"Brushmarks of Infinity" - somewhat Randish aesthetics theory

[Ellen Stuttle]

Through an odd connective series, I came across a sketch of an aesthetics theory which has similarities to Rand's.

I was looking at Stephen Boydstun's thread titled "Ayn Rand Society 2007 - Khawaja Paper."

The currently last post, #36, is a quip by Jonathan:

Ah! Khawaja, poussé, poussé!

Not knowing what "poussé" means, I Googled.

One of the links which came up was to a thread about John Lennon's use of "poussé" in a song.

Post #12 of that thread quotes from Brushmarks of Infinity by Yasuichi Awakawa:

Oct 31, 2010, 03:53 PM

Meaning Dream #9

TYGER TY HUDSON

Fool On The Hill

Join Date: Oct 31, 2010

Posts: 1

Just a few references here...

Ah~ = Ah~

Awakawa =Meaning and Beauty

"Beneath the creation of any piece of art, two interrelated instincts are at work. One is the instinct for expression, to convey a view of life (which in turn arises from the basic attempt to find meaning, to 'contemplate' the world). It is from this attempt to find meaning, to contemplate life that art and literature came into being in the first place. The second is the desire for pleasure, to experience 'beauty'. This may seem, superficially, to be at variance with the instinct for self-expression, but in fact the active expression of a view of life results in fulfillment and pleasure, which is heightened to the degree one partakes of and expresses truth. This 'contemplation' entails, of course, an act of selection in terms of a particular work of art, taking a particular scene of human life as it unfolds before one and empathizing, knowing, understanding, feeling it as a part of one's own experience.

"It is from this contemplation and expression that the extreme pleasure afforded by art derives, a pleasure that results from the pursuit of, and experiencing of reality. Thus 'artistic' in this context may mean more or less the same as 'religious'; when an artist produces a work, his awareness expands in every direction and is amplified, assimilating the vast and profound truth of life in a way impossible in ordinary, everyday activity. The act of artistic expression thus becomes a statement of the universal, and as such is an act of worship in the deepest sense. It is characteristic of art that the contemplation of life that is its prime objective also carries with it the elevation and joy of a profound religious experience, the joy that arises with the growth of truth in the mind of the artist.

"Seen in this light, when a work of art is an expression of truth, the distinction between didactic art and 'art for art's sake' becomes blurred or disappears altogether; in the same way, art 'for the sake of the self' and art 'for the sake of an ideal' fuse together and become art expressing the universal."

Yasuichi Awakawa

Brushmarks of Infinity

Translated by John Bester

Page 30-31

[....]

Ellen

[Jonathan]

Post #12 of that thread quotes from Brushmarks of Infinity by Yasuichi Awakawa:

It would be interesting hearing the average hostile Objectivist's interpretation of those quotes and his or her denial of their similarity to Rand's ideas.

J

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rDP4ABxZnDI

[Brant Gaede]

First I ever heard that song. Nice.

I once had a slight acquaintance with the Immigration Judge, Ira Fieldsteel, who ordered John Lennon deported in 1973. My step-mother had had the same job. He had no discretion--he loved Lennon--as he was only a GS, not an appointed judge, the next level up. So Lennon's lawyers appealed and found a judge who found for Lennon--wrongly--as being selectiviely singled out for political reasons and the government decided not to appeal that. Too much bad publicity for Nixon's administration. Lennon could not have survived further appeal as he was going against a drug conviction in England. He didn't survive staying in New York.

--Brant

[Guyau]

Ellen,

Thanks for posting this beautiful expression and suggestive conception, by Awakawa, of what are plausibly the important characteristics of the encounter of what is art or at least some central cases of it. I expect the convergence of articulation in the case of Awakawa and Rand is only on account of the shared phenomenon being characterized as well as some shared concepts with which to try explication of such experience. Just for fun, a couple of cases of parallels not unintentional:

Echo

A thorough advocate in a just cause, a penetrating mathematician facing the starry heavens, both alike bear the semblance of divinity. –Goethe

Original

Two things fill the mind with ever new and increasing admiration and awe, the more often and steadily we reflect upon them: the starry heavens above me and the moral law within me. –Kant

Echo

The concept of individual rights is difficult. However faintly it may be grasped, it is the concept that has given us any freedom we have or will have. It is the concept that makes it possible for us to devise our own lives and realize the value of that occasion.* –Boydstun

Original

The concept of individual rights is so prodigious a feat of political thinking that few men grasp it fully—and two hundred years have not been enough for other countries to understand it. But this is the concept to which we owe our lives—the concept which made it possible for us to bring into reality everything of value that any of us did or will achieve or experience. –Rand

[Ellen Stuttle]

Stephen,

I, too, find the expression beautiful and the conception "suggestive" "of what are plausibly the important characteristics of the encounter of what is art or at least some central cases of it." And I, too, "expect the convergence" is because of the phenomenon and not a result of any influence of Rand on Awakawa. I hope to get a chance to look into the book. The title thrills me with delicious shivers. It's been playing in my thoughts, and in some dreams as well.

---

Jonathan, re post #2, on what basis do you think that the "average hostile" Objectivist would deny the similarity to Rand's ideas?

(There's also some significant dissimilarity. Rand's views of aesthetics are, in a way, what I might loosely call "utilitarian," in the sense that she saw art's dominant purpose as providing emotional fuel. I've been reading a lot of material about her early life -- I got going doing that because of a remark I made on my "Jung Tale" thread about the significance of Cyrus to Rand. So I read The Mysterious Valley, in Bill Bucko's translation, and then started reading some other material about Rand's years in Russia, especially in regard to the life-saving importance to her of the operettas she saw. I think I've formed a deeper understanding of where she was coming from about art. I nonetheless find her discussion of art's function "narrow," emphasizing one aspect which, yes, art can have, did have for her, but which isn't the only aspect. Also, of course, she didn't accept the idea of "instincts." In that respect Awakawa has parallels to Jung. I wouldn't be surprised if there was a Jung influence on Awakawa's thinking, though I wouldn't be surprised either if Awakawa was basically UNinfluenced, proposing views which came just from pondering the phenomenon.)

Ellen

[Jonathan]

Jonathan, re post #2, on what basis do you think that the "average hostile" Objectivist would deny the similarity to Rand's ideas?

I made the comment based on my many recent discussions with average Objectivists, primarily on OO, who are often hostile to any views other than Rand's, including not only views that are similar to Rand's, but also some of Rand's own views that they weren't aware of.

I think I've formed a deeper understanding of where she was coming from about art. I nonetheless find her discussion of art's function "narrow," emphasizing one aspect which, yes, art can have, did have for her, but which isn't the only aspect.

I agree. As a blind woman touching an elephant's tusk, she gave an excellent description and analysis of what she felt. It's too bad that, when deciding what the creature was, she refused to listen to those who were touching and describing the other parts.

Also, of course, she didn't accept the idea of "instincts." In that respect Awakawa has parallels to Jung. I wouldn't be surprised if there was a Jung influence on Awakawa's thinking, though I wouldn't be surprised either if Awakawa was basically UNinfluenced, proposing views which came just from pondering the phenomenon.)

Have you found any good online info on Awakawa? I'm wondering if there was any western influence at all.

J

[Ellen Stuttle]

I made the comment [about "average hostile" Objectivist response] based on my many recent discussions with average Objectivists, primarily on OO, who are often hostile to any views other than Rand's, including not only views that are similar to Rand's, but also some of Rand's own views that they weren't aware of.

I don't make any attempt to follow things on OO. OL is more than I can keep up with. Could you link to a quick example or two of specific responses? Especially, I'm curious as to what among "Rand's own views that they weren't aware of" might arouse hostility.

Have you found any good online info on Awakawa? I'm wondering if there was any western influence at all.

I haven't had a chance to look yet, been real busy. Maybe this evening. The quote I provided was from a translation, and of course the original, embedded in a Japanese context, might have shades, innuendos, echoes of meaning Westerners wouldn't hear. I know very little about the painting traditions of Far Eastern cultures, but what little I know leads me to think that someone from one of those cultures seeing a brushstroke painting would discern features lost on the untutored Westerner.

Ellen

[BaalChatzaf]

I made the comment based on my many recent discussions with average Objectivists, primarily on OO, who are often hostile to any views other than Rand's, including not only views that are similar to Rand's, but also some of Rand's own views that they weren't aware of.

I no longer do any business on OO. They are, for the most part, Shi'ite Objectivists and they are ready (if not eager) to take offense at the slightest divergence from the $line or $holy-writ (Rand's writings).

The folks here are open to sane, rational, polite and constructive discourse.

On OO I felt that was walking tip toe over a field strewn with eggs and I had to be ever so careful as not to break any shells.

After a certain point I said to myself: Self--- enough of this shit.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Jonathan]

Especially, I'm curious as to what among "Rand's own views that they weren't aware of" might arouse hostility.

On this OL thread I gave a few examples of Online Objectivists being inadvertently hostile to Rand's views.

The first example was my taking issue with a poster's claim that Objectivism holds that "man's life" is the standard of every kind of value, including beauty and all other aesthetic judgments.

Basically, a moderator at OO deleted my post in which I pointed out that Objectivism does not hold that aesthetic judgments have an ethical basis. And despite my quoting Rand, and despite my explaining to several of the moderators that...

"The Objectivist position is that the standard of aesthetic judgment is the artist's views. The viewer is to disregard his or her own values and judge the artwork based on how well the artist presented his views. An artist can come from a purely subjective, anti-man, existence-hating, envy-ridden, death-worshiping, pro-destruction mindset and his artwork can be an act of promoting pure hatred and evil, and it can still qualify as being aesthetically great by Objectivist standards. Its style can be judged to be aesthetically great despite being horrifically shocking and vulgar, as long as it powerfully conveys the artist's views. Therefore the assertion that "man's life" is the standard of aesthetic judgment is false."

... they could not get beyond their belief that all values must be based on the standard of "man's life," and that I must somehow be misrepresenting Rand and trying to trick them.

A second good example is one that I gave here on the same thread.

Briefly, OO moderator Jennifer Snow showed up to smugly assert that my criticism of Hsieh's approach to aesthetics was "absurd" and "hardly worth addressing." And at the end of her post, she unknowingly disagreed with Rand's positions on both the essence of beauty and the on the objectivity of judgments of beauty.

And finally, on the same thread, I cited this example of the OO moderator "softwareNerd" (who is probably the most aggressively zealous, ignorant and dishonest of the moderators at OO) revealing his ignorance of Rand's aesthetics, and his resulting unaware, inadvertent opposition to aspects her aesthetics.

I know very little about the painting traditions of Far Eastern cultures, but what little I know leads me to think that someone from one of those cultures seeing a brushstroke painting would discern features lost on the untutored Westerner.

I have no doubt that, on average, Easterners would experience much more in a brushstroke than Westerners.

J

[Ellen Stuttle]

First a report re Awakawa. Then I'll look at the OO links J provided (thanks, J).

---

So far I find nothing in English about Yasuichi Awakawa except for a birthdate with no death date. The birthdate given on a world identities list (link) is 1902. If that's accurate, Awakawa is very old if he's still alive.

On that same webpage there are two references under the heading "Publications about Yasuichi Awakawa," but both listings are in Oriental languages -- I'm not sure which ones, maybe Japanese and Korean -- with no English translation provided. So I don't know what the titles say, or if the two references are to the same book in the original and in a translation.

I'm not sure if Awakawa is (or was) himself a Zen painter. Evidently Brushmarks of Infinity is a history of Zen painting. It was first translated into English by John Bester in 1978, with the full title: Zen Painting: Brushmarks of Infinity. I think the original Japanese book was published in 1970.

It's been translated into German. Somehow the German title doesn't thrill me the way the English one does:

Die Malerei des Zen-Buddhismus. Pinselstriche des Unendlichen.

Here's the sole Amazon review:

link

An excellent book, January 26, 2012

By

LW Raboys

This review is from: Zen Painting (Paperback)

An excellent overview of the development of Zen art with an abundance of fine, full page examples of the very best and a very good bibliography of the masters at the end. The quality of the reproductions is really quite good for an inexpensive, large-size format. Highly recommended.

And a review on the website japanese-arts.net by someone who doesn't like the text:

link

Zen Painting: Brushmarks of Infinity by Yasuichi Awakawa

Chapter titles like 'Nor The Bright Mirror' and 'The Voice of the Stream' should be warning enough, but avoid the opening text section, as it is dreadful and packed with nonsense, too often written in a rhetorical "is it not..." tone. Most of it is pictures with commentary, so I thought it might improve. The writing doesn't. He does have some handy info on the referents of various Zen images, but has absolutely nothing to offer artistically. You won't believe this, but he tries to make one Sengai image from about 200 years ago into some sort of Zen pro-free market anti-communism rant. A deeply bad book, but 139 plates of Zen paintings = not a total loss.

And a tribute by a woman named Belinda Sweet who was led to becoming a dealer in Zen art after being captivated by the book cover of Brushmarks of Infinity, which she saw in a store window.

link

"Collecting the Art of Zen"

Text and photographs courtesy of Belinda Sweet

[....]

I first became aware of paintings by Japanese Zen masters when I saw a book, Zen Painting, by Awakawa Yasuichi. I was drawn to the cover painting: an exuberant and amusing painting of Hotei laughing so hard that he rolled over backward.

I had been deeply interested in Eastern philosophy since student days, so was excited and surprised to find an art form that combined humor and joy with serious spiritual and philosophical meaning. The delight that I saw in that Hotei painting summed up true spirituality.

[....]

Although the artistic qualities are often dynamic-amusing-lovely, it is the sensed spirit of the Zen master himself that is Zen art's real essence and reason for existence. It is understood that when a Zen master brushes a painting, his very life force and enlightment are imparted to the ink by his intense concentration. For Zen masters, the act of painting is a moving meditation.

On Amazon, new hardcovers are selling for $291.36, new softcovers for $255.18.

I ordered a used copy of the paperback for $8.99 plus shipping.

Ellen

[Ellen Stuttle]

J,

I'm reading consecutively through the OL thread to which you linked, and I have to stop for awhile, since my eyes are starting to go in circles.

Meanwhile, a question on this comment:

Yeah, Rand said that a sense of life "is not a criterion of esthetic judgment."

And then she often proceeded to ignore her own stated position and make "objective" aesthetic and moral judgments based on her own sense of life responses, as well as on the artist's alleged sense of life, which she believed with absolute certainty that she was detecting in the artwork (while simultaneously scolding others that no one could know another's sense of life based on such limited information).

She "often" confused aesthetic and moral criteria? I can only think of one example off the top where she might have done that, the one-word reply on Maxfield Parrish. Was she talking aesthetics or ethics?

But as you yourself have indicated up the thread, she distinguished her calling Anna Karenina an evil book from Tolstoy's ability as a writer. Likewise, she called Beethoven a "giant" as a composer though she disliked his music. And she clearly thought that Rembrandt was a great painter technically. Another example is Dinesen, whom she said to Hospers she considered the best stylist going in English, though with a bad sense of life.

Re the main issue, about "man's life" not being the standard of good in aesthetic judgment, I think I can see the source of the OO people's confusion on that, a statement in Galt's Speech.

There is a morality of reason, a morality proper to man, and Man's Life is its standard of value.

All that which is proper to the life of a rational being is the good; all that which destroys it is the evil.

The confused ones might be remembering that statement and forgetting that Rand was talking specifically of morality in the context.

Ellen

[Guyau]

Ellen,

Although the setting in which Rand introduced man's life as the standard of value was in presenting her theory of moral value (in Galt's speech), I would read that presentation as stating that man's life is the standard of value for all chosen, correct human values, not only the moral ones. It would remain that the esthetic and the moral are distinct, as Jonathan has maintained and as he has underscored in Rand's later writings on esthetics.

In Galt's speech alone, I don't recall Rand drawing the distinction between rational moral values and rational esthetic values. She discusses values in general, including our unchosen ones and those of other organisms, but thereafter in the presentation, one could get the impression, as you have noted, that the cardinal moral values and the set of rational moral virtues exhaust the realm of chosen, correct human values.

In "The Objectivist Ethics," Rand states that a moral code of values guides "the choices and actions that determine the purpose and course of [man's] life." Joining this with the later writings on esthetic value seeking, the action in that purpose for ethics and the productivity among her rational moral virtues would seem to be factors of morality to expect distinguishing moral and esthetic value in her system (as in others).

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Related, from reflections on The Fountainhead, towards a distinction between moral and esthetic integrity:

. . .

Moral integrity as self-integration of the person in action to a definite self-contained whole is similar to and intertwined with the action pattern of the living organism of which the person is center. Occasions of esthetic integrity are certain experiential integrations to a self-contained whole utilizing patterns of living integration in perception and feeling.

Much remains to be sifted in this perspective. I notice that in this candidate conception, esthetic integrity might be independent of whether beauty is to the purpose of the creator and is present in the work. That is, the beautiful must have esthetic integrity, but the converse may not hold.

[Jonathan]

She "often" confused aesthetic and moral criteria?

No. My comment was that after saying that sense of life is not a criterion of esthetic judgment, Rand often made aesthetic and moral judgments based on her own sense of life, as well as on the artist's alleged sense of life, which she believed with absolute certainty that she was detecting in the artwork.

Examples of Rand's aesthetic judgments of visual art based on sense of life issues would be that of Capuletti, Degas and Dali. She made claims about the quality of their work based on nothing but her sense of life responses to it. In the case of Capuletti's work, for example, although she attempted (intentionally or not) to disguise her comments as being about the artist's technical skills, she clearly didn't have any knowledge of visual arts technical standards, and, lacking that knowledge, she invented her own which just happened to reflect her sense of life preferences.

She also commented on visual arts issues in general (without referencing specific artists), and smuggled in her own sense of life preferences, such as for sharp outlines, pure colors, and the lack of "messy" brushstrokes, etc.

I can only think of one example off the top where she might have done that, the one-word reply on Maxfield Parrish. Was she talking aesthetics or ethics?

She was talking either or both. Either way, she was making aesthetic and/or moral judgments based on sense of life issues -- she was claiming to rate the artwork, but was actually rating her own emotional response to it.

But as you yourself have indicated up the thread, she distinguished her calling Anna Karenina an evil book from Tolstoy's ability as a writer. Likewise, she called Beethoven a "giant" as a composer though she disliked his music. And she clearly thought that Rembrandt was a great painter technically. Another example is Dinesen, whom she said to Hospers she considered the best stylist going in English, though with a bad sense of life.

Right, and I didn't say that she always based her aesthetic and/or moral judgments on sense of life issues.

The confused ones might be remembering that statement and forgetting that Rand was talking specifically of morality in the context.

That, and I think that they have very little familiarity with Rand's writings on aesthetics but instead have based their opinions on having read and believed the misinformed opinions emanating from circles of self-reinforing ignorance, such as OO, where stating Rand's actual views on aesthetics can result in having one's posts deleted by moderators.

J

[Jonathan]

In the above, I wanted to address the issue of the relevance that Rand's ethical judgments of art can have on her aesthetic judgments, but didn't (and still don't) have time to get into it in depth. Basically -- when Rand claimed to have identified an artist's sense of life through his art, and, although she disagreed with or disliked that sense of life, she nevertheless rated his art as great because he very effectively presented that sense of life, what effect does her being wrong about what sense of life is projected through the art have on her aesthetic judgment? In other words, if a work of Beethoven's is not defeatist, as Rand claimed it to be, it should no longer qualify as great art, since it did not successfully communicate to her what she thought that it did, no? Or take Vermeer's work. Based on Rand's moral judgments of what she took to be its content, I think we have to conclude that he was a terrible artist by her aesthetic standards because he failed to communicate to her his moral views.

J

[Ellen Stuttle]

She "often" confused aesthetic and moral criteria?

No. My comment was that after saying that sense of life is not a criterion of esthetic judgment, Rand often made aesthetic and moral judgments based on her own sense of life, as well as on the artist's alleged sense of life, which she believed with absolute certainty that she was detecting in the artwork.

OK. I misunderstood what you were saying. I agree that she often let what she liked affect her judgments of aesthetic merit, especially in regard to types of art other than literature. Also, that she was often talking outside her competence in making such judgments in regard to types of art other than literature.

I can only think of one example off the top where she might have done that, the one-word reply on Maxfield Parrish. Was she talking aesthetics or ethics?

She was talking either or both. Either way, she was making aesthetic and/or moral judgments based on sense of life issues -- she was claiming to rate the artwork, but was actually rating her own emotional response to it.

We don't actually know that she was "claiming to rate the artwork" as artwork, which is what I take you to mean, since it's impossible to tell from the one-word answer whether she was talking aesthetics, sense of life, or both.

Ellen

[Jonathan]

We don't actually know that she was "claiming to rate the artwork" as artwork, which is what I take you to mean, since it's impossible to tell from the one-word answer whether she was talking aesthetics, sense of life, or both.

Yes, from a one-word answer, we can't know if Rand was judging Parrish's body of work aesthetically, morally, or both. But I don't think that we need to know, since there are no rational, objective grounds on which to judge his work as "trash." The only perspective from which to make such a judgment is Rand's personal, subjective tastes, preferences and sense of life responses. Technically, Parrish was a master artist. Content-wise, his work presents radiantly sunlit universes, heroism, benovolence, achievement, childlike wonderment, etc. It presents the universe as knowable, and mankind as capable of success and happiness. Strictly objectively speaking, it meets or exceeds all of Rand's aesthetic and moral requirements of great art (which is why people are often shocked to hear her judgment of it -- they recognize that Parrish's work perfectly fits her description of great art, both aesthetically and morally).

There are legitimate grounds on which to claim that some of Parrish's work might be, say, too sweet for one's personal tastes, or perhaps too innocent, etc., but there's a massive difference between judging a few of an artist's paintings as possibly being a bit too sweet or innocent for one's tastes and judging his entire body of work as "trash." The former is a reasonable judgment, where the latter is purely subjective and irrational.

I think that this quote from Rand has relevance here:

"Speaking of one's inability to know another's sense of life, now might be a good time to make a request: Please don't send me records or recommend music. You have no way of knowing my sense of life, although you have a better way of knowing mine than I have of knowing yours, since you've read my books, and my sense of life is on every page. You would have some grasp of it- but I hate to think how little. I hate the painful embarrassment I feel when somebody sends me music they know I'd love-and my reaction is the opposite: it's impossible music. I feel completely misunderstood, yet the person's intentions were good. So please don't try it. It's no reflection on you or on me. It's simply that sense of life is very private."

What do the above comments on music and Rand's judgment of Parrish's work say about the nature of art? If people look at paintings, and, using her own stated aesthetic and moral criteria, they recognize the paintings as qualifying as great art, yet Rand asserts that they are "trash," it seems to suggest that her criteria are difficult, if not impossible, to apply in reality -- that even she couldn't apply them, and, more importantly, that, when it came to making value-judgments of art, her subjective tastes trumped considerations of the art's technical mastery and its moral beneficence. If people who strongly, passionately identified with her sense of life and shared her philosophical views were so terrible at recommending music to her, to the point of sending her "impossible music" which made her feel misunderstood, what does that say about her theory that music "conveys the same categories of emotions to listeners"?

Anyway, Ellen, getting back to Awakawa, please don't be bashful about sharing your thoughts on the book once you've had time to absorb it. I'm interested in hearing your reaction to it.

J

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I want to make a comment here, more as a placeholder for a future line of thinking than anything else.

I keep saying many of Rand's contested comments are deeply insightful if you remove the all-or-nothing scope and apply them to more restricted areas. This covers all areas she wrote about, but I haven't thought of applying this to her entire aesthetics until just now.

What would her pronouncements on aesthetics look like if, instead of judging them as prescriptions for others to follow, we use them as a window into her thinking as to how she produced her own art?

I see wealth opening up from this perspective.

I have been honing my own formulations about art and many of them are at variance with her pronouncements. But here's the thing. They are not at variance when I use that perspective.

This goes deeper than the objective-subjective thing. Rand set her own boundaries and worked within them, like all great artists do. I believe she was consistent to those boundaries. even when judging other artists, and even when she could not articulate her views properly in words.

She just had a thing for telling others what to think qua telling others what to think. Sort of like eating or breathing. This was an activity she felt compelled to do her entire life (from what I have read of her), regardless of whether she was properly qualified to provide an expert opinion on a specific topic. Sometimes she would beg off and say she didn't know when she didn't know, but not always. And this is where I often see the most contention arise in discussions of Rand-friendly people about her.

It's awful to say that, but it's true.

In fact, I suspect she sometimes put herself out there with an all-or-nothing pronouncement, praising this and condemning that, and only then dug into the thinking needed to back that up. I know I've caught myself doing this, especially when I was more into the Randian core story and was using it as my own.

Michael

[william.scherk]

Yeah, Rand said that a sense of life "is not a criterion of esthetic judgment."

And then she often proceeded to ignore her own stated position and make "objective" aesthetic and moral judgments based on her own sense of life responses, as well as on the artist's alleged sense of life, which she believed with absolute certainty that she was detecting in the artwork (while simultaneously scolding others that no one could know another's sense of life based on such limited information).

She "often" confused aesthetic and moral criteria? I can only think of one example off the top where she might have done that, the one-word reply on Maxfield Parrish. Was she talking aesthetics or ethics?

Is that all she is known to have ever said on the subject of Maxfield Parrish? "Trash"? I wonder (in trepidation) how the Parrish quote has been spun by the Rand collegiates. Jonathan, can you remember anyone expanding that one-word answer into a stunning argument?

I found an image of Parrish used to illustrate a Rand-inflected book. From Amazon:

[ThatGuy]

"Scuoteguazza observes that because the Objectivist ethics [that would correctly be "aesthetics"] so extols romantic art, all too many Objectivists stifle their real preferences to avoid being labelled irrational and, at least publicly, play it safe by sticking to officially-approved works. Result: "a dismaying uniformity of artistic tastes among Objectivists." In the early 1970s many Objectivists thought they'd found a kindred artistic spirit in the paintings of Maxfield Parrish. At a Ford Hall Forum "someone asked Ayn Rand for her assessment of his work, to which she curtly replied, 'Trash!' One could almost hear the bonfires raging across the country." -Jeff Walker, writing in THE AYN RAND CULT

[Jonathan]

Jonathan, can you remember anyone expanding that one-word answer into a stunning argument?

Pigero is the only Objectivist that I'm aware of who has offered a stunning argument (stunning in its sheer stupidity) in support of Rand's comment on Parrish:

Still, one of my favourite answers is the briefest:

Q: What do you think of the works of the artist Maxwell Parrish?

A: Trash.

It was not just the spectacle of a brilliant, nimble mind in action that transported me to Atlantis—it was the magnificent spirit that animated it. In an age of weasel-words, hand-wringing and touchy-feely political correctness, Rand’s sizzling-hot, unapologetic, in-your-face candour in pursuit of reason, freedom, the best within, and life as it might be and ought to be is more than simply refreshing, more than a mood-lifter, more than an inspiration—it’s a lifeline, especially for those like Steven Mallory in The Fountainhead who allow themselves to be ground down by it all. It’s a reminder that when we hear the caterwaulers’ headbanging, see the poseurs’ splotches and splurges, read the nihilist philosophers telling us philosophy cannot provide answers—we don’t have to take any of them seriously. They are “trash”—and this woman is a hero.

I said in this post:

Heh. Do you get the impression, as I do, that Pigero hasn't a clue who Maxfield Parrish was, or what type of art he created?

First off, the man's name was Maxfield Parrish, not "Maxwell" Parrish. It's spelled correctly in Ayn Rand Answers. Jesus, that's like someone commenting on Rand's views on Norman Rockwell but calling him Norman Rockfield. It's a pretty strong indicator that he's probably not very familiar with the artist.

Secondly, Pigero apparently believes that old "Maxwell" was a nihilist who painted in wild "splotches and splurges" which were the visual equivalent of "headbanging caterwauling," and that he was deserving of Rand's condemnation. Pigero thinks that it's a refreshing, mood-lifting lifeline to hear Rand dismissing Parrish's work as "trash" in the name of "reason, freedom, the best within, and life as it might and ought to be."

Just think of all of the real-life Steven Mallorys who will stop allowing themselves to be ground down by it all when they hear Rand's uplifting words about "Maxwell's" art! They'll join Pigero in being inspired by the magnificent spirit and heroism that Rand exhibits in daring to stand up to "Maxwell's" dark nihilism. Through Rand, they'll rediscovered that they don't have to take evil visions like "Maxwell's" seriously, damn it!

What a twit.

J

[Jonathan]

What would her pronouncements on aesthetics look like if, instead of judging them as prescriptions for others to follow, we use them as a window into her thinking as to how she produced her own art?

I agree that there's a lot of value to be found in Rand's view of art. The problem is that it is purported to be a proper philosophical theory of aesthetics, and an objective, rational and non-contradictory one to boot. In that regard, it fails on many levels. It's too bad that it wasn't sold as a beginning inquiry or investigation into the nature of art rather than an ultimate objective resolution of the entire field of the philosophy of aesthetics.

J

[Brant Gaede]

What would her pronouncements on aesthetics look like if, instead of judging them as prescriptions for others to follow, we use them as a window into her thinking as to how she produced her own art?

I agree that there's a lot of value to be found in Rand's view of art. The problem is that it is purported to be a proper philosophical theory of aesthetics, and an objective, rational and non-contradictory one to boot. In that regard, it fails on many levels. It's too bad that it wasn't sold as a beginning inquiry or investigation into the nature of art rather than an ultimate objective resolution of the entire field of the philosophy of aesthetics.

J

There is no generally applied "proper theory of [Objectivist] aesthetics" to my knowledge. Rand wrote and spoke about this and that re aesthetics. "Art is a selective recreation of reality" isn't enough of a demonstrable foundation for that, but it is sure a lot to think about. That's the whole point: Rand is a lot to think about. Ready when you are!

--Brant

one, two, three--THINK!

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

It's too bad that it wasn't sold as a beginning inquiry or investigation into the nature of art rather than an ultimate objective resolution of the entire field of the philosophy of aesthetics.

Jonathan,

To me, it's simple.

It's up to us to help the seller reposition the product.

With highly valuable thinking like Rand's, I favor repositioning a lot more than debunking, especially when it works as well as it does here.

Michael

[Ellen Stuttle]

Anyway, Ellen, getting back to Awakawa, please don't be bashful about sharing your thoughts on the book once you've had time to absorb it. I'm interested in hearing your reaction to it.

The book has shipped, but it's coming by standard instead of the expedited we get with things sold directly by Amazon, so it could take awhile getting here. It was sent from California. I'm quite curious to see the selections.

--

Meanwhile, Rand.....

You quote her request that people not send her music:

"Speaking of one's inability to know another's sense of life, now might be a good time to make a request: Please don't send me records or recommend music. You have no way of knowing my sense of life, although you have a better way of knowing mine than I have of knowing yours, since you've read my books, and my sense of life is on every page. You would have some grasp of it- but I hate to think how little. I hate the painful embarrassment I feel when somebody sends me music they know I'd love-and my reaction is the opposite: it's impossible music. I feel completely misunderstood, yet the person's intentions were good. So please don't try it. It's no reflection on you or on me. It's simply that sense of life is very private."

I suppose you picked that up from the Q&A book.

Here's the actual answer as transcribed by Robert Campbell.

The question asked was, "Could Miss Rand tell us the TV programs that she watches for pleasure?"

The first paragraph, which you can read at the link if you're curious, directly answered the question.

Rand then continued:

[Robert is quoting an answer of Rand's]

Philosophy of Objectivism 1976

Lecture 12 Q&A

CD 2, track 3, 10:14 through 13:06.

[....]

Oh, by the way, uh, euh, to the author who sent me the question about the poems, I have, uh, Kipling's complete poems, so don't send me copies of them.

And I would find this the, perhaps the right moment to say one general request, ub, pertaining to art and sense of life. Please do not send me books, unless it's one by your own and you're sure that you won't shock me. If it's a good Objectivist work, yes, I'd like to see it. But, uh, no books for pleasure. Don't recommend them.

And above all, don't ever, ever send me records or recommend music. You have no way of knowing my sense of life, even though you have a better way of doing it than I can know yours, because since you've read my books, my sense of life is all over every page, and you would have some grasp of it, but I hate to think how little. I hate the kind of very painful embarrassment, which I feel when somebody sends me—it's happened several times with records—ek, music which they feel they know I'd love and it's the exact opposite, it's impossible music. I feel completely misunderstood, yet I know the person's intentions were good. I hate to do anything about it, to acknowledge or not to acknowledge, and I think the best way would be to explain to you why nobody except my husband actually can give me paintings or records and know infallibly, as he does, what I would or would not like. Nobody else can be that sure, so please, don't try it. It's no reflection on you, nor on me. It's just that sense of life is enormously private.

I've wondered about that answer if Rand was most especially thinking of the Beethoven selections which were sent to her by the girl who asked the Beethoven question at the Ford Hall Forum in 1974. In the autograph line, the girl then asked if she could send Rand some compositions she thought Rand maybe hadn't heard and which she thought would affect Rand's opinion of Beethoven. I was standing to the side, where I'd positioned myself deliberately to hear the exchange. I've told the whole story someplace on this board. Rand didn't like the records she was sent, or so I later was told by someone who was in touch with the girl.

Ellen

[Ellen Stuttle]

The Function of Art according to Rand

I opened a copy of The Romantic Manifesto intending to re-read in context Rand's discussion of the difference between aesthetic judgment and sense-of-life response. I haven't gotten to that part yet. The pages I opened to -- pp. 38-39 in the 1971 Signet paperback -- contain a succinct delineation of Rand's view of art's function, the view which I said in post #5 "I might loosely call 'utilitarian.'" I hope that people following the thread will take careful note of what she says here. The passage is from "Art and Sense of Life," originally published in The Objectivist in March 1966.

It is not journalistic information or scientific education or moral guidance that man seeks from a work of art (though these may be involved as secondary consequences), but the fulfillment of a more profound need: a confirmation of his view of existence--a confirmation, not in the sense of resolving cognitive doubts, but in the sense of permitting him to contemplate his abstractions outside his own mind, in the form of existential concretes.

Since man lives by reshaping his physical background to serve his purposes, since he must first define and then create his values--a rational man needs a concretized projection of these values, an image in whose likeness he will re-shape the world and himself. Art gives him that image; it gives him the experience of seeing the full, immediate, concrete reality of his distant goals.

Since a rational man's ambition is unlimited, since his pursuit and achievement of values is a lifelong process--and the higher the values, the harder the struggle--he needs a moment, an hour or some period of time in which he can experience the sense of his completed task, the sense of living in a universe where his values have been successfully achieved. It is like a moment of rest, a moment to gain fuel to move farther. Art gives him that fuel; the pleasure of contemplating the objectified reality of one's own sense of life is the pleasure of feeling what it would be like to live in one's ideal world.

"The importance of that experience is not in what man learns from it, but in that he experiences it. The fuel is not a theoretical principle, not a didactic 'message,' but the life-giving fact of experiencing a moment of metaphysical joy--a moment of love for existence." (See Chapter 10 ["The Goal of My Writing," October-November 1963].

The same principle applies to an irrational man, though in different terms, according to his different views and responses. For an irrational man, the concretized projection of his malevolent sense of life serves, not as fuel and inspiration to move forward, but as permission to stand still: it declares that values are unattainable, that the struggle is futile, that fear, guilt, pain and failure are mankind's predestined end--and that he couldn't help it. Or, on a lower level of irrationality, the concretized projection of a malignant sense of life provides a man with an image of triumphant malice, of hatred for existence, of vengeance against life's best exponents, of the defeat and destruction of all human values; his kind of art gives him a moment's illusion that he is right--that evil is metaphysically potent.

Art is man's metaphysical mirror; what a rational man seeks to see in that mirror is a salute; what an irrational man seeks to see is a justification--even if only a justification of his depravity, as a last convulsion of his betrayed self-esteem.

Between these two extremes, there lies the immense continuum of men of mixed premises--whose sense of life holds unresolved, precariously balanced or openly contradictory elements of reason and unreason--and works of art that reflect these mixtures. Since art is the product of philosophy (and mankind's philosophy is tragically mixed), most of the world's art, including some of its greatest examples, falls into this category.

Ellen