Have I Been Excommunicated/Unpersoned?

[anthony]

I think Rand used the Objectivist method to unravel art and its criticality - but it's a mistake to believe she was only seeking justification for Objectivism. She was upholding one aspect of art - the aspect of man's volitional consciousness - to sustain man.

]What is Romanticism", TRM]: "...the respective basic premises of two broad categories of art:

Romanticism which recognizes the existence of man's volition - and Naturalism, which denies it."

Although we cannot shift focus from 'subjectivism vs objectivism' in art ~totally~ that statement narrows the field.

Does an artwork inspire a man in his "value-choices"- or, does it tell him "his life and his character are determined by forces beyond his control."?

That's all, in a nutshell. Over-emphasising the Subjectivist and the Objectivist qualities of art becomes a red herring.

All art in any medium requires a response from the viewer, and an involvement of his consciousness.

To call that subjective is mostly a misnomer.

Volition? or none? - that is the question.

[Jonathan]

You want to restart a discussion with Roger by first calling his wife's esthetic opinions "silly"?

Not really. Roger is not open to discussion. At least not a true discussion. He wants to set the terms, which include double standards favoring him. I really don't care if he tries to answer my questions or not. My only reason for asking them was just to call his bluff.

He doesn't have a clearly identified objective standard of judgment for beauty. He doesn't use objectivity -- the volitional process of employing logic and reason -- to make judgments of beauty. He will not be identifying such standards and processes as applied to judgments of beauty. His offer of an implied trade, in which I no longer mention his wife in exchange for the possibility that he might answer my question, is a bluff.

Now you're a dog that bites and won't let go.

A better way to put it would be to say that I'm Schwarzkopfian. I'm not the type to be manipulated into treating a tactical retreat as an act of surrender, no matter how much whining and claims of victimization accompany it.

Not that it makes any difference; he's already gone from you. You cannot re-start the fire of ratiocination in the midst of the burned-down intellectual forest. Both Stephen and Roger were disgusted with you even if you might have out-argued them, compounding the offense.

They were not disgusted with me "even if I might have out-argued them." They were disgusted with me because I out-argued them.

I doubt if they think you did, but if they do they have a way provided by you to save face.

I disagree. The only way for them to save face is to address the substance that, so far, has been evaded and censored.

J

[Brant Gaede]

And they may do that, but that won't make for any conversation with you going forward.

--Brant

[Jonathan]

And they may do that, but that won't make for any conversation with you going forward.

--Brant

Yes, I understand the conditions of their implied trade. I understood it long ago. If I wish them to converse with me, I am not to challenge them with questions that they can't answer or which they don't like, I am not to provide information that they weren't aware of and which refutes their positions, and I am not to be critical of them in the same way that they are critical of others.

I don't accept those conditions.

I won't be losing any sleep over their refusing to talk to me. They don't have anything of value to contribute to the issues that I've raised, so it's not like I'll be missing out on anything.

J

[Selene]

Seems like this is a perfect place for an intellectual time out...

[Ellen Stuttle]

So here's my new proposal: I will agree to never mention Roger's wife or her silly little aesthetic opinion ever again, or Roger's attempting to use it as a weapon of ridicule and then whining when it backfired, if he agrees to never bring up her or her aesthetic opinions again, and if he agrees to never again denigrate any other person with the claim that they are "rationalizing" when disagreeing with his interpretations of works of art, and if agrees to never make another "personal attack" on Rand by being critical of her level of knowledge of music.

This is non-negotiable.

J

The last stipulation is cutting off your nose to spite your face. Rand indeed was ignorant on the subject of music. Is Roger not to mention this reality? Are you allowed to mention it?

Are you allowed to mention her ignorance regarding painting? Or is mentioning that to be classified as a "personal attack"?

And what about mentioning her contrived way of demarcating Romanticism from Naturalism in literature?

Ellen

[PDS]

Seems like this is a perfect place for an intellectual time out...

Let's leave Jerry out of this.

[Jonathan]

So here's my new proposal: I will agree to never mention Roger's wife or her silly little aesthetic opinion ever again, or Roger's attempting to use it as a weapon of ridicule and then whining when it backfired, if he agrees to never bring up her or her aesthetic opinions again, and if he agrees to never again denigrate any other person with the claim that they are "rationalizing" when disagreeing with his interpretations of works of art, and if agrees to never make another "personal attack" on Rand by being critical of her level of knowledge of music.

This is non-negotiable.

J

The last stipulation is cutting off your nose to spite your face. Rand indeed was ignorant on the subject of music. Is Roger not to mention this reality? Are you allowed to mention it?

Are you allowed to mention her ignorance regarding painting? Or is mentioning that to be classified as a "personal attack"?

And what about mentioning her contrived way of demarcating Romanticism from Naturalism in literature?

Ellen

I'm allowed to mention those thing because I don't think that doing so is a "personal attack." Roger, on the other hand, is not allowed to mention them because he does think that such identifications of reality are "personal attacks." It's just a matter of internal consistency. If Roger wants to whine about being "personally attacked" when I identify the fact that he lacks knowledge of the visual arts, then I expect him to at least act consistently and stop "personally attacking" Rand by identifying the fact that she lacked knowledge of music.

Of course the other option would be that Roger could simply accept the reality that he lacks knowledge of the visual arts, and that my saying so isn't a "personal attack," but I don't think that Roger is objective or rational enough to do so.

Anyway, I think that Adam might be right that we should take a time out. Taking a time out might give Roger some time to reflect on his behavior and to contemplate what the best course of action would be toward achieving what he wants.

For example, he clearly wants me to stop mentioning his wife, and his foolish attempt to use her stupid expression of incredulity as an attempt at ridicule as a substitute for argument, and as an attempt to establish his and her aesthetic authority. So, what would be the proper thing for Roger to do? What is the grown-up Objectivist thing to do when one does something dumb and it backfires? The answer isn't to cry and play victim or make demands. It isn't to attempt to silence others and threaten to take one's marbles and go home. But what could possibly be the right thing to do? Hmmm. Let's all take a time out and think about that one.

J

[caroljane]

Jonathan always has a lot of ironies in the fire.

This is a gem.

Nay, a precious gemstone.

Thanks PDS, I thought I would hear groans.

Here's sparklin' at you, kid.

[Ellen Stuttle]

I really don't care if [Roger] tries to answer my questions or not. My only reason for asking them was just to call his bluff.

You expressed puzzlement above as to why the questions might have not seemed "polite." How about, because the hidden agenda looked obvious? People here do have a "history" with you. I suspect that Roger might have felt that you were just trying to set him up.

They were not disgusted with me "even if I might have out-argued them." They were disgusted with me because I out-argued them.

My opinion is that some of your behaviior really does produce a disgusted reaction from some people, for instance Stephen Boydstun.

Regarding Roger's wife's remark, you've looked to me, with the way you've kept reverting to that, as if it's a thorn in your side that keeps festering. Similar to the historic appearance to me of your reverting and reverting to Rand's "Trash" reply about Parrish.

Speaking of which. We had an exchange earlier about the "Trash" reply in which you left off the curlicues and gave what I thought is a reasonable explanation for your objecting to Rand's answer.

I want to quote a bunch of stuff from the earlier exchange -- next post -- because the material connects to a remark -- almost buried in the personal stuff on this thread -- which you made in post #22.

You've said similar things before but not when I had a bit of time to ask: What do you mean by it? Specifically by the statement that "In a way, [the Objectivist Esthetics] is the starting point of the philosophy."

Now esthetics belongs to esthetics, just like psychology belongs to psychology. The fact one can make objective (true) statements or representations of these subjects--just like in science--doesn't mean esthetics are part of the Objectivist philosophy in spite of anything Rand wrote or said on the subject however interesting and objective.

I disagree, and I think we've had this discussion before. I think that the Obectivist Esthetics is a part of the Objectivist philosophy. In a way, it's the starting point of the philosophy. Where Objectivism doesn't have answers, but only overconfident assertions, it's really just offering up an aesthetic view that hasn't been fleshed out with proof. (In some cases, proof will eventually be discovered, in others, not.)

J

I have speculations as to what you might mean, and my own view of a way in which the statement might be true. What I've been thinking ever since I read The Mysterious Valley (translated) last winter is that Rand's reaction to Cyrus Paltons, the character in the book with whom she fell in love at age 9, combined with her reactions to the military band music she'd heard, I think age 6, on vacation in the Crimea, was "the starting point of the philosophy," content-wise.

But I don't know if that's the sort of "starting point" you're thinking of.

Ellen

[Ellen Stuttle]

The material which follows is excerpted from a discussion Jonathan and I had on the "Brushmarks of Infinity" thread.

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"?

[paragraph re Awakawa deleted]

J

[reply re Awakawa deleted]

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.

[personal reflection deleted]

Ellen

PS re your post #16, J.

I think that's a good analysis of the Parrish issue, along with the lead-in to a wider question. It's the first I've seen where you've addressed the Parrish issue straight, without a taunting take-off mockery which from my perspective has detracted from the coherence of the criticism. I've wondered if what upset you so much about her answer -- you've seemed to me upset by it -- was that you personally like Parrish. I suppose you do, personally like Parrish. So do I. But big deal if Rand didn't. The answer you gave this time I think explains a basis for objecting to the type of answer she gave.Ellen

I wasn't upset. At one point I was surprised and perplexed by Rand's opinion of Parrish, as well as some of her authoritarian pronouncements on other artists. To me, the issue is about how much Rand's later attitudes on the arts clash with the freethinking mindset behind Objectivism, or the "sense of life" or general vibe or whatever that is projected in Rand's art. I think her aesthetic ignorance/snobbery/authoritarianism/irrationality, which I also see as being common among her followers, has been a major factor in the creation of what I think that you once very aptly called "church school goody goodies." It's really creepy to me that Objectivism appears to attract a type of mindset that, when it comes to the arts, is closer to that of Toohey than that of Roark.

As for personally liking Parrish, I like some of his work and dislike some of it. If you're saying that you suspect that I've been emotionally dedicated to defending Parrish because I personally like him, then no, that hasn't been my motivation for exploring Rand's judgments of him. I wouldn't say that I've ever been "upset" with Rand's opinions, but perhaps disappointed that the creator of The Fountainhead eventually turned into someone capable of practicing (and perhaps even relishing) aesthetic authority, snobbery, intimidation, etc.

J

[personal history deleted]

OK. You have seemed to me "upset," but maybe that's just because you do display an energetic zeal and persistence that might come easily to you but wouldn't to me.

As to Rand's "eventually turn[ing] into [...]," I think she was always, from childhood, really emphatic about her artistic tastes. There are indicative tidbits in the collection of essays on We the Living. I'm hoping to compile some of them, combined with further remarks of Rand's than Barbara used in Passion pertaining to the fictional Cyrus. I don't think that Rand actually intended to intimidate, however. She even expressed dislike of the copy-catting. And she was inconsistent -- for instance, telling Jonathan Hirschfield nonchalantly, oh, not to worry about his liking for Beethoven, since we can't prove it anyway. Various other examples also.

Plus she was inconsistent as to whether or not a "malevolent-universe-premise" "sense of life" is diagnostic of something "evil" (irrational) in the person. I've quoted passages which indicate that she didn't lump irrational and malevolent sense of life into a linked pair. But, lo and behold -- I'd forgotten this -- in the section of Art and Sense of Life which I quoted above (post #25), she does explicitly make that linkage.

Now you see it, now you don't. One thing which I think is consistent in her attitude, however, is that her artistic tastes were of enormous importance to her -- and her theory of art, which I think is off-whack from the ground up, was deeply dear to her, and thus something on which she felt personally attacked if challenged.

Ellen

[PDS]

Jonathan has fleshed this question of how O'ism begins with art before, to me, but I can't remember where. I look forward to his response as well.

As to the personal stuff up-thread, isn't this simply what my generation would call "pimping"? Pimping is not a universally shared cup of tea...

Jonathan: aren't you simply pimping Roger? Mercilessly at that? I have always found that the effect is better when pimping friends, and I am doubtful that Roger considers himself your friend.

[caroljane]

Can someone explain the meaning of "pimping" here? Obviously J is not offering Roger for rent and I don't know of any other definition.

[Selene]

Can someone explain the meaning of "pimping" here? Obviously J is not offering Roger for rent and I don't know of any other definition.

From the Urban Dictionary...

1. pimping

More commonly used nowadays as making something cool or better.

Yeah, I was totally pimping up my profile today!

2. pimping

A person who has the best girls. and the most bling-bling of anyone.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The third meaning is the traditional meaning of a street level procurer.

[PDS]

Can someone explain the meaning of "pimping" here? Obviously J is not offering Roger for rent and I don't know of any other definition.

From the Urban Dictionary...

1. pimping

More commonly used nowadays as making something cool or better.

Yeah, I was totally pimping up my profile today!

2. pimping

A person who has the best girls. and the most bling-bling of anyone.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The third meaning is the traditional meaning of a street level procurer.

Pimping, in my non-Urban Dictionary world, is the act of perceiving a blind or soft spot in a friend or colleague and then repeatedly needling them about it. It is an affectionate form of needling.

Kind of like what I do to you when I throw in witty remarks about your obsession with kink, or Daunce with her hopeless attachment to the Toronto Maple Leafs.

[Selene]

Can someone explain the meaning of "pimping" here? Obviously J is not offering Roger for rent and I don't know of any other definition.

From the Urban Dictionary...

1. pimping

More commonly used nowadays as making something cool or better.

Yeah, I was totally pimping up my profile today!

2. pimping

A person who has the best girls. and the most bling-bling of anyone.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The third meaning is the traditional meaning of a street level procurer.

Pimping, in my non-Urban Dictionary world, is the act of perceiving a blind or soft spot in a friend or colleague and then repeatedly needling them about it. It is an affectionate form of needling.

Kind of like what I do to you when I throw in witty remarks about your obsession with kink, or Daunce with her hopeless attachment to the Toronto Maple Leafs.

Understood. I was just helping Carol who refuses to run searches...lol.

[caroljane]

Can someone explain the meaning of "pimping" here? Obviously J is not offering Roger for rent and I don't know of any other definition.

From the Urban Dictionary...

1. pimping

More commonly used nowadays as making something cool or better.

Yeah, I was totally pimping up my profile today!

2. pimping

A person who has the best girls. and the most bling-bling of anyone.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The third meaning is the traditional meaning of a street level procurer.

Pimping, in my non-Urban Dictionary world, is the act of perceiving a blind or soft spot in a friend or colleague and then repeatedly needling them about it. It is an affectionate form of needling.

Kind of like what I do to you when I throw in witty remarks about your obsession with kink, or Daunce with her hopeless attachment to the Toronto Maple Leafs.

Understood. I was just helping Carol who refuses to run searches...lol.

Hey, I don't refuse. I am just not real good at finding things. Just like the RedWings don't refuse to beat a lowly team like Phoenix.

[caroljane]

And thanks for the suburban explanation, PDS.. Now I have a name for a conversational variant I have enjoyed all my life. I have caused hurt by it at times, which I did not intend, due to misjudging the thickness of my interlocutors' skins. I'm sorry for that.

[PDS]

And thanks for the suburban explanation, PDS.. Now I have a name for a conversational variant I have enjoyed all my life. I have caused hurt by it at times, which I did not intend, due to misjudging the thickness of my interlocutors' skins. I'm sorry for that.

You are forgiven. And the Red Wings forgive you as well.

[caroljane]

And thanks for the suburban explanation, PDS.. Now I have a name for a conversational variant I have enjoyed all my life. I have caused hurt by it at times, which I did not intend, due to misjudging the thickness of my interlocutors' skins. I'm sorry for that.

You are forgiven. And the Red Wings forgive you as well.

Through all that equipment? Kewl!

[Jonathan]

You expressed puzzlement above as to why the questions might have not seemed "polite." How about, because the hidden agenda looked obvious?

I didn't intend to hide the "agenda." I assumed that anyone reading my comments to Roger would recognize that I was (politely but directly) rejecting his implied claim of objectivity of judgments of beauty, and challenging him to back them up with proof, and that I was reminding him that the concept of objectivity has a very specific meaning according to Objectivism, and that I'd expect Roger to follow it in offering proof (I did so because so many times I've seen Objectivists play word games with the concept "objectivity" when they want to claim that one of their subjective judgments is actually objective -- I wanted to preempt any of that type of thing by immediately and clearly defining the concept being used and identifying the standards and criteria of what constitutes proof).

Incidentally, I see that Stephen has now deleted everyone's posts on that subject. For those who didn't see them, Ba'al Bob had written something to the effect that judgments of beauty and such are a matter of subjective personal taste/preference. Roger replied to the effect that Ba'al Bob's statement was nothing but a matter of subjective personal taste/preference. Ba'al Bob then made a brief statement rejecting Roger's. So that's the background of this issue. That's where I came in.

People here do have a "history" with you. I suspect that Roger might have felt that you were just trying to set him up.

What do you mean by "set him up"? Do you mean to do something by deceit and trickery in order to frame him? If so, I had no intention of deceiving or tricking Roger. Likewise, if Roger were to assert that he can teleport, I wouldn't be attempting to deceive or trick him if I were to politely challenge him to prove it.

My opinion is that some of your behavior really does produce a disgusted reaction from some people, for instance Stephen Boydstun.

I think that it's quite common for people to have a very negative reaction to potent challenges to their beliefs, especially when they've tried to establish themselves as having a scholarly reputation regarding those beliefs. They do things like delete arguments that they don't like, start flame war rants to complain that they're being mistreated, attempt to use ridicule as a substitute for argument, etc.

Regarding Roger's wife's remark, you've looked to me, with the way you've kept reverting to that, as if it's a thorn in your side that keeps festering. Similar to the historic appearance to me of your reverting and reverting to Rand's "Trash" reply about Parrish.

My initial mentioning on this thread of Roger's use of his wife's comment, and my doing it parenthetically I might add, was a legitimate response to Roger's attempt to claim that my describing others' reactions as angry was an issue of projection. My mentioning it was just a small part of the evidence that I cited to support my view that others appear to be angry when challenged on their mistaken or contradictory beliefs.

And my further repeating of it after that is just a response to Roger's demand that I stop mentioning it. I look at it as a moral decision. When someone makes demands when they should be apologizing, I think it's practically mandatory to send them the signal that their demands will not be met.

If we were having a discussion here at OL about math, and I were to state that 2 + 2 = 4, and you were to then say that you disagreed, and that you showed my statement to your husband who is a very sensitive appreciator of mathematics, and he said, "Give me a break," I don't think you'd be in a position to be making demands that I not mention your use of his opinion in such a lame attempt at ridicule. You wouldn't have the right to complain that I was laughing at the fact that his statement actually demonstrates that both he and you are anything but sensitive appreciators of mathematics.

Additional perspective:

Roger's view on the effects of music is that we identify or associate human actions and attributes with the music's form, despite not being given a full or direct likeness of a human being. In viewing music in that way, he is using the same method that Rand used in her descriptions in The Fountainhead of the effects of the abstract forms and colors in works of architecture. He is using exactly the same method that I used in describing human actions and attributes in abstract paintings. He is using the same method that Kandinsky used in explaining the effects of color and shape.

The problem is that he doesn't recognize it, and seems to be determined not to recognize it. And therefore he doesn't recognize that I am anything but angry about his views or his attempt to ridicule my approach to identifying meaning in abstract painting. I can't be angry about it. I can only laugh at the fact that Roger and his wife are unknowingly ridiculing Roger's own method of abstracting entities and their actions from music.

Mrs. Bissell's "Give me a break" comment is no less applicable to Roger's method of finding meaning in music and to Rand's method of finding it in architecture than it is to my or Kandinsky's method of finding meaning in the forms, colors and relationships in abstract paintings:

"The first gives me the feeling of energy, determination and action. It's meaning is that mankind should be strong and bold, and pursue his passions. The specific angularity and proportions of the shapes is what conveys motion and rising to me, the dramatic contrasts and bold colors suggest passion, heat, pressure and struggle, and the bulk of the forms and the roughness of the textures give me the feeling of strength and rugged durability. I see it as a very physically masculine painting. It's extroverted, dominant, serious and aggressive. It's like Atlas pushing upward. The second image gives me the feeling of serenity. It's meaning is that peace and gentleness are important human qualities. The colors are subdued and calming. There is practically no drama or contrast -- the forms are delicate and faint, and they convey a soothing gentleness, playfulness and weightlessness. The image is like a visual whisper. I see it as a very physically feminine painting. It's withdrawn and introverted, and anything but aggressive. It's like a mother caressing a child."

"Give me a break!"

"The building stood on the shore of the East River, a structure rapt as raised arms. The rock crystal forms mounted in such eloquent steps that the building did not seem stationary, but moving upward in a continuous flow -- until one realized that it was only the movement of one's glance and that one's glance was forced to move in that particular rhythm. The walls of pale gray limestone looked silver against the sky, with the clean, dulled luster of metal, but a metal that had become a warm, living substance, carved by the most cutting of all instruments -- a purposeful human will. It made the house alive in a strange, personal way of its own, so that in the minds of spectators five words ran dimly, without object or clear connection: '...in His image and likeness...' "

"Give me a break!"

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

"Give me a break!"

"Generally speaking, warmth and cold in a color means an approach respectively to yellow or to blue. This distinction is, so to speak, on one basis, the color having a constant fundamental appeal, but assuming a more material or non-material quality. The movement is a horizontal one, the warm colors approaching the spectator, the cold ones retreating from him...Yellow and blue have another movement which affects the first antithesis -- an ex- and concentric movement. If two circles are drawn and painted respectively yellow and blue, brief concentration will reveal in the yellow a spreading movement out from the center, and a noticeable approach to the spectator. The blue, on the other hand, moves in upon itself, like a snail retreating into its shell, and draws away from the spectator...The first movement of yellow, that of approach to the spectator (which can be increased by the intensification of the yellow), and also the second movement, that of over-spreading the boundaries, have a material parallel in the human energy which assails every obstacle blindly, and bursts forth aimlessly in every direction...Yellow, if steadily gazed at in any geometric form, has a disturbing influence, and reveals in the color an insistent, aggressive character (it is worth noting that the sour-tasting lemon and the shrill-singing canary are both yellow)...Blue is the typical heavenly color. The ultimate feeling it creates is one of rest. When it sinks almost to black, it echoes a grief that is hardly human. When it rises toward white, a movement little suited to it, its appeal to men grows weaker and more distant."

"Give me a break!"

"For me, the secondary re-creation level ('representation') does not need to be visual/tactile, just something that behaves generally (very generally) like physical entities...[a melody] is something ~like~ an entity, in certain respects...Consider instead the popular song 'My Heart Stood Still.' It has wonderful upward sweeping phrases in major, and they convey a lush, yearning, surging feeling that completely fits the lyrics."

"Give me a break!"

You've said similar things before but not when I had a bit of time to ask: What do you mean by it? Specifically by the statement that "In a way, [the Objectivist Esthetics] is the starting point of the philosophy."...I have speculations as to what you might mean, and my own view of a way in which the statement might be true. What I've been thinking ever since I read The Mysterious Valley (translated) last winter is that Rand's reaction to Cyrus Paltons, the character in the book with whom she fell in love at age 9, combined with her reactions to the military band music she'd heard, I think age 6, on vacation in the Crimea, was "the starting point of the philosophy," content-wise.

But I don't know if that's the sort of "starting point" you're thinking of.

Yes, I'm thinking of Rand's early aesthetic responses. More on that subject later.

J

[Jonathan]

I had previously written something on my view that aesthetics is the starting point of Objectivism, but I can't find it at the moment. Maybe I posted in on OO. If I find it, I'll repost it and expand on it.

J

[PDS]

I had previously written something on my view that aesthetics is the starting point of Objectivism, but I can't find it at the moment. Maybe I posted in on OO. If I find it, I'll repost it and expand on it.

J

It was here. Unless you are thinking of something different than me. It may have been on a Vermeer thread, if I recall.

[Selene]

I had previously written something on my view that aesthetics is the starting point of Objectivism, but I can't find it at the moment. Maybe I posted in on OO. If I find it, I'll repost it and expand on it.

J

It was here. Unless you are thinking of something different than me. It may have been on a Vermeer thread, if I recall.

I think it was on the Vermeer thread and a damn good thread for me. I learned a lot.

Maybe this thread?

Objective Criterion of Aesthetic Judgment

[Brant Gaede]

Try again.

--Brant