The Art Instinct

[Jonathan]

Sorry, Ba'al, you have just failed "Abstract Art 101." And the instructor even provided a detailed explanation of the meaning ~he~ got from them. It was like an open-book test, and you insist on instead going with your perception. Tsk-tsk.

Bob (Ba'al) would also fail "Bissell's Method of Finding Meaning in Music 101." Even if you were to tell him the meaning that you got from a piece of music, and why, he would tell you that "music is sound without referents; it has no meaning the way language does." He would tell you that your opinions on the meaning of the music are no less subjective and shallow than what you're claiming my opinions are of the abstract paintings above.

Roger, what are the meanings of the paintings in the left column below (ignore the ones on the right)?

They're realistic still lifes, which qualify as art according to Objectivism, so therefore it should be pretty easy for you to identify the artist's meaning that each image communicates. Which "metaphysical value-judgments" do the images reveal? Which artists believe in volition and mankind's ability to achieve his goals, and which are determinists who believe that mankind is fated to defeat and despair?

Now remember, I'm not asking to hear connotations and subjective explanations of the meanings that you get from the paintings, but each painting's actual, objective meaning.

My wife, who is a very sensitive appreciator of art and a well trained musician, looked at the paintings and Jonathan's comments and said "Give me a break."

The only thing that tells me is that your wife is probably as ignorant and resistant to learning anything about the visual arts as you are. Have either of you ever taken any courses in drawing, painting and composition? Do you know anything about the visual arts beyond what you've read from Rand or her followers?

Jonathan seems to have misunderstood what I meant by "coherent figures." I didn't mean discernible shapes and curves and plane figures. I meant entities or something like them.

I meant entities or something like them as well. Reread what I wrote and you'll see that I was describing human traits and actions in the abstract artworks above, just as you describe them in music. 

I could construct an auditory composition with spikey chunks of sound or quavery rising and falling sounds, but that wouldn't make it music. Just because I'm startled or soothed by them doesn't give the composition meaning, nor status as an artwork.

In other words, no matter how detailed a description someone gives of a work of abstract art, and what it means to him, and how and why it affects him, it is not, cannot, and must not be art, because Roger, in his state of angry, willful ignorance, doesn't want it to be art?

But sad to say, that hasn't prevented scores of parasites from living off the taxpayers who fund their university music departmental positions and their arts grants. Even not being a well-read expert in "abstract art," I can't help thinking that much the same is true of a lot of what passes as visual art since the early 20th century.

And what, you think that taxpayers being forced to fund art that they don't like began with abstract art?

I'm approximately as well read on "abstract art" as I am on "modern music." And no, Inspector Jonathan, I have ~not~ stopped beating my wife.

Maybe if you'd stop beating her, the two of you might be able to begin to spend your time on more productive things, like studying and understanding the effects of color and composition, instead of dismissing them from a state of ignorance?

My point to you was that ~most~ music is not "abstract" in the same sense as "abstract art," and that ~most~ music is ~provably~, ~demonstrably~ representational, once one has the same kind of conceptual vocabulary at hand as people who analyze representational paintings or literature. This representational meaning is dependent upon there being demonstrably present entities or something like them, such as melodies, not just shapes, colors, spikes of sound, etc.

You're not getting it. I haven't been referring to "just shapes and colors" but to the human traits, actions and attributes that they can represent.

The latter may ~connote~ or remind you of certain qualities or feelings or aspirations, etc., but they cannot embody them in the same way that an entity can.

Then the same could be said of music: the qualities that you claim to hear in the music are only connotations or vague associations that remind you of certain superficial qualities, but they cannot embody them in the same way that an entity can.

So, the question is: why would ~any of us~ want to enter and revel in such a realm? Let alone a realm in which not even coherent shapes and patterns are discernible.

Exposing yourself to theories of color and composition would allow you to understand that abstract forms are not incoherent, and that there are many aspects of abstract visual expressiveness of which you're currently unaware. I think that learning about color and composition would probably also greatly enhance your understanding and appreciation of realistic works or art. The expressiveness of color and composition didn't begin with abstract artists, but was a continuation of methods established by previous artists, so, with your current limitations, you're probably not even getting what realist artists were trying to accomplish.

I'm not interested in either the non-integrated (into entities or something like them, such as melodies), nor the disintegrated (into unconnected sense data), and I'm very leery of those who are.

Yeah, I understand that you're position is that you refuse to learn anything about a subject which you've made up your mind about from a position of abject ignorance. I get it already. Rand's ignorance of music wasn't a good thing, but your ignorance of the visual arts is heroic!

Hey, I can point to shapes and colors all day and speculate or make claims about what they "represent." Where's my big bucks?

And I, and everyone else, can point to notes and rhythms all day and speculate or make claims about what they "represent," just as you do, and if we wanted to, we could be just as pigheaded as you are in claiming that anyone else's responses and interpretations aren't real, or aren't sophisticated or meaningful enough to allow that which is being pointed at to qualify as art.

We could also point to the abstract shapes and colors of architecture, but, then again, you like architecture, so you'd declare that we weren't just speculating and making claims, but being very objective and philosophically deep. Your method and standards are quite inconsistent, subjective and arbitrary. 

But no, I haven't stopped beating my wife, but even if I had, it would render such statements as being valid analyses of the deep philosophical meaning of "abstract art."

Were you really thinking that pouting about being identified as a visual arts ignoramus was going to get you somewhere? It's okay for you to identify the fact that Rand was musically ignorant, but it's not okay for me to have the same judgments of you re the visual arts?

J

[BaalChatzaf]

On the left, plants. And some of them rather pretty.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Roger Bissell]

Intelligent listeners are able to sort such elements just fine.

Then the many Objectivists whom I've asked to identify such elements in other pieces of music, without allowing them access to "outside considerations," must not qualify as "intelligent listeners"?

The consensus in my circle was along your lines, though in a strikingly more cool-headed way than yours, at least in the tone you have left with this reader by and large in your posts concerning Randian ideas in esthetics here over the years.

I think my tone has been remarkably calm and reasonable compared to that of the people whose arguments and judgments I've been responding to.

Ummm...is this the same "Jonathan" who has gotten progressively agitated and inquisitorial and irrational in his past half dozen or so posts, in response to me? Nope, same old "Jonathan," still spinning stuff about ~other~ people's posts, while denying his own role in sabotaging discussions with acrimonious personal attacks. (See below for more.)

It is possible to win—let's incessantly, if metaphorically, rub Rand's face in her errors, or at least faces speaking her errors, justifying our nastiness by Rand's nastiness—where "winning" is a matter of persuading interlocutors to our truth or, failing that, shutting them up or running them off. Of course.

My general tone has not been one of nastiness. I've been persistent, definitely, but not nasty. [...] I think you're probably too emotional when it comes to the subject of Rand and aesthetics, Stephen, which makes you imagine nastiness where it doesn't exist. Generally, in regard to other topics, you seem to be very cool-headed and rational, but certain issues of aesthetics seem to really get your blood boiling.

Interesting. I've been calmly enjoying the discussion, while noticing "Jonathan" getting more and more pointedly and personally attacking in his replies to my posts. The climax is in his most recent post [i.e., the one posted today @ 3:34 CDT], which refers to non-existing "pouting" and "angry, abject, willful (etc) ignorance" on my part, accuses me of being a subjectivist who "does not want" certain things to be art, etc. Good stuff! (Not.)

In my book, this is not intellectual discussion, but deliberate provocation -- perhaps trying to rile me to his level of agitation, so he can dismiss me and get others to dismiss me as just another ignorant, emotionalist Randian? (Sorry, ain't gonna work, "Jonathan.")

And he says that Stephen was imagining "nastiness where it doesn't exist"! How would nine out of ten objective observers characterize "Jonathan's" last half dozen or so posts? "Persistent, but not nasty"? Come on.

Fess up, "Jonathan," you're pissed that I won't take your bait. Go ahead, indulge yourself, attack me personally and call me all the names you want, you nihilistic poopy-head (oops, sorry).

REB

[Roger Bissell]

Sorry, Ba'al, you have just failed "Abstract Art 101." And the instructor even provided a detailed explanation of the meaning ~he~ got from them. It was like an open-book test, and you insist on instead going with your perception. Tsk-tsk.

Bob (Ba'al) would also fail "Bissell's Method of Finding Meaning in Music 101." Even if you were to tell him the meaning that you got from a piece of music, and why, he would tell you that "music is sound without referents; it has no meaning the way language does." He would tell you that your opinions on the meaning of the music are no less subjective and shallow than what you're claiming my opinions are of the abstract paintings above.

Roger, what are the meanings of the paintings in the left column below (ignore the ones on the right)?

They're realistic still lifes, which qualify as art according to Objectivism, so therefore it should be pretty easy for you to identify the artist's meaning that each image communicates. Which "metaphysical value-judgments" do the images reveal? Which artists believe in volition and mankind's ability to achieve his goals, and which are determinists who believe that mankind is fated to defeat and despair?

Now remember, I'm not asking to hear connotations and subjective explanations of the meanings that you get from the paintings, but each painting's actual, objective meaning.

This is too easy.

I remember a few years ago, being asked by a skeptical Objectivist, to identify the "metaphysical value-judgment" conveyed by a painting of a grove of sickly, rotting trees. My off-the-cuff answer was: not knowing anything else about the grove of trees, except that the artist chose them to convey something significant, I'd say the painting is meant to convey the view that life, successful survival and thriving, not just can be, but ~is~ difficult or impossible.

True, a specific painter might want to get across the idea that man (or capitalism) is evil by painting a grove of trees that had been harmed by "greedy exploiters of the environment." Or, that life is finite and temporary, and that all things wither away if they live long enough. An explicit statement in the title of the painting would help direct the viewer to consider it in that more specific light.

Absent such clues/cues, on the face of it, the most general, direct interpretation rules, for me. But even with differing specific interpretations, the same general principle is incorporated, with qualifications: successful flourishing life is not possible, successful flourishing life in the terminal stage of decay is not possible, successful flourishing life in the face of rapacious mankind is not possible. The metaphysical value-judgment embodied in an artwork is a "bridge" between different more specific interpretations.

Now, the lovely paintings on the left side may have technical flaws or weaknesses that I can't detect, but above all, to me, they convey a very general view of the world, namely, that life, survival and thriving, is possible. More generally, that ~success~ is possible, that life is not inherently doomed to frustration and failure. Just the opposite of the rotting, withered trees in the painting I was asked to interpret several years ago.

(The colorful fall leaves are sort of a ringer in the group. They might reasonably be taken to represent the fact and metaphysical value-judgment that mid-life or elderly living beings can still flourish, too, before they completely fall off the tree!)

Now, Jonathan, I didn't study painting in order to be able to do the above analysis. (Nor did I willfully, angrily refuse to study visual art.) I wouldn't be surprised if that disqualifies it in your eyes, but I think it's a fairly good facsimile of an Objectivist take on the metaphysical value-judgment conveyed by those paintings (not that I consulted anyone on the matter to double-check). More importantly, it's what ~I~ see, philosophically, when I look at and ponder those beautiful paintings.

I "see" similar messages conveyed in music, too, Jonathan, and I have presented analyses of the musical factors involved that back up these claims. If you're interested in doing some background reading on this, I strongly recommend Deryck Cooke's The Language of Music and Leonard B. Meyer's Music, the Arts, and Ideas, both written back in the 1960s.

Or, you can wait for my book, Serious Schmaltz and Passionate Pop, for a more Objectiv-ish approach. It should be out in...oh...a decade or so. (Channeling Leonard Peikoff...)

REB

P.S. You can even see, in Meyer's book, an explanation of why "modern music" (e.g., aleatoric or total serial music, to name two kinds) are not intelligible to listeners. (Does such "music" re-create an unintelligible world, in which nothing coherent is happening? Or does it fail to re-create a world at all, since an unintelligible world is, by the Law of Identity, impossible? I lean toward the latter view.)

[Jonathan]

Ummm...is this the same "Jonathan" who has gotten progressively agitated and inquisitorial and irrational in his past half dozen or so posts, in response to me? Nope, same old "Jonathan," still spinning stuff about ~other~ people's posts, while denying his own role in sabotaging discussions with acrimonious personal attacks. (See below for more.)

Interesting. I've been calmly enjoying the discussion, while noticing "Jonathan" getting more and more pointedly and personally attacking in his replies to my posts.

My identifying you as ignorant of the visual arts is no more a personal attack than your identifying Rand as ignorant of music.

The climax is in his most recent post [i.e., the one posted today @ 3:34 CDT], which refers to non-existing "pouting" and "angry, abject, willful (etc) ignorance" on my part, accuses me of being a subjectivist who "does not want" certain things to be art, etc. Good stuff! (Not.)

In my book, this is not intellectual discussion, but deliberate provocation -- perhaps trying to rile me to his level of agitation so he can dismiss me and get others to dismiss me as just another ignorant, emotionalist Randian? (Sorry, ain't gonna work, "Jonathan.")

You are ignorant of the visual arts, and you seem to be quite emotionally upset about the fact that I don't take you as an authority on the subject.

And he says that Stephen was imagining "nastiness where it doesn't exist"! How would nine out of ten objective observers characterize "Jonathan's" last half dozen or so posts? "Persistent, but not nasty"?

That would depend on who was chosen as the ten observers. I think most people who have an advanced interest and understanding of the visual arts would see me as being rather generous in dealing with angry Objectivist zealots who are ignorant of the visual arts but who insist on telling everyone else what visual art is and is not, where most Objectivist zealots who are ignorant of the visual arts would see me as a big meanie. Objectivist zealots tend to resent the idea that they might not be as knowledgeable and sensitive to every art form as anyone else. They tend to think that they're experts on any subject without having had to study anything other than Rand.

Fess up, "Jonathan," you're pissed that I won't take your bait. Go ahead, indulge yourself, attack me personally and call me all the names you want, you nihilistic poopy-head (oops, sorry).

I'm not pissed at all. In fact, I'm laughing at some of your opinions. You're giving opinions on subjects about which you know nothing, you're suggesting that your (and your wife's) aesthetic blindness should somehow be taken as proof that no one can see, and at the same time hoping to be taken seriously. When it comes to visual art, you don't know what you're talking about. Why are you trying to pretend to speak authoritatively about it? Why not limit yourself to music. You at least know something about that subject.

I remember a few years ago, being asked by a skeptical Objectivist, to identify the "metaphysical value-judgment" conveyed by a painting of a grove of sickly, rotting trees. My off-the-cuff answer was: not knowing anything else about the grove of trees, except that the artist chose them to convey something significant, I'd say the painting is meant to convey the view that life, successful survival and thriving, not just can be, but ~is~ difficult or impossible...

Now, the lovely paintings on the left side may have technical flaws or weaknesses that I can't detect, but above all, to me, they convey a very general view of the world, namely, that life, survival and thriving, is possible. More generally, that ~success~ is possible, that life is not inherently doomed to frustration and failure. Just the opposite of the rotting, withered trees in the painting I was asked to interpret several years ago.

That's sounds like a typical Objectivish response: Showing decay and death must mean that the artist values decay and death! And every single painting which doesn't show decay and death has exactly the same positive "meaning": that "life is possible." How shallow and literalistic and Randian. It's both hilarious and pathetic at the same time.

As I said to you a few years ago here:

Decay in still lifes is sometimes used to imply the feeling of superfluous abundance -- so much wealth that some of it is going to waste. The portrayal of "sickly trees" might have nothing to do with implying "a world where life is not successful." The artist could be trying to convey a sense of, say, mystery, or some other mood, symbol or metaphor. The fact that he hasn't illustrated some ideal that you would advise him to illustrate in the manner that you'd advise him to illustrate it doesn't mean that his work means to him or to anyone else what you interpret it to mean.

and...

An artist or viewer may want to savor and ponder the importance of the idea of mortality for any number of positive, rational, life-affirming reasons. A painting which includes death may not be about glorifying death, but about how we deal with it, or it may express the value of that which has been lost, or the importance of living life to its fullest in the time that we have. Is it your view that art should avoid confronting the inevitability of our demise and the implications it might have on the way we should live our lives? Is the idea that to ponder death in art, as one of countless important factors in human existence, is to necessarily place supreme metaphysical importance on it, and, therefore, to reveal that one has a "death-worshiping" metaphysical orientation? I hope that's not what you're saying.

Now, Jonathan, I didn't study painting in order to be able to do the above analysis.

Yes, I've gotten the impression that you haven't studied painting. You studied Ayn Rand's opinions on painting instead of studying painting, right?

J

Edited February 1, 2011 by Jonathan

[Roger Bissell]

People here on OL, and elsewhere, have compared abstract, "non-objective art" to music and said that either ~both~ are art, or neither is art, and that Rand can't have it both ways. I'm sorry, but she's right on this.

In the past, you've been willing to accept abstract art as art. You've been willing to recognize that others might be able to experience things visually that you don't.

That's true, I have, here: http://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=248&view=findpost&p=1254

What's changed? Are you seriously telling us that you can identify intelligible subjects and meanings in the abstract forms of architecture, but not in the exact same forms in abstract paintings and sculptures?

No. I'm seriously considering the idea that the "exact same forms" function much more effectively -- in conveying metaphysical value-judgments/emotional meaning -- when subordinated to an entity of which they are parts as in representative painting and sculpture and in architecture and in melodic music, than when they are "floating" as it were in abstract paintings and sculptures or non-melodic music. That the latter are ~so~ much less effective, that they fail to present a microcosm populated by intelligible entities, which are the necessary condition of conveying broad philosophical meaning.

I may be wrong about this. But hearing poetic, touchy-feely descriptions of shapes and curves does not convince me. Nor would thousands of prose by "experts" rationalizing such descriptions convince me either. The point is not the presence or absence of connotation in such shapes and curves, but whether or not that connotation serves a deeper embodied meaning and helps to flesh out an imaginary world, rather than simply dangling loose on the canvas, in a soundwave, etc.

As you probably know, Rand thinks that "esthetic" abstractions are based on what is important or significant, philosophically. And she thinks that shapes, colors, plane figures, etc. are simply not philosophically significant, like entities are. In living our lives, we interact with entities, not their attributes in abstraction from those entities. And we inhabit a world of entities, not abstract attributes. So, presenting a microcosm or artistic realm without entities is prima facie less capable of conveying the philosophically significant or important -- according to Rand. And I tend to agree.

Believe it or not, however, what ~might~ convince me to decide on my earlier (2006) perspective (as the one I include in my future published writings) is the fact that even a non-integrable work of art (let alone a non-representational work of art) conveys a basic view of reality. A very ~wrong~ view, but a view nonetheless, namely, that the world is unintelligible. If I adopt the perspective that such an unintelligible work is "not really" an artwork, because it doesn't present something unintelligible, then I am ruling out one of the wrong metaphysical value-judgments from the realm of aesthetics. This seems wrong-headed to me.

So, as you can see, I'm still thinking this through. I can't even say which position I've advocated is the "Devil's Advocate" position, since there are strong supporters of each on this forum -- but from a strictly Orthodox Objectivist standpoint, my earlier (2006) stance is definitely "coloring outside the lines." Even my currently argued stance, however, includes arguments that architecture re-creates reality, and that music re-creates things more basic than (as Rand argued) emotions, so that is not really lockstep with Orthodox Objectivism either.

Objectivists seem almost paranoid about publishing their views. Perhaps their reluctance to put them in print is because of the stakes involved -- being blasted publicly for making an error, appearing to be "non-objective," etc. Rand at least was braver than most of her followers.

One of the benefits of such a forum as this, very much like giving lectures, is the opportunity to try out various models and theories prior to committing oneself in print. Not having a university affiliation, and not being firmly ensconced in either of the main Orthodox Objectivist organizations, I certainly appreciate Objectivist Living for that reason. However, I certainly do ~not~ appreciate being called names and being attacked personally. Nor is this the first time I have been personally reamed for criticizing someone else's pet view or writer. Surely we can weed out nonsense and illogic in a more congenial manner than that.

REB

[Roger Bissell]

My identifying [i.e., claiming] you as ignorant of the visual arts is no more a personal attack than your identifying Rand as ignorant of music. [...] You are ignorant of the visual arts, and you seem to be quite emotionally upset about the fact that I don't take you as an authority on the subject. [...] I think most people who have an advanced interest and understanding of the visual arts would see me as being rather generous in dealing with angry Objectivist zealots who are ignorant of the visual arts but who insist on telling everyone else what visual art is and is not, where most Objectivist zealots who are ignorant of the visual arts would see me as a big meanie. Objectivist zealots tend to resent the idea that they might not be as knowledgeable and sensitive to every art form as anyone else. They tend to think that they're experts on any subject without having had to study anything other than Rand. [...]You're giving opinions on subjects about which you know nothing, you're suggesting that your (and your wife's) aesthetic blindness should somehow be taken as proof that no one can see, and at the same time hoping to be taken seriously. When it comes to visual art, you don't know what you're talking about. Why are you trying to pretend to speak authoritatively about it? Why not limit yourself to music. You at least know something about that subject.[...] How shallow and literalistic and Randian. It's both hilarious and pathetic at the same time. [...] I've gotten the impression [i.e., developed the biased opinion] that you haven't studied painting. You studied Ayn Rand's opinions on painting instead of studying painting, right?

There is nothing but personal attacks and ad hominems in this. My part in this discussion is over.

REB

[Jonathan]

I may be wrong about this. But hearing poetic, touchy-feely descriptions of shapes and curves does not convince me.

If I were to dimiss your explanations of the alleged meanings of specific pieces of music as "poetic, touchy-feely descriptions," you'd be whining that I was viciously personally attacking you.

Nor would thousands of prose by "experts" rationalizing such descriptions convince me either.

Well, there we have it. It's not possible that others might have knowledge and sensitivities that Roger lacks. No, if Roger doesn't feel something that others claim to feel, they must be "rationalizing" their descriptions. And it's good to be an "expert" on music, but those who have expertise in fields about which Roger knows nothing are to be mocked for being "experts."

The point is not the presence or absence of connotation in such shapes and curves, but whether or not that connotation serves a deeper embodied meaning and helps to flesh out an imaginary world, rather than simply dangling loose on the canvas, in a soundwave, etc.

As I keep asking, a "deeper meaning" to whom? Who are you to tell people how deep of a meaning they're getting out of something? You're basically arbitrarily asserting that your personal conceptual and emotional responses, or lack thereof, are the standard of what is or is not art, and that others are limited to your limitations. You're starting from the unwarranted assumption that what you feel from a work of art is valid and "deep," but anything that I and others feel, but that you don't, is only a mere "connotation" dangling loose. How did Roger Bissell become the center of the universe, and the universal aesthetic standard for all of mankind, including in regard to art forms about which he knows very little?

Believe it or not, however, what ~might~ convince me to decide on my earlier (2006) perspective (as the one I include in my future published writings) is the fact that even a non-integrable work of art (let alone a non-representational work of art) conveys a basic view of reality. A very ~wrong~ view, but a view nonetheless, namely, that the world is unintelligible.

Non-integrable and unintelligible to whom? I've seen countless people identify meanings in abstract art, including the artists' intended meanings. So, why would you classify their work as unintelligible?

What objective means would you suggest that we use for determining that a work of art is truly unintelligible versus that some viewers are visually aesthetically inept?

There is nothing but personal attacks and ad hominems in this. My part in this discussion is over.

No, they're not personal attacks or ad hominems. They're accurate identifications of reality. You are ignorant of the visual arts, and you're defining what is or is not art based on your ignorance and limitations.

J

[Brant Gaede]

There is nothing but personal attacks and ad hominems in this. My part in this discussion is over.

No, they're not personal attacks or ad hominems. They're accurate identifications of reality. You are ignorant of the visual arts, and you're defining what is or is not art based on your ignorance and limitations.

You mixed in a lot of ad hominems with your "accurate identifications of reality."

--Brant

[Jonathan]

For those who think I'm being too tough on Roger, here's a good example of why I think his interpretations of visual art are "shallow and literalist and Randian."

I wrote above that showing a dead or decaying object in a painting could mean any number of things other than what Roger would interpret it to mean (that "life is difficult or impossible"). In addition to the fact that it could mean many other things, it might also have no symbolic meaning.

I've commented before on Objectivist artist Linda Mann's Q&A page about symbolism in her work. She was asked how much meaning should be attached to the specific objects in her paintings, and whether they should be seen as symbols having deeper meaning.

She says:

"No, they are not symbols, not in the sense that any object is there principally to stand for something else or to suggest some hidden ideas. I think it is more accurate to consider the objects as examples of rather than symbols of something."

and...

"Objects are never there as proxies for some symbolic idea. They are there because I like the way they look, and they fit the visual theme of the painting."

and...

"The objects are only part of the picture. More of the theme is achieved by the composition and rendering, and here there is not only the matter of unifying and contrasting shapes and textures, but also the contrasts of empty and full spaces, the paths I lead your eye in, and the careful modulation of edges, with some of them very sharp and others very diffused. I think selective focus is very important.

"The vase, stones, bag, box and other objects do not symbolize Orderly Universe or Clear Perception. Rather, they are examples of orderly, clear and distinct objects. If I have done my job well, they give you the perceptual experiences from which you may subconsciously induce those abstract ideas."

So, it would be shallow and literalist to interpret one of her paintings of, say, gourds, as representing the idea that gourds are the essence of existence, or that mankind deserves to eat only gourds, or that man is basically a worthless gourd. Likewise, if she were to paint dead trees, it would be shallow and literalist to conclude that the painting must represent the idea that death or trees were the essence of existence, or that mankind is any way like dead trees. She is a visual artist, and ignoring the visual nature of her art -- her compositions of "unifying and contrasting shapes and textures," her "contrasts of empty and full spaces" and her "careful modulation of edges" -- and instead approaching her art as a form of something akin to symbolic visual literature would completely miss the point.

Some works of visual art do include symbolic meaning, but many don't, so if you don't have an understanding and appreciation of visual composition, you're probably not really getting what it is that visual artists do, and only concentrating on what most visual artist would consider to be either meaningless or secondary aspects of their art.

J

Edited February 1, 2011 by Jonathan

[BaalChatzaf]

For those who think I'm being too tough on Roger, here's a good example of why I think his interpretations of visual art are "shallow and literalist and Randian."

I wrote above that showing a dead or decaying object in a painting could mean any number of things other than what Roger would interpret it to mean (that "life is difficult or impossible"). In addition to the fact that it could mean many other things, it might also have no symbolic meaning.

I've commented before on Objectivist artist Linda Mann's Q&A page about symbolism in her work. She was asked how much meaning should be attached to the specific objects in her paintings, and whether they should be seen as symbols having deeper meaning.

She says:

"No, they are not symbols, not in the sense that any object is there principally to stand for something else or to suggest some hidden ideas. I think it is more accurate to consider the objects as examples of rather than symbols of something."

and...

"Objects are never there as proxies for some symbolic idea. They are there because I like the way they look, and they fit the visual theme of the painting."

and...

If she were asked "Why are they (objects and such) there in the art-work?" what do you suppose she might answser?

Since a piece of art is a contrivance from the git go, is it wrong to suppose every element occurring in the work is deliberate and intended?

Ba'al Chatzaf

[kiaer.ts]

For those who think I'm being too tough on Roger...

That is not the complaint.

[Roger Bissell]

I know I said I was withdrawing from the discussion, and I really don't intend to have any more exchanges with "Jonathan," but since he's no longer addressing his remarks to me, this won't count as an exchange, just a comment. (I don't intend to follow up on anything he might say in reply.)

For those who think I'm being too tough on Roger, here's a good example of why I think his interpretations of visual art are "shallow and literalist and Randian."

I have no problem with being described as, nor do I apologize for, having made "Randian" interpretations of art works. But the other part of his comment is just plain silly, even nonsensical.

I would think that in order to avoid being "shallow and literalist," it would be necessary to NOT take visual art works, or any art works, as meaning ~just~ their perceptual content. In other words, a "shallow and literalist" interpretation of a bowl of rotten fruit would seem to be: there's a bowl of rotten fruit. Wouldn't it? (Rand would call it "concrete-bound," which I would think is closely equivalent to "shallow and literalist," even for ~non-Randians~.)

I wrote above that showing a dead or decaying object in a painting could mean any number of things other than what Roger would interpret it to mean (that "life is difficult or impossible"). In addition to the fact that it could mean many other things, it might also have no symbolic meaning. I've commented before on Objectivist artist Linda Mann's Q&A page about symbolism in her work. She was asked how much meaning should be attached to the specific objects in her paintings, and whether they should be seen as symbols having deeper meaning. She says:

"No, they are not symbols, not in the sense that any object is there principally to stand for something else or to suggest some hidden ideas. I think it is more accurate to consider the objects as examples of rather than symbols of something."

and...

"Objects are never there as proxies for some symbolic idea. They are there because I like the way they look, and they fit the visual theme of the painting."

and...

"The objects are only part of the picture. More of the theme is achieved by the composition and rendering, and here there is not only the matter of unifying and contrasting shapes and textures, but also the contrasts of empty and full spaces, the paths I lead your eye in, and the careful modulation of edges, with some of them very sharp and others very diffused. I think selective focus is very important. "The vase, stones, bag, box and other objects do not symbolize Orderly Universe or Clear Perception. Rather, they are examples of orderly, clear and distinct objects. If I have done my job well, they give you the perceptual experiences from which you may subconsciously induce those abstract ideas."

So, it would be shallow and literalist to interpret one of her paintings of, say, gourds, as representing the idea that gourds are the essence of existence, or that mankind deserves to eat only gourds, or that man is basically a worthless gourd. Likewise, if she were to paint dead trees, it would be shallow and literalist to conclude that the painting must represent the idea that death or trees were the essence of existence, or that mankind is any way like dead trees. She is a visual artist, and ignoring the visual nature of her art -- her compositions of "unifying and contrasting shapes and textures," her "contrasts of empty and full spaces" and her "careful modulation of edges" -- and instead approaching her art as a form of something akin to symbolic visual literature would completely miss the point.

First of all, from her own descriptions of what she is doing, Linda Mann is certainly an "objective" or representational artist, and she may believe herself to be an "Objectivist" who is an artist, but she certainly is at odds with the Objectivist esthetics, so in that respect I'd hardly say she qualifies as an Objectivist artist, any more than I am an Objectivist musician or an Objectivist composer.

The philosophy or ideology that jumps out from me, when I read her above comments, is that she is akin to a Pragmatist. (I'm not saying she ~is~ a Pragmatist.) Pragmatists eschew ideology and principles of any kind, except technical principles of construction and problem-solving. They take each phenomenon or issue as it arises, attempt to make no broader connections or see any broader meaning, and just deal with it as a concrete. In politics, Pragmatists tell us to not interpret their policy proposals as having any deeper meaning or coming from any definite basic theory or viewpoint, but just as the result of being practical and taking reality as it comes to them, "solving problems on their own terms," etc. And then, we are all shocked, shocked! to see that 20 such specific solutions consistently add up to a clear drift to more and more government control of the economy.

This is how Linda Mann's description of her artistic approach strikes me. Unprincipled, except for principles of technique. Not trying to "get across anything" about what is presented, just presenting it for something to look at and appreciate visually, with no broader meaning. Not trying to portray an orderly universe, just orderly objects. Not trying to portray a universe where life can be successful, just a thing that has had a successful life. Etc. Yet, whether the artist protests and denies it or not, it all adds up, doesn't it?

Would Linda Mann present a painting of a beautiful woman with a ghastly scar on her face? Probably, if the compositional elements appealed to her. But such paintings, IMO, need a disclaimer, as a matter of basic courtesy: "Please appreciate this painting visually, despite the fact that I've included an ugly scar on the woman's face. Please regard it merely as a compositional element, not as a statement about something significant about human beauty or life."

Most people who look at art want enjoyment and emotional fuel and inspiration, not merely the "shallow and literalist" savoring of compositional elements with no broader context of meaning. So, if the artist wants to be understood and appreciated on her own terms by as many people as possible, she would be well advised to explicitly discourage people from their quest for deeper symbolic meaning.

But while Linda Mann may well take issue with my "Randian" slant on art interpretation, I hardly think she would ridicule ~my~ perspective as "shallow and literalist." (Not that that would stop her fans from doing so.)

REB

P.S. -- As promised, this is a free-standing comment. I'm not interested in discussing the point with "Jonathan." I just present it for those who might like a little more clarification and elaboration on what it does or does not mean to be "shallow and literalist," whether or not one is "Randian" or "Objectivist," as well.

[Jonathan]

If she were asked "Why are they (objects and such) there in the art-work?" what do you suppose she might answser?

I don't know. I think her answer might come down to just personal likes and dislikes.

Since a piece of art is a contrivance from the git go, is it wrong to suppose every element occurring in the work is deliberate and intended?

I don't know if it's wrong to suppose that every element is deliberate and intended. I just think it's wrong to assume with absolute certainty that one has identified what the artist intended.

J

[Jonathan]

"Roger" wrote,

This is how Linda Mann's description of her artistic approach strikes me. Unprincipled, except for principles of technique.

It strikes you that way, "Roger," because you're ignorant of the visual arts.

Not trying to "get across anything" about what is presented, just presenting it for something to look at and appreciate visually, with no broader meaning.

Where did you get the idea, "Roger," that it has no broader meaning?

Would Linda Mann present a painting of a beautiful woman with a ghastly scar on her face? Probably, if the compositional elements appealed to her. But such paintings, IMO, need a disclaimer, as a matter of basic courtesy: "Please appreciate this painting visually, despite the fact that I've included an ugly scar on the woman's face. Please regard it merely as a compositional element, not as a statement about something significant about human beauty or life."

You're missing the point, "Roger." Some paintings can include overt symbolic content in addition to less direct compositional or abstract content. A painting of a woman with a scar on her face would probably have the type of overt symbolic content that you're limited to looking for.

But even then, it would not necessarily mean what you (or Rand) would assert that it must mean. It wouldn't necessarily be a 'vicious attack on mankind and on all values,' or whatever. It might be an expression of the stupidity of judging things superficially. It might be a statement on the importance of inner beauty. It could mean any number of things, and the compositional content might play as large of a role as the scar in the painting's meaning.

Most people who look at art want enjoyment and emotional fuel and inspiration, not merely the "shallow and literalist" savoring of compositional elements with no broader context of meaning.

Where did you get the idea that compositional elements cannot lead to a broader context and meaning than what you experience? People who don't share your limitations can get meaning from compositional elements. They can see drama, contrast, tension, balance, mood, etc., in the compositional elements just as you claim to hear them in music, and those elements can add up to meanings, just as you claim that they can add up in music. You really should consider learning something about the subject.

J

Edited February 1, 2011 by Jonathan

[Roger Bissell]

For those who think I'm being too tough on Roger, here's a good example of why I think his interpretations of visual art are "shallow and literalist and Randian."

I would think that in order to avoid being "shallow and literalist," it would be necessary to NOT take visual art works, or any art works, as meaning ~just~ their perceptual content. In other words, a "shallow and literalist" interpretation of a bowl of rotten fruit would seem to be: there's a bowl of rotten fruit. Wouldn't it? If so, then how is my attempt to read ~abstract~ meaning into an artwork "shallow and literalist"?

REB

[jriggenbach]

I just think it's wrong to assume with absolute certainty that one has identified what the artist intended.

No one who knows anything about art "assumes with absolute certainty that [s/he] has identified what the artist intended."

(1) It is often not possible to determine what the artist intended.

(2) In the end, aesthetically, it doesn't matter what the artist intended. What matters is what the artist actually did. What we need to ask ourselves when we set out to understand or evaluate any work of art is: "What is this thing? What does it do? How does it work?" What anyone intended this thing to be, what anyone intended it to do, how anyone intended it to work - all this is irrelevant.

All this is also extremely elementary. At the risk of coming across like Jonathan, I'm somewhat taken aback by the ignorance of attempting to discuss meaning in the arts without apparently ever having heard of or considered what is usually known as "the intentional fallacy."

JR

Edited February 1, 2011 by Jeff Riggenbach

[Jonathan]

For those who think I'm being too tough on Roger, here's a good example of why I think his interpretations of visual art are "shallow and literalist and Randian."

I would think that in order to avoid being "shallow and literalist," it would be necessary to NOT take visual art works, or any art works, as meaning ~just~ their perceptual content. In other words, a "shallow and literalist" interpretation of a bowl of rotten fruit would seem to be: there's a bowl of rotten fruit. Wouldn't it? If so, then how is my attempt to read ~abstract~ meaning into an artwork "shallow and literalist"?

REB

Well, I didn't say "literal," but "literalist" or "literalistic" (and shallow). Looking at a painting of a bowl of rotten fruit and interpreting it as nothing but a bowl of rotten fruit would be a literal interpretation. Looking at it and interpreting it to mean that mankind is rotten like rotten fruit would be literalist or literalistic. And shallow. "Literalist" or "literalistic" is just a tiny step above "literal." All that one does is substitute "the essence of existence is" or "mankind is" for the physical subject matter depicted. From what I've seen, it's practically the official formula of Objectivist of aesthetic interpretation.

J

[Jonathan]

No one who knows anything about art "assumes with absolute certainty that [s/he] has identified what the artist intended."

From many of Rand's judgments of artists, I've gotten the strong impression that she assumed with absolute certainty to have identified what the artists intended.

(1) It is often not possible to determine what the artist intended.

(2) In the end, aesthetically, it doesn't matter what the artist intended. What matters is what the artist actually did. What we need to ask ourselves when we set out to understand or evaluate any work of art is: "What is this thing? What does it do? How does it work?" What anyone intended this thing to be, what anyone intended it to do, how anyone intended it to work - all this is irrelevant.

All this is also extremely elementary. At the risk of coming across like Jonathan, I'm somewhat taken aback by the ignorance of attempting to discuss meaning in the arts without apparently ever having heard of or considered what is usually known as "the intentional fallacy."

Then I'd imagine that you're taken aback by Rand. Her concept of "esthetic judgment" involved judging the "artist's theme" and how well he projected "his view" of life, and how well he "conveyed" it. She expected art to "communicate," and to communicate is to convey information as intended.

Personally, JR, I have no problem with what I understand of your views on the intentional fallacy. Intention only becomes an issue when people claim to be identifying the "artist's theme" as opposed the artwork's theme, or sometimes when they assert that their interpretations of an artwork are "the objective interpretation" and that others' differing interpretations are not.

J

Edited February 1, 2011 by Jonathan

[jriggenbach]

Then I'd imagine that you're taken aback by Rand. Her concept of "esthetic judgment" involved judging the "artist's theme" and how well he projected "his view" of life, and how well he "conveyed" it. She expected art to "communicate," and to communicate is to convey information as intended.

This is utterly wrongheaded. When Rand wrote of the "artist's theme" she meant the artwork's theme. Many pieces of writing (and not a few pictures) communicate a great deal of information that the creators of those pictures and pieces of writing never intended to convey.

So no, I am not taken aback by Rand. Though I have learned much about art from other writers, I rank Rand at the very top of my personal list of aestheticians and art theorists who are worth reading. (Admittedly, though, what I think is worth reading in Rand's writing on the arts is the first three chapters of The Romantic Manifesto - the rest of it is mostly raving against art Rand didn't personally like, intermixed with, here and there, some interesting thoughts on various minor questions in aesthetics and the theory of art criticism.) I do think Rand, like all philosophers, benefits from a sympathetic reading of her work. A reading that starts out in hostility and is determined to find points of disagreement and views that won't withstand close scrutiny - well, such a reading will generally succeed in its aims. But comprehension is not one of its aims.

JR

[Jonathan]

This is utterly wrongheaded. When Rand wrote of the "artist's theme" she meant the artwork's theme.

I've had this discussion in the past with "Roger."

As I said here:

Why would Rand specifically say that we must identify the artist's meaning and stress that we must use his theme as criterion if she actually meant that we should identify the artwork's theme? I've been under the impression that she was quite capable of saying exactly what she meant...

...Rand was clearly rejecting abstract art because she thought that it doesn't communicate, which means that it doesn't convey the artist's intended meaning. It was not enough for her that millions of people find meaning in abstract art based on the evidence contained in the art -- just as much meaning, if not more, than Rand found in music (and perhaps more than she found in figurative visual art). No, fans of abstract art were required to be able to identify the artist's meaning. They were required to understand his "communications"...

...since Rand did claim that she was identifying artists' themes and senses of life, and since she even went so far as to make psychological pronouncements about some of them based on her interpretations of their art, obviously she thought that she was identifying their intended meanings -- one cannot talk of an artist's alleged "inner conflicts" or "malevolent" view of existence unless she thinks she has identified his intended meaning.

Many pieces of writing (and not a few pictures) communicate a great deal of information that the creators of those pictures and pieces of writing never intended to convey.

Then the art hasn't "communicated," but miscommunicated. I'm not aware of any works of art which aren't interpreted differently by different people. So are you saying that an artwork "communicates" different -- perhaps even opposite -- things to each of them? If so, I think you're using the term "communicates" quite differently than Rand did.

I do think Rand, like all philosophers, benefits from a sympathetic reading of her work. A reading that starts out in hostility and is determined to find points of disagreement and views that won't withstand close scrutiny - well, such a reading will generally succeed in its aims. But comprehension is not one of its aims.

I agree. And there's something even worse than a reading which starts out in hostility, which is judging philosophical and aesthetic ideas with hostility without ever actually reading them, such as the ideas of, say, Kant or Kandinsky, etc.

J

[jriggenbach]

This is utterly wrongheaded. When Rand wrote of the "artist's theme" she meant the artwork's theme.

I've had this discussion in the past with "Roger."

As I said here:

Why would Rand specifically say that we must identify the artist's meaning and stress that we must use his theme as criterion if she actually meant that we should identify the artwork's theme? I've been under the impression that she was quite capable of saying exactly what she meant...

...Rand was clearly rejecting abstract art because she thought that it doesn't communicate, which means that it doesn't convey the artist's intended meaning. It was not enough for her that millions of people find meaning in abstract art based on the evidence contained in the art -- just as much meaning, if not more, than Rand found in music (and perhaps more than she found in figurative visual art). No, fans of abstract art were required to be able to identify the artist's meaning. They were required to understand his "communications"...

...since Rand did claim that she was identifying artists' themes and senses of life, and since she even went so far as to make psychological pronouncements about some of them based on her interpretations of their art, obviously she thought that she was identifying their intended meanings -- one cannot talk of an artist's alleged "inner conflicts" or "malevolent" view of existence unless she thinks she has identified his intended meaning.

Many pieces of writing (and not a few pictures) communicate a great deal of information that the creators of those pictures and pieces of writing never intended to convey.

Then the art hasn't "communicated," but miscommunicated. I'm not aware of any works of art which aren't interpreted differently by different people. So are you saying that an artwork "communicates" different -- perhaps even opposite -- things to each of them? If so, I think you're using the term "communicates" quite differently than Rand did.

I do think Rand, like all philosophers, benefits from a sympathetic reading of her work. A reading that starts out in hostility and is determined to find points of disagreement and views that won't withstand close scrutiny - well, such a reading will generally succeed in its aims. But comprehension is not one of its aims.

I agree. And there's something even worse than a reading which starts out in hostility, which is judging philosophical and aesthetic ideas with hostility without ever actually reading them, such as the ideas of, say, Kant or Kandinsky, etc.

J

Yes, Rand gave Kant a hostile reading (if she read him at all). As to the rest of this, you remind me of Xray. You aren't interested in understanding anything or learning anything. All you're interested in is "scoring" meaningless "points" against Rand by quibbling about non-essential details, infelicities of wording, etc. Go talk to her (Xray, that is, not Rand).

JR

Edited February 2, 2011 by Jeff Riggenbach

[Jonathan]

All you're interested in is "scoring" meaningless "points"...

I think you're projecting. You popped up on this thread because you saw a chance to ride one of your favorite hobby horses -- the tangential issue of the intentional fallacy -- and "score" meaningless "points" by impressing everyone with your knowledge of literary criticism. Hey, everyone, JR knows about the intentional fallacy! Very impressive indeed! Yay!

...against Rand by quibbling about non-essential details, infelicities of wording, etc.

These aren't quibbles, non-essential details or infelicities. Rand openly and frequently judged the morality and psychology of artists based on their art. In doing so, she was practicing her stated methods of judging the "artists' meanings" and what she presumed were their intentions. Her method of judging art was designed to leave her the opportunity to also judge the artists. She didn't see herself as making mere interpretations of art like everyone else, but making irrefutable objective identifications of the artists' souls. Much of what you call "raving against art Rand didn't personally like" is actually her method of "objective esthetic evaluation" in action. When she said that an objective evaluation requires identifying the "artist's meaning" and evaluating how well he projected "his view of life," that's exactly what she meant.

J

Edited February 2, 2011 by Jonathan

[jriggenbach]

All you're interested in is "scoring" meaningless "points"...

I think you're projecting. You popped up on this thread because you saw a chance to ride one of your favorite hobby horses -- the tangential issue of the intentional fallacy -- and "score" meaningless "points" by impressing everyone with your knowledge of literary criticism. Hey, everyone, JR knows about the intentional fallacy! Very impressive indeed! Yay!

...against Rand by quibbling about non-essential details, infelicities of wording, etc.

These aren't quibbles, non-essential details or infelicities. Rand openly and frequently judged the morality and psychology of artists based on their art. In doing so, she was practicing her stated methods of judging the "artists' meanings" and what she presumed were their intentions. Her method of judging art was designed to leave her the opportunity to also judge the artists. She didn't see herself as making mere interpretations of art like everyone else, but making irrefutable objective identifications of the artists' souls. Much of what you call "raving against art Rand didn't personally like" is actually her method of "objective esthetic evaluation" in action. When she said that an objective evaluation requires identifying the "artist's meaning" and evaluating how well he projected "his view of life," that's exactly what she meant.

J

Actually, I "popped up" on this thread because I was interested in its main issues and felt inclined to protest when one of the principals in the discussion chose to introduce what seemed to me a bunch of irrelevant bullshit about what some artist intended to do in her pictures - a tactic I feared might derail the entire conversation. I'm sorry if I've mentioned the intentional fallacy before and was guilty of boring you. I have a few other things to do in my life besides hanging around here, and I don't really keep up with what I've written about here (versus elsewhere). In any case, it's now clear that you didn't realize the bullshit about the artist's intentions was irrelevant because you've completely misunderstood Rand's aesthetic writings, preferring instead to go with an obvious misinterpretation that fits better with your prejudices. Fine. Sorry to have interfered with your private party. It won't happen again.

JR

[Jonathan]

Fine. Sorry to have interfered with your private party. It won't happen again.

Wow, another Mr. Pouty Pants? You throw shit at me by saying that I remind you of Xray and that I'm only trying to score points, and then you instantly turn into a poor little victim when I return the favor? If you can't handle my talking trash to you, then don't talk it to me.

I have to say that it's highly amusing to me that a trombone player is instructing me, a professional visual artist and sculptor (and also a musician), on the nature of the visual arts from a position of ignorance, as well asserting that Linda Mann isn't really creating meaningful art, and I'm the one you chose to accuse of not wanting to learn or understand. Heh.

Now, do you want to have a grown-up conversation without the stupid shit? If so, I'd be up for hearing how you'd apply a literary concept like Rand's theory of aesthetic judgment or the intentional fallacy to non-literature.

What would that entail in regard to the visual arts?

Your view of aesthetic judgment, as stated above, appears to involve asking "What is this thing? What does it do? How does it work?" Is that all there is to it, or do you agree with Rand that one also has to specifically identify meaning and determine how well the art conveys it?

Here's the problem that I would have with doing so:

As you mentioned above, elements of an artwork can be interpreted differently than what an artist intends. That's somewhat true of literature, but the problem can be immensely magnified with the non-literary arts.

The visual arts are much less specific than literature -- they're not temporal; they're a brief glimpse at a moment in time -- and are therefore much more open to interpretation, which brings a problem of open-endedness to requiring both identification of the meaning of a work of art and evaluation of the means of achieving it.

Here's an example of what I mean. Let's say that an artist wants to paint his vision of mankind as heroic, but he's just a bit lacking in skill, which makes his figures look a little distorted, or maybe even contorted, which makes some people interpret them as sick or tormented. These viewers interpret the artwork to mean that sickness and torment is man's nature or fate. Since they think that the art conveys that vision very effectively, they conclude that it's great art.

The problem is that it's not great art. If they don't know the artist's intentions, they have no objective standard by which to decide if he failed or succeeded in his task. Once they feel that they've identified any meaning based on the content of the art, only a positive evaluation is possible: to them, the art successfully conveys what they've decided it means.

How would one apply Rand's method of aesthetic evaluation to a painting like The Death of Socrates, without relying on any outside considerations and without seeking information about the artist's intentions? What would the painting mean to someone who didn't know anything about it or why it was created?

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!"

The above would qualify as an objective esthetic judgment which follows Rand's criteria to the letter, wouldn't it? It's exactly the type of silliness that I've seen Rand and many of her followers engage in.

A specific example of such silliness on Rand's part is her judgment of Vermeer. Her avoidance of outside considerations and artist's intentions -- such as what type of society Vermeer lived in, what type of clothing or customs were common in his time, which technologies, world events and beliefs influenced him -- led her to come to the "objective" but ridiculous opinion that Vermeer was naturalistically painting the folks next door. Her avoidance of knowledge led her to impose her own context on Vermeer, which made her incapable of recognizing the romantic and allegorical nature of his art.

Is that the goal of the Objectivist Esthetics: to make "objective" but ridiculous aesthetic judgments due to willful ignorance?

J

Edited February 2, 2011 by Jonathan