Apples - Rand on Still Life Paintings, Plus

[Ellen Stuttle]

So we have J criticising metaphysical value-judgments, endlessly, when this concept is only a part of the broad theory.

The concept "metaphysical value-judgments" is NOT "only a part of the broad theory." It's crucial to Rand's theory, and it's half of her very definition of art.

"Art is a selective re-creation of reality according to an artist's metaphysical value-judgments."

Thus any work which isn't displaying metaphysical value-judgments isn't art according to Rand.

I accept the notion of "metaphysical value-judgments" as a legitimate concept, and one that has quite a lot of value to me and to others, but not necessarily to everyone. I accept the notion that art may be created according to metaphysical value-judgments, but not that it must. I accept that viewers may consider what metaphysical value-judgments they think an artwork may express or invoke in them, but not that they must, nor that the artwork must.

No "must" about it, of course. [....]

Yes, there is a "must" about it if the work is to qualify as "art" according to Rand (as Jonathan also notes in post #174).

Hence I fault the second half of Rand's definition of art.

The first half is maybe even more problematic, with its causing troubles for the inclusion of:

architecture

any photography

abstract painting and sculpture

music.

Additionally, I think the first half of the definition is really poor on the nature of the art "image." (That's an issue we haven't gotten to.)

Ellen

[Ellen Stuttle]

For one thing, dummkopf, we're talking about much more than "beauty." (Try reading the posts.)

Dummkopf here has a 140 i.q. and can prove the equivalence the Tychonoff Compactification theorem and the Axiom of Choice (can you). No, I am not dummkopf. I am Mr. Literal Minded and I live mostly in the world of observable or demonstrable fact.

IQ doesn't equal savvy, or even knowledge, and your literal mindedness makes you less than perceptive on certain subjects, art being a notable example.

For instance:

I assume you know what Hume said about books on metaphysics. I would say the same thing about books on aesthetics too.

(Of course I don't agree with Hume on metaphysics either. )

Ellen

[anthony]

Has anybody known of an artist who's claimed there was zero purpose for his art work?

Purpose = importance.

If there is, he is the rare man whose work ~may~ be empty of metaphysical value-judgment.

(Even so, his self-denial -or perhaps psycho-epistemological nihilism- will still leave its mark on his work as his view of life, I guess).

Importance = importance of something, to somebody.

Ellen: No wonder you wanted to dismiss any importance ascribed by yourself behind the writing of your moonscape piece.

Scrambling to disassociate yourself from the m.v-j's in it. Perish the thought!

Importance of something = value-judgment.

[anthony]

It is all quite simple before it gets complicated, really. Everybody alive has, at least, an "opinion".

Everyone who is slightly thoughtful has a world view, of the way things are and/or the way things should be. My dentist has a world-view.

Is an artist any less so? Much more, I think his conscious view of existence is his prime motivating force. Now we can argue till we're blue in the face, what were an artist's "world-views" in his works, but we may rest assured: they are there, they have a nature. Not knowing or agreeing on the "what", doesn't negate their existence. I see one thing, someone else sees another, does not render it "subjective" - it means one or both of us is identifying them wrongly.

"...according to the artist's metaphysical value-judgements" -- is all she wrote: NOT that you will always know them.

The inherent clarity or ambiguity of the art is dependent on other factors, like his capability, technique and integrity.

As mostly with visual arts and music it's not that one necessarily knows without doubt what the m.v-j's are in an art work. But like all knowledge, coming ever closer to their identification is beneficial. Ultimately, (afaic) what one finally comes away with -conceptually- after deep assessment of the art is of 'objective' value to one. The criticality of being 'right' or 'wrong' about the artist's original intentions and convictions diminishes against the weight of that value.

[Jules Troy]

I once saw a hot chick that forced different colors of paint up her ass and would spray paint huge canvases with her spray painted enemas. Apparently she made a fortune. I wouldn't call it art in a Rand sense of the word. A classic example of someone suckering idiots with a gimick. " oh she is just pushing the progressive envelope they tell themselves as they fork out 20k for ass art." My wife once joked with me that someone should paint with "bodily fluids " spray it with luminal and put it on display under a black light for rich idiots. She said "they would probably make a ton!" I told her don't joke they probably would!

[Brant Gaede]

I'd say an artist is a creator of a hightened and/or alternative reality with various techiques some of which he might invent. Regardless, it's all reducible to invention, past, present and future--both the product and what makes the product. Esthetics studies and relates all that, but does not prescribe or proscribe; that's the artist's job. What is is for the esthetician. What should be is for the artist and that is for himself only. As soon as his autonomy is traduced, it's cultural if not political fascism, know it or not, so some grace and modesty is suggested (by me!) in the hunt for objectification, so the result is not supposed to be imposed by a creator outsider--aka, the esthetician who is only slapping some words together, not paint on canvas or finding a statue is a block of marble, etc.

In science the wrong-headed objectification I'm objecting to manifests itself much more crudely in Lysenkoism and "consensus." The disastrous results speak for themselves. Not desiring to produce trash a would-be artist might greatly benefit from studying esthetics for there is real objectification in what is, not just what has made great art but in what humans respond to and why qua what makes them human. Art is not made for extra-terrestrials, at least I would hope not.

Jonathan has decried some of what Howard Roark did in The Fountainhead as violating Objectivist Ethics, which is true enough, but he did not say that qua artist Roark was wrong, only pointing out an ongoing contradiction between Rand the artist and Rand the philosopher. This was well illustrated by the semi-art nature of architecture. The philosopher describes, prescribes and proscribes, thus there is no philosophy of esthetics (or science) save in the use of it . The architect--the artist--creates. Here we have a conflict between morality and ethics. Roark was unethical respecting some of his actions relating to his creations, but was he immoral? The novel mixes everything up. Considering a pure artist working away in the north-light on his canvas with paints you get greater clarity of the issue.

--Brant

[dldelancey]

(I'd like to see any female member here say The Milk Maid "is what life means" to her).

I have been saying, repeatedly, that I see something in The Milk Maid that speaks direclty to part of what life means to me. Apparently my posts are invisible to you.

Yes Deanna, I've seen them. Think about this, and what you saw and why it affected you, and perhaps you'll realise you are reacting on a subliminal level to some aspects of the painting, connotating warmth and homeliness in Vermeer's painting. 'Perhaps' - subconsciously, to his aesthetic ability.

In all honesty can you say it's what LIFE means to you, or does some small thing in it remind you of someone/something important? Will it have the same effect on anyone?

I don't know evidently. An extreme and simple example of it can be catching a glimpse of a shape or colour at some moment, and getting an instant flashback of a place or person, as I've done. And all have done.

I am, indeed, reacting to some aspects of the painting, but not on a subliminal or subconscious level. I know and identified the parts of the painting that "spoke" to me and explained why. I'm not sure how you could be under the impression that I did that without knowledge of having done it.

I can, and have already, said that I see things in the painting that represent part of what life means to me. I don't know how more clear that I can be on that point, so I must conclude that you think I'm lying about it. In which case, I care not. {shrug}

I do not think the painting, or any painting, will have the same effect on everyone. This one forum discussion makes that quite obvious. Then again, I never implied that this was the case. What I'm trying to understand is if YOU think that is the case. In your responses to me you seem to think not. In your responses to others in this discussion you seem to think so.

Edited: Tony, I hadn't caught up on the entire thread before posting. You addressed the striken part above in a later post.

[anthony]

I am, indeed, reacting to some aspects of the painting, but not on a subliminal or subconscious level. I know and identified the parts of the painting that "spoke" to me and explained why. I'm not sure how you could be under the impression that I did that without knowledge of having done it.

I can, and have already, said that I see things in the painting that represent part of what life means to me. I don't know how more clear that I can be on that point, so I must conclude that you think I'm lying about it. In which case, I care not. {shrug}

You shrug, I shrug, we all shrug Deanna ;}

Where you get "lying" from - or my "ridicule" (earlier) - is beyond me! I hope I didn't give that impression. I can't read your mind, but fully believe you mean what you say. I can't read an artist's mind, but am certain he means what he "says". I presume honesty until a long ways after being disabused of the notion.

Often it's seemed to me that an excellent artist/author offers layers upon layers of value - mimicking man's hierarchical consciousness, in a way - which allow us to take what we want from his work, and forego the rest. Great aesthetics can be an end in itself, too. An emotional response, as well. Is it possible to over-reach, to try to elicit more than is actually there? (Conceptually). Yes, maybe. I'd rather go too far than not far enough though.

I'll disagree with you that Rand's "This is what life means to me!" is synonymous with your "parts" of the painting which speak to "parts" of your life. I believe you (as I say), but the "partiality" of both, I think, compromises the "completeness" of Rand's statement, denoting painting and existence: "Romanticist" as it is. (Essential to life as I think it is).

[dldelancey]

I am, indeed, reacting to some aspects of the painting, but not on a subliminal or subconscious level. I know and identified the parts of the painting that "spoke" to me and explained why. I'm not sure how you could be under the impression that I did that without knowledge of having done it.

I can, and have already, said that I see things in the painting that represent part of what life means to me. I don't know how more clear that I can be on that point, so I must conclude that you think I'm lying about it. In which case, I care not. {shrug}

You shrug, I shrug, we all shrug Deanna ;}

Where you get "lying" from - or my "ridicule" (earlier) - is beyond me! I hope I didn't give that impression. I can't read your mind, but fully believe you mean what you say. I can't read an artist's mind, but am certain he means what he "says". I presume honesty until a long ways after being disabused of the notion.

Often it's seemed to me that an excellent artist/author offers layers upon layers of value - mimicking man's hierarchical consciousness, in a way - which allow us to take what we want from his work, and forego the rest. Great aesthetics can be an end in itself, too. An emotional response, as well. Is it possible to over-reach, to try to elicit more than is actually there? (Conceptually). Yes, maybe. I'd rather go too far than not far enough though.

I'll disagree with you that Rand's "This is what life means to me!" is synonymous with your "parts" of the painting which speak to "parts" of your life. I believe you (as I say), but the "partiality" of both, I think, compromises the "completeness" of Rand's statement, denoting painting and existence: "Romanticist" as it is. (Essential to life as I think it is).

I don't think there is any one piece of art that can represent every single aspect of life's meaning. If there is, I would argue that is one boring life.

I've been taking my impressions from your words, Tony. I made a statement about the painting. You asked for a female here to honestly make a statement about the painting. I reiterated my statement. Then you told me to re-evaluate honestly. How could I think anything other than that you question my honesty? I made a final repetition of my statement and left it to you to either believe me or not which is fine either way. But please don't insult us both by pretending that I inferred something you never implied.

On the other hand, perhaps I inferred subliminally and you implied subconsciously and therefore, we're both free and clear. (That's me saying, "Truce, dude." Although I ain't speaking for others.)

[anthony]

I'll disagree with you that Rand's "This is what life means to me!" is synonymous with your "parts" of the painting which speak to "parts" of your life. I believe you (as I say), but the "partiality" of both, I think, compromises the "completeness" of Rand's statement, denoting painting and existence: "Romanticist" as it is. (Essential to life as I think it is).

I don't think there is any one piece of art that can represent every single aspect of life's meaning. If there is, I would argue that is one boring life.

I've been taking my impressions from your words, Tony. I made a statement about the painting. You asked for a female here to honestly make a statement about the painting. I reiterated my statement. Then you told me to re-evaluate honestly. How could I think anything other than that you question my honesty? I made a final repetition of my statement and left it to you to either believe me or not which is fine either way. But please don't insult us both by pretending that I inferred something you never implied.

No, there's no one single artwork that represents "every single aspect of life's meaning".

It's the difference between life-as-it-is... and life-in-the-abstract, as it can and should be.

It is also the difference between "I believe you mean what you say" (I know I made clear)... and that I also don't agree with what you say. I.e. apropos Rand's complete meaning as I understand it above.

We are all honest, it's a given I assume.

[PDS]

I'll disagree with you that Rand's "This is what life means to me!" is synonymous with your "parts" of the painting which speak to "parts" of your life. I believe you (as I say), but the "partiality" of both, I think, compromises the "completeness" of Rand's statement, denoting painting and existence: "Romanticist" as it is. (Essential to life as I think it is).

I don't think there is any one piece of art that can represent every single aspect of life's meaning. If there is, I would argue that is one boring life.

I've been taking my impressions from your words, Tony. I made a statement about the painting. You asked for a female here to honestly make a statement about the painting. I reiterated my statement. Then you told me to re-evaluate honestly. How could I think anything other than that you question my honesty? I made a final repetition of my statement and left it to you to either believe me or not which is fine either way. But please don't insult us both by pretending that I inferred something you never implied.

No, there's no one single artwork that represents "every single aspect of life's meaning".

It's the difference between life-as-it-is... and life-in-the-abstract, as it can and should be.

It is also the difference between "I believe you mean what you say" (I know I made clear)... and that I also don't agree with what you say. I.e. apropos Rand's complete meaning as I understand it above.

We are all honest, it's a given I assume.

Tony:

I don't know if you have the same sports metaphors in South Africa as we Americans, but I think you just clunked one off the front of the rim.

[anthony]

Naah! Wotchew tellin' me? That was a slam-dunk, man!

If I'd known this was providing so much entertainment I'd have charged entrance..

[Jules Troy]

Why so serious?

http://jestephotography.deviantart.com/art/LLama-Smile-456535547

The Llama's are watching you!

[Ellen Stuttle]

"...according to the artist's metaphysical value-judgements" -- is all she wrote: NOT that you will always know them.

It's far from all she wrote. There's a volume of essays presenting her theory of art. And she was specific as to what she meant by the term "metaphysical value-judgments." She didn't mean anything and everything a person might find emotionally significant. Furthermore, she made identifying the artist's "theme" a requisite to an esthetic evaluation of the artwork.

My net conclusion from your posts on this thread is that, in an attempt to defend Rand's theory, you've progressively abandoned it and substituted a shifting concoction of your own. The progression does at least illustrate that Rand's theory has its problems.

Ellen

[Ellen Stuttle]

Ellen: No wonder you wanted to dismiss any importance ascribed by yourself behind the writing of your moonscape piece.

Scrambling to disassociate yourself from the m.v-j's in it. Perish the thought

Importance of something = value-judgment.

I didn't dismiss "any importance." However, the stuff you ascribed to it - not there. But what you've done is to stretch the meaning of Rand's term until it encompasses anything you want to include under it, so you're no longer subscribing to Rand's theory, as I said above.

Ellen

[PDS]

"...according to the artist's metaphysical value-judgements" -- is all she wrote: NOT that you will always know them.

It's far from all she wrote. There's a volume of essays presenting her theory of art. And she was specific as to what she meant by the term "metaphysical value-judgments." She didn't mean anything and everything a person might find emotionally significant. Furthermore, she made identifying the artist's "theme" a requisite to an esthetic evaluation of the artwork.

My net conclusion from your posts on this thread is that, in an attempt to defend Rand's theory, you've progressively abandoned it and substituted a shifting concoction of your own. The progression does at least illustrate that Rand's theory has its problems.

Ellen

One of my projects for this summer is to execute a Bargue drawing of one of the few surviving likenesses of Marcus Aureilus. I am decent enough at this sort of thing, although like the puffy and downtrodden Peter Keating, it is probably best that I stick to my day job.

I expect that this will take me at least two months. At the end of the summer, I will likely have executed a likeness that would would cause one out of two persons to say something along the lines of "not bad". It will probably even qualify as a work of art.

So here are some questions: what "metaphysical value judgments" are inherent in this effort? Is one such judgment an overfondness for Marcus's Meditiations, and all that might entail? Have I watched The Gladiator too many times (full disclosure: I do own the movie on DVD)? What theme might Rand, in all her clairvoyance, discern from this effort?

I have an idea of the answers to these questions, but only an idea. If that is true for me--the "artist"--how can something more than that be said for those observing the "art"?

[Brant Gaede]

"Metaphysical value-judgment" strikes me as something as an oxymoron. On the one hand there seems to be a built-in passivity as if one just happens without any variation one to the next, taking in the general nature of reality. On the other hand one acts off that base in a certain way and, as all choices are moral choices, implying though not stating you're to be morally judged for such judgment. Benevolent vs. malevolent sense of life. This approach seems to violate the axiomatic nature of Objectivism, both the metaphysics and the epistemology. I say "seems" for it sounds hard and absolutist even though analysis creates one kind or another kind of mush. This is emblematic of the failure of any Objectivist Esthetics and why there really isn't any such thing qua philosophy--not logically.

--Brant

mushy in the morning, confused in the afternoon, dangerous in the evening--so, when are you reading this?

[anthony]

Ellen: No wonder you wanted to dismiss any importance ascribed by yourself behind the writing of your moonscape piece.

Scrambling to disassociate yourself from the m.v-j's in it. Perish the thought

Importance of something = value-judgment.

I didn't dismiss "any importance." However, the stuff you ascribed to it - not there. But what you've done is to stretch the meaning of Rand's term until it encompasses anything you want to include under it, so you're no longer subscribing to Rand's theory, as I said above.

Ellen

I've no doubt I've stepped out of bounds. My intent was rather a fresh look, and a recreation of the *spirit* in Rand's art thesis. Its applications, some derivations and my lesser disagreements, and anything but a hidebound precision of her every argument. Long time since I read her, cover to cover, which sometimes is beneficial. Anybody want the real thing, go read the book.

Besides, doesn't double jeopardy apply here? I have been criticised above for: 1. Following Rand's word slavishly. 2. Not following Rand accurately (by you).

Which will I be charged with?

I know my rights! I want a lawyer...

[PDS]

Ellen: No wonder you wanted to dismiss any importance ascribed by yourself behind the writing of your moonscape piece.

Scrambling to disassociate yourself from the m.v-j's in it. Perish the thought

Importance of something = value-judgment.

I didn't dismiss "any importance." However, the stuff you ascribed to it - not there. But what you've done is to stretch the meaning of Rand's term until it encompasses anything you want to include under it, so you're no longer subscribing to Rand's theory, as I said above.

Ellen

I've no doubt I've stepped out of bounds. My intent was rather a fresh look, and a recreation of the *spirit* in Rand's art thesis. Its applications, some derivations and my lesser disagreements, and anything but a hidebound precision of her every argument. Long time since I read her, cover to cover, which sometimes is beneficial. Anybody want the real thing, go read the book.

Besides, doesn't double jeopardy apply here? I have been criticised above for: 1. Following Rand's word slavishly. 2. Not following Rand accurately (by you).

Which will I be charged with?

I know my rights! I want a lawyer...

The fact that you know your "rights" better than TRM is yet another exhibit in favor of the argument that Rand's ethics theory far outstrips her esthetic theory.

[anthony]

My net conclusion from your posts on this thread is that, in an attempt to defend Rand's theory, you've progressively abandoned it and substituted a shifting concoction of your own. The progression does at least illustrate that Rand's theory has its problems.

Ellen

"Problem", no. Only inasmuch as her theory is misunderstood, not observed or not practised.

And no, I've not deviated from her fundamental theory, only in application.

Abstraction(by artist) -> Concrete(artwork) -> Abstraction(by viewer)

Concept-Percept-Concept

Familiar in Rand's epistemology, of sensory-perceptual-conceptual.

Conceptualization, as in apprehending reality.

Except, we know everything in the artwork is there with a purpose, nothing random or redundant - so one does not have to differentiate concepts. So it's a process of tracking back, a posteriori, to the artist's original, motivating idea - by way of the elements and their combination in the art. Extracting the core concept.(Get stuck at the perceptual level, and "details" loom over large, blocking the process of 'abstractification'. Like dynamite and other inessentials...)

[Brant Gaede]

My net conclusion from your posts on this thread is that, in an attempt to defend Rand's theory, you've progressively abandoned it and substituted a shifting concoction of your own. The progression does at least illustrate that Rand's theory has its problems.

Ellen

"Problem", no. Only inasmuch as her theory is misunderstood, not observed or not practised.

And no, I've not deviated from her fundamental theory, only in application.

Abstraction(by artist) -> Concrete(artwork) -> Abstraction(by viewer)

Concept-Percept-Concept

Familiar in Rand's epistemology, of sensory-perceptual-conceptual.

Conceptualization, as in apprehending reality.

Except, we know everything in the artwork is there with a purpose, nothing random or redundant - so one does not have to differentiate concepts. So it's a process of tracking back, a posteriori, to the artist's original, motivating idea - by way of the elements and their combination in the art. Extracting the core concept.(Get stuck at the perceptual level, and "details" loom over large, blocking the process of 'abstractification'. Like dynamite and other inessentials...)

In the Spring of 1966 I went to the NBI office in NYC, which was then in a converted apartment at 120 E. 34 th St soon to be vacated for the Empire State Building, and subscribed to The Objectivist (I believe it must have been Elayne Kalberman I talked to). I was wearing my kakai army uniform. I had them sent to my Mother's address in Tucson as I knew I was soon headed to Vietnam. When I got to Tucson I was able to examine the first installment or two of Rand's "Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology." It was so much of a brain-cracker I couldn't tackle it until I came back a year later. (I wasn't too sure I'd be coming back.)

Today I question its out there in the real world value. The whole thing seems to begin and end with itself. Is scientific methodology, for instance, one whit better for this having been written? Who besides David Kelley worked off or with this material for any purpose whatsoever other than to stuff it into one's brain? Considering the then (and not changed now) extant state of the scientific method, why did Rand even attempt this work without being firmly conversant in it and using it as an ongoing reference nexus? The creation of Objectivism was pushing a huge stone up a hill starting with two years of brain sweat of Rand's writing Galt's Speech. That was the first big push. Then, almost a decade later, she did this, after a lot of not so hard backing and filling. It was heroic. The great difference isn't in the content of each, but that ITOE leaves out 90 percent of Galt's moralizing. It was necessary in that that was the literary nature of his speech (to a brain dead world in the novel and, it would subsequently seem, existential to it too) in a great moralizing novel, where it got concentrated to the extent of making the refining her actual ideas out of it is almost as hard as it must have been for her to put them in in the first place. Don't get me wrong; that was likely a lot easier, though not easy per se, than putting in the bed of moralizing and integrating that with the ideas.

Not that there is no value in ITOE. I especially liked her work on definitions, for instance, but it's essentially a piece of philosophical lead. That is characteristic of most formal philosophy, btw, and ITOE does embarass that competition in some serious contradistinction.

Why anyone would want to track down an "artist's original motivating, idea" except to contemplate an "Introduction to Objectivist Esthetics" is beyond me. I think you might be able to do it with "Guernica," in about 30 seconds, then a few more minutes for more if one is familiar with the Spanish Civil War and which side Picasso championed, if not with any other Picasso.

--Brant

[Jonathan]

Except, we know everything in the artwork is there with a purpose, nothing random or redundant - so one does not have to differentiate concepts. So it's a process of tracking back, a posteriori, to the artist's original, motivating idea - by way of the elements and their combination in the art. Extracting the core concept.

Earlier I gave an example of following the process that you've described above in regard to a specific painting. I wrote:

It's an image of a man sitting on a bed being handed a cup while while those around him appear to be expressing grief. There are manacles on and under the bed. What's in the cup? Perhaps wine? Is the man a raging alcoholic who has been chained to the bed by his loved ones as a form of intervention? Now that he's been denied booze a few weeks, they feel they're ready to test his resolve by offering him a cup of wine? They're disappointed because the man is excited about being given a drink, and assuring them that he's certain that he can limit himself to just one cup?

So, to borrow "Roger's" terms, a painting either means that "life is possible" or "life is difficult or impossible." Therefore, is the alcoholic in the painting heroic for believing in his ability to exercise his volition over his addiction and drink only one cup, or is he doomed to the fate of deterministically caving in to his weakness? I'm going with the former. "Life is possible!"

And I asked:

"The above would qualify as an objective esthetic judgment which follows Rand's criteria to the letter, wouldn't it?"

Do you agree, Tony? Have I "tracked back" to "the artist's original, motivating idea by way of the elements in the art"? Have I "extracted the core concept"?

(Get stuck at the perceptual level, and "details" loom over large, blocking the process of 'abstractification'. Like dynamite and other inessentials...)

So, Roark's dynamiting others' property after committing the fraud of passing his work off as someone else's, and his doing so for the specific purpose of denying the owners their right to not hire him, is somehow "inessential"?!!! We should pay no attention to the main character's moral choices and the events of the novel's climax?!!! They have no "metaphysical significance"?!!!

If that's what you're saying, then your method of deciding which elements in a work of are essential and significant is arbitrary and completely nonsensical.

Tony, the solution isn't to cling to Rand's Esthetics and to therefore arbitrarily ignore the main events in a novel. The solution is to recognize the reality that her theory-of-Esthetics-as-moral-and-psychological-exam doesn't work worth a crap, even on her own art.

J

[Jules Troy]

Photography isn't art? I beg to differ, check this guy out...

http://www.deviantart.com/art/white-demons-329283304

[anthony]

Except, we know everything in the artwork is there with a purpose, nothing random or redundant - so one does not have to differentiate concepts. So it's a process of tracking back, a posteriori, to the artist's original, motivating idea - by way of the elements and their combination in the art. Extracting the core concept.

Earlier I gave an example of following the process that you've described above in regard to a specific painting. I wrote:

It's an image of a man sitting on a bed being handed a cup while while those around him appear to be expressing grief. There are manacles on and under the bed. What's in the cup? Perhaps wine? Is the man a raging alcoholic who has been chained to the bed by his loved ones as a form of intervention? Now that he's been denied booze a few weeks, they feel they're ready to test his resolve by offering him a cup of wine? They're disappointed because the man is excited about being given a drink, and assuring them that he's certain that he can limit himself to just one cup?

So, to borrow "Roger's" terms, a painting either means that "life is possible" or "life is difficult or impossible." Therefore, is the alcoholic in the painting heroic for believing in his ability to exercise his volition over his addiction and drink only one cup, or is he doomed to the fate of deterministically caving in to his weakness? I'm going with the former. "Life is possible!"

And I asked:

"The above would qualify as an objective esthetic judgment which follows Rand's criteria to the letter, wouldn't it?"

Do you agree, Tony? Have I "tracked back" to "the artist's original, motivating idea by way of the elements in the art"? Have I "extracted the core concept"?

(Get stuck at the perceptual level, and "details" loom over large, blocking the process of 'abstractification'. Like dynamite and other inessentials...)

So, Roark's dynamiting others' property after committing the fraud of passing his work off as someone else's, and his doing so for the specific purpose of denying the owners their right to not hire him, is somehow "inessential"?!!! We should pay no attention to the main character's moral choices and the events of the novel's climax?!!! They have no "metaphysical significance"?!!!

If that's what you're saying, then your method of deciding which elements in a work of are essential and significant is arbitrary and completely nonsensical.

Tony, the solution isn't to cling to Rand's Esthetics and to therefore arbitrarily ignore the main events in a novel. The solution is to recognize the reality that her theory-of-Esthetics-as-moral-and-psychological-exam doesn't work worth a crap, even on her own art.

J

The objective is to get behind the narrative, by way of the narrative, to what counts most. Any(isn't that everybody?)who have always seen the need to find affirmation of life in art appreciate it requires digging deeper than the picture or story. How accurate one can be, or how deliberate the artist was in his work, are moot. It's hard to envisage an artist being deceitful, so -if subconsciously- still his appraisal of existence would shine through.

However, Romanticism is plainly apparent; sometimes much too plain or ingenuous, which is why I think great Romanticism is rare. Even then, for me all good artists and writers convey some concepts of idealism to benefit one.

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

""Important" is a metaphysical term. It pertains to that aspect of metaphysics which serves as a bridge between metaphysics and ethics: to a fundamental view of man's nature. That view involves the answers to such questions as whether the universe is knowable or not, whether man has the power of choice or not, whether he can achieve his goals or not.

The answer to these questions are "metaphysical value-judgments" since they form the base of ethics". [AR]

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

How does the picture you describe (it's the death of Socrates, I imagine) fulfill any of those criteria, positively? Still, there is pride and nobility in the painting which is not to be overlooked, as I just indicated. Alcoholic? Heh, I don't know how you derived that even in jest.

All this has reminded me of Tolstoy being berated for 'killing off' Anna Karenina with her suicide. He apparently replied "But madam, it was not I who killed her, it was she!"

'Realist' art has that effect, the viewer knows it is crafted and created by an artist, but the characters (with a top artist) take on a life of their own. I think we have to view it as a sort of balance between the two, or else it either becomes literalist (and perceptual, concrete-bound) or a floating ideal (and mystical).

My over all take out on Roark is of an unswerving man. Like nearly all Rand's heroes, he is imperfect (that's an important distinction)- but like all men and women, he has to re-direct his life according to real challenges and opposition - and even make errors. (Autonomous, self generating and self directing, man's metaphysical nature).

Anyhow his convictions, mainly his integrity and passion for his work, are uncompromising. Finally, his resolve and character see him through and are rewarded. Justice by reality. You may disagree with the plot devices that create the necessary tension and opposition - but they had a role in getting the novel to its climax - and its crowning purpose of forming a specific, unmistakable moral abstraction in our minds.

Is Roark "moral"? In all his acts, no. As a total ("real") person, definitely yes.

However, he is not real, his character is no more than a vessel to convey a significant concept, which is what sticks with me.

[Brant Gaede]

I can see digging into a novel to get what's underneath qua art, for it is brainwork afterall--the most conceptual form of art between the producer and the consumer. You will end up with your own opinion. If you want to do that with a painting, go ahead--I won't; I don't--you will still end up with your own opinion. Opinions are very hard to travel, but there will likely be more success in that with a novel than a painting. Not much point to throw in the human form rendered in marble, for that would be larding up the discussion.

Throwing morality as an objective universal into conversations about esthetics--good/bad (evil)--contradicts esthetics as to the quality of the rendering (good/bad). Two kinds of right and wrong. The first is subjective tending to fascistic if claimed to be 'true', the second really is objectifiable depending on how good an esthetician you are.

Philosophy used to keep people in line with moral ukase is subjective as it's first an existential application of morality to the other person that is then accepted to some varying extent if not completely rejected. This has two big foundations, the state and religion. Applied to esthetics it is comparatively trivial, but the principle is the same. Morality self derived is self control. No state and no religion needed. In most people it's completely mixed up to various extents. Fascism and freedom. Most people enslave themselves by cooperating with and sanctioning morality contra human nature. Human nature is obectifiable, but it needs a lot of work. Both the state and religion know human nature and use this knowledge for enslavement purposes. The path to freedom can sometimes be discerned by the poorly educated simply by studying what the minions of the state and religion say and do.

A great reason to study "Objectivism, the philosophy of Ayn Rand" and who she was and what she did and why she so badly needed to be in control. I think a lot of that came out of writing Atlas Shrugged, for the massive effort needed massive control. A speculation is she went into that world she created and never really came out and as she controlled the characters therein she came to need to control the people without, especially those closest to her. Every member of "The Collective" who came into her life came in while she was writing the novel.

--Brant