligence and had never picked up an ethics textbook in their entire lives.

I certainly don't mean to suggest that the gut instinct is infallible; it's the sum total of a lot of input and both conscious and subconscious processing, and a lot of things can go wrong along the way. The conclusions need to be checked and confirmed or disproven. But many, many times one's gut instincts tell one that something is wrong even when one's "society" or "culture" say otherwise, and it turns out that that society or culture is diseased. It's certainly something to treat with respect.

This wasn't meant aggressively. I am pretty sure that our contributions here on a discussion forum will not have the same historic weight and philosophical importance as, say, the correspondence between Ayn Rand and John Hospers. This does not mean that our contributions are without value. They just don't have that extra "something" that comes from a great deal of hands-on experience.

Also, I am speaking in general terms. Of course there will be exceptions. (Also, it is perfectly possible for a wonderful artist to be a complete dork on explaining what he is doing and why--I even know a few...)

. . .

I admit I was a bit hard on Victor, but I push him to get better at writing because I think he can. He knows I was not being nasty, but giving him the best advice I know.

I saw it as tending to stop the discussion -- much as Victor saw MY comments as tending to stop the discussion! In retrospect, I can see how he could think that.

If you want an example of what I mean, see the discussion on the Concerto of Deliverance.

Oh, I've been following that discussion with great interest, even though I haven't participated because I've never heard the piece in question. And I definitely take your point, although some of the silliness that Roger quoted in that context seemed more the result of personalities than lack of musical knowledge, and of people talking past each other -- one group thinking that the merits of the piece were being questioned and another group talking about classifying the piece, and people talking about subjective emotional reactions versus technical merit -- and many being too eager to talk (or yell, in this instance) and not willing to listen to each other respectfully enough to hear what is actually being said.

Judith

[mweiss]

I have to disagree with you in terms of how important it is to distinguish between bad art and good art, high art and low art. I think that the predominance of "bad" art and "low" art in a society indicates an attitude that the purpose of art is to kill time and/or escape reality, and that it is in fact dispensable. When people feed themselves garbage, it doesn't show a very high regard for the importance of good nutrition.

You asked if "art—aesthetics-- [is] essential to human life, and is it necessary to complete a systematic philosophy to "live life on earth". While art definitely is necessary, aesthetics is a means of judging what is good art and what isn't good art, isn't it? I loathe going to the symphony and hearing taxicab whistles and atonal music, and walking around various places and seeing ancient toilets labelled as sculpture. My first reaction is to say that aesthetics is important but not as essential as the first four branches that Rand mentioned, but I'm certainly open to being convinced otherwise.

judith

Excellent points, Judith. I agree. These are the asthetic principles that I got from Objectivism.

Back in '65-69, when we had our little Objectivist discussion group at the house, there was a young man of 19, who was into pot smoking, acid rock and going nowhere with his life. He worked in a stock room. That was before Objectivism. After a year of learning Objectivism, he stopped smoking pot, started listening to Classical music, and he figured out how to design an electronic timer circuit for our dishwasher, replacing the mechanical one that failed. Later, he became an engineer and works at IBM today in a very highly-paid position. I dread to think how his life would have turned out were it not for Objectivism.

I myself have little contradictions in my esthetics. Why do I not only like Camille saint-saens, but also Creedence Clearwater Revival, cranked up to blood-curdling levels? I live with this esthetic inequality, much as a closet gay person lives with his gayness, realizing it's probably wrong.

That said, when Leonard Peikoff had his radio show, I was surprised to see that he had picked Phil Collins, a British rock singer, as his choice of bumper music. I didn't know what to think. There is Miss Rand, with her "tiddlywink music" as she called it in "A Sense of Life." What to think? That's one reason why I'd like to consult with Allan Blumenthal. I am a Bass-a-holic. Shame on me.

Edited November 17, 2006 by Mark Weiss

[Judith]

I myself have little contradictions in my esthetics. Why do I not only like Camille saint-saens, but also Creedence Clearwater Revival, cranked up to blood-curdling levels?

Probably for totally different reasons. I was in Las Vegas last month, and the local classical station was having a membership drive, so I channel surfed in the car and found the only other acceptable station, an old classic rock station playing stuff from the '60s and '70s. The Guess Who came on with "American Woman", and I was delighted, driving down the road at 80mph (one can do that safely in the Nevada desert), singing along happily and remembering my teenage years. I'd probably hate that music if I discovered it today, but it reminded me of my youth, so I enjoyed it.

I live with this esthetic inequality, much as a closet gay person lives with his gayness, realizing it's probably wrong.

(*wince*) No, it's not wrong.

That said, when Leonard Peikoff had his radio show, I was surprised to see that he had picked Phil Collins, a British rock singer, as his choice of bumper music. I didn't know what to think. There is Miss Rand, with her "tiddlywink music" as she called it in "A Sense of Life." What to think? That's one reason why I'd like to consult with Allan Blumenthal. I am a Bass-a-holic. Shame on me.

I don't know the first thing about Allan Blumenthal, but if he learned anything during the years after his break with Ayn Rand, I strongly suspect he'd tell you to enjoy being a Bass-a-holic!

Judith

[Rich Engle]

Frank Zappa said it concisely (saw him say it during a concert): "Music is big."

Bigger than perceived O-ist aesthetics. Although, I do now like how AR said she saw aesthetic promise in tap dancing, since I date a tap dancer and get to see the skills and art up-close. I agree!

But if we went with the (misperceived, IMHO) "approved playlist," there wouldn't be much to see/hear/read. How many times can you read Tolstoy? How can you not try to read Kerouac? I wanna hear Zappa's "Titties and Beer" ! And, we'd still be aware of all this interesting stuff out there. It would all become guilty pleasures. Why should I feel guilty, just because of statements made by one person (albeit one I respect and admire), dead for years now?

There are the orthos. I don't know how they do it. I wonder how their houses and apartments look. Full of romantic realism paintings... certain classical stuff in the CD collection, you know, maybe Rachmaninoff...

I wonder how they make love... Do they do Dagny/Galt role play?

Sheesh...

Nope, music, for one, is way bigger than all this. No touching it. I remain loosened up and corrupted, I s'pose... La la la!!!

rde

Viva La Difference!

Edited November 17, 2006 by Rich Engle

[Ellen Stuttle]

I don't know the first thing about Allan Blumenthal, but if he learned anything during the years after his break with Ayn Rand, I strongly suspect he'd tell you to enjoy being a Bass-a-holic!

Allan advised loving the art you love well before he split with Rand. Her repeated attempts to convince him and Joan of the incorrectness of their tastes in music and painting were among the several reasons why he ended up splitting with her. But what Mark described in the thread he started about his "Bass-a-holism" seriously does pose risk of injury to his body. It's in the nature of a dangerous thrill being sought. Allan's a medical doctor. I wouldn't expect him to be overly keen on the pursuit of that thrill.

Ellen

___

Edited November 17, 2006 by Ellen Stuttle

[Ellen Stuttle]

But if we went with the (misperceived, IMHO) "approved playlist," there wouldn't be much to see/hear/read. How many times can you read Tolstoy? [....]

Tolstoy wasn't on the "approved playlist." Far from it. Rand considered Tolstoy a great writer technically but she said she "detested" his work emotionally, especially Anna Karenina, which she called "evil." (I think she misunderstood the "message" of Anna K. Tolstoy was in love with Anna and on her side, IMO. At any rate, Tolstoy was not an approved writer.)

Ellen

___

[Victor Pross]

Rich,

We are so completely on the same page. The uptight Orthodox lot would totally suck the nectar out of the arts, not that I have anything against Romantic realism, of course not. But Jesus Christ, look at the rest of the fucking menu! Yeah, I like going to five star restaurants savoring the tasty delights of a master chief, but you know, once in a while I just want some Buffalo wings and a glass of dark ale.

Titties and beer? Sure thing. Titties and classical music? You bet. Titties and Zappa? For sure. Just tities? Okay, I'll think about it.

There is so much out there in the arts, and it would take more than a lifetime to learn and appreciate it. The arts is my landscape. Let the Orthodox live in that small box with their “approved list” [that’s no longer than a grocery list for 7/11] and I’ll drop by with some carrots and shredded newspapers once in a while. :devil:

Yeah, art…man you gotta love it. Music is big. I have almost everything from A to Z. Abba to Zappa. [Well, I don’t have Abba, but you get my fucking point!] :geek:

Victor

Edited November 17, 2006 by Victor Pross

[Rich Engle]

Victor: Hah!! Rightio!

Ellen: Good point... She did tend to put qualifiers on just about everything, didn't she? Maybe I should have said Victor Hugo?

[Jonathan]

Does anyone have any idea of what the extent may have been of Rand's training and experience with art forms other than literature? Could she read music, for example? Did she ever play any instruments, if only something like a recorder during her early school days? When doing research for The Fountainhead did she ever sketch or play with clay to get a sense of what it was like to actually create forms and spaces?

J

[Reidy]

To the best of my knowledge the answer to all your questions is no. According to the Journals Rand traced pictures of buildings she considered especially ugly (this was before photocopiers) as part of her architectural research. She drew cartoons on at least one of her letters to her husband. Early on, she worked as a movie extra and wardrobe clerk. These jobs would have exposed her to acting and other aspects of moviemaking (a field she studied in school in Russia). Her Second Career had me believing she had a pretty good understanding of how movies get made, just as The Fountainhead convinced me that she understood architectural creation.

(I've sometimes wondered if her hostility to homosexuals got started when she had to deal with all those ditzy, hysterical queens in the wardrobe department at RKO.)

Edited November 17, 2006 by Reidy

[Roger Bissell]

If you read Roger Bissel's excellent but difficult essay, Art as Microcosm: The Real Meaning of the Objectivist Concept of Art, you will see the topic of utility discussed pretty thoroughly, especially as regards architecture. Rand apparently changed her views on utility over the years and my impression is that she still would have doubts had she lived longer.

Difficult? What's difficult about it? For that matter, what's excellent about it? I keep hearing promises to ~discuss~ my essay, but it always seems to be placed on the back burner for the latest Linz-ism of the Month, etc., etc. What is the point of sharing one's writing, if no one bothers to comment on it (or, often, I fear, to even read it)? <sigh>

IMHO, Rand's "Art and Cognition" was extremely sloppily written, especially (but not only) her remarks on architecture. Her reputation as "Mrs. Logic" was severely tarnished with me by that passage. The various claims about art and architecture on that page clashed with one another like the lines, columns, and boxes of a hastily worked Sudoku puzzle! (For details, see the above mentioned essay.)

REB

[Victor Pross]

(Note from MSK:

Post removed for plagiary of Joe Kellard. See here.

OL extends its deepest apologies to Joe Kellard.)

**

Edited June 27, 2007 by Michael Stuart Kelly