Jonathan

Jeff wrote, So we've established a scenario in which the act of placing a shopping cart -- or a urinal, dung heap, etc. -- in a gallery, and the resulting responses, discussions and conclusions, would be art even by Objectivist definitions and standards. J

Victor asked, Before I answer, I'll remind you again that you haven't yet answered my questions about music. Is music art according to your definition of art? Now, is there an objective definition of art? Sure, there could be. I don't know that I'd be able to come up with one that I'd be satisfied with. How about this for starters: "Art is a means of expression and/or contemplation, created according to what an artist believes or feels is a fundamental or important aspect of existence, and may include both objective and subjective elements. A viewer or listener's responses to art may be objective and/or subjective." (An objective definition of "art" need not exclude subjectivity as a defining characteristic, just as an objective definition of "subjective" need not exclude it -- it is ojective to identify the fact that something subjective is subjective.) Your turn. Is music art according to your definition of art? J

Jeff wrote, I didn't ask if the shopping cart was art. I asked if a play about a shopping cart being placed in a gallery is art, a play which invites viewers to become participants without their knowing that it's a play. J

When I was a young child, my father was a high school teacher and coach, and sometimes he would take me with him to his school on Saturdays so that I could play in the gym while he caught up on his work. While walking with him in the halls on one such Saturday, we passed a classroom in which an older boy and girl were screaming at each other. I was shocked at the fierceness of their argument, and I looked up at my father to see his reaction. He wasn't affected by it at all. Was the argument art? I had an intense emotional response to it. I felt aspects of what could be called the senses of life of the boy and girl -- she seemed to be clear-headed and justifiably angry, and he seemed capricious and irrational. The reason that my father wasn't affected by it, like I was, was that it was indeed art. When he saw my reaction to the argument, he told me not worry, it was just pretend. The older students were acting. They were practicing for a play. Was the argument not art when I didn't know that it was art? Did it become art once I understood the context of what they were doing? Or was it always art despite any viewer's inability (mine) to recognize it as such? An idea for a play: A gallery owner is sweeping the floors of one of his empty gallery rooms while waiting for one of his artists to deliver her latest work of art. The artist arrives with an empty shopping cart, and rolls it to the center of the room. The gallery owner asks what's going on. The artist answers that she's delivering her latest work. The owner asks where it is. The artist answers that the shopping cart is the art. They argue about it, discussing various aesthetic theories and definitions of art. When they realize that they're getting nowhere, they invite members of the audience to become art patrons and "jurors" in the play who will decide whether or not the shopping cart is art (much like in Rand's play Night of January 16th). Victor, being one of the audience members selected, immediately shows his disgust and shouts that of course the cart is not art. He and the other jurors discuss the matter, offering all sorts of interesting ideas and arguments, and they eventually decide that the shopping cart is not art. End of play. Would the above play be art? Would it be art if Victor and the other audience members didn't know in advance that it was a play? Would it be art if a real artist and a real gallery owner staged the play in a real gallery and intentionally didn't inform Victor and the rest of the gallery visitors that it was a play? J

Victor wrote, Hey Victor, I noticed that you haven't answered my questions about music. Music is "non-representational" or "non-figurative" and “non-objective," yet you seem to believe that it is art. Why? Are you trying to destroy the meaning of art? Are you allowing yourself to live with a contradiction? Or, if you've come to the conclusion that music is not art by your definition, why aren't you saying so with the same passion with which you state your views on abstract art? Would you call the sounds of urinals flushing and animals farting art? How about the "re-creations" of those sounds? For example, Michael and Rich seem to know a hell of a lot about music theory and sound production, and I'd bet that they could precisely write notes, select instrumental timbres and effects (I'm thinking heavy use of a "flanger" would work well) and record them to sound like flushing and farting, or, if you prefer, they could recreate realistic orchestral representations of the sounds of doves cooing and kittens purring. Would the result be art? Since it would be "representational," "figurative" and "objective" where music isn't, wouldn't it fulfill your definition of art much better than music would? Wouldn't it be "objective music"? J

Ellen wrote, To borrow something you said earlier, I love your way of putting these things. J

I've only seen the last half of it, but I thought it was a beautiful film. J

Ditto, and there's lot's more to chew on at Wolf's site: http://wolfdevoon.tripod.com/ J

Victor wrote, Victor, Here you're talking about certain movements, attitudes and philosophies which, I agree, tend to suck (I don't think the same attitudes suck any less when displayed by Objectivists). But I was talking about abstract art itself, not some of the theories and snottiness associated with it. I was talking about the kind of art which was inspired not by a desire to poison minds, stunt development and obliterate art, but by a man looking at paintings of haystacks and realizing that they had an overwhelming power over him despite the fact that he didn't recognize the objects depicted. I was talking about the view that most fans of visual art bring to appreciating not only abstract art, but realistic still lifes or landscapes as well -- that of feeling the visual compositions as wholes, as expressive arrangements whose power to express has nothing to do with the specific objects depicted, as something that is as close as one can get to a visual equivalent of music, and not as idealized depictions of heroic fruit qua fruit or haystacks qua haystacks. Best, J

And music has the shape (or sound) of which things that exist in reality? J

Jeff, Would you mind answering the first question that I asked Victor: "Do you apply the same reasoning to music and architecture?" Thanks, J

Victor wrote, Do you apply the same reasoning to music and architecture? Shouldn't our requirements for art apply to all art forms equally? Also, shouldn't a rational theory of aesthetics take into account the fact that what affects one person may not affect another? When millions of people claim that they feel something when looking at abstract art, that they feel it as deeply as what others claim to feel when listening to music, should their testimony be disregarded because Ayn, Victor or others don't feel it? J

Elizabeth wrote, Depending on what a person believes that "according to" and "metaphysical value-judgments" mean, I think that you could say that all art is indeed created "according to an artist's metaphysical value-judgments." Metaphysical value-judgments are a person's view of the fundamental nature of existence. According to Rand, they answer such questions as "Is the universe intelligible to man, or unintelligible and unknowable? Can man find happiness on earth, or is he doomed to frustration and despair? Does man have the power of choice, the power to choose his goals and to achieve them, the power to direct the course of his life -- or is he a helpless plaything of forces beyond his control? Is man, by nature, to be valued as good, or to be despised as evil?" So, going back to your examples, Elizabeth, if an artist painted an ugly person for the reasons you listed, his answer to Rand's metaphysical quiz would be: "Yes, man can find happiness on earth. He is capable of overcoming the difficulty of life's unwanted hardships. He can choose to be dignified and have inner beauty despite irrelevant accidents of nature." The artist's metaphysical value-judgments -- his fundamental views of existence, of what's important to him -- guided the selections he made in creating the art. His art doesn't have to communicate his metaphysical values, nor does he have to try to make his art about communicating them. He doesn't have to take into consideration how those who view his work might interpret it. For example, it would be irrelevant if Rand or some of her followers threw hissy fits and claimed to know which Eeevil metaphysical value-judgments actually drove the artist to paint the image. The fact that they couldn't reliably identify which metaphysical value-judgments guided the artist in creating the work wouldn't mean that his metaphysical value-judgments didn't guide his choices (nor would it mean that his art isn't good). More simply put, the artist's job is to create whatever he wants according to whatever he values. His job is not to illustrate a blunt, artless representation of his values so that even shallow, visually challenged people can "get it" at first glance and offer their approval. Elizabeth wrote, and I'm currently thinking about working on a painting that I'd call "Abstract Objectivism." It would be a very large canvas, at least 8' x 12', filled with what would look exactly like paint splatters. But the dots that make up the splatters would actually be life-size, realistically rendered grapes. I'd go with "perfect" grapes instead of Rand's "perfect" apple because I'd want to use what I think is a more festive, secular fruit, and avoid over-used religious symbolism (which refers to the garden of Eden). I see the painting as the ultimate work of art because it would communicate my joyous sense of life to everyone from Pollock fans to hardcore Randroids. Just imagine how wonderful it would be that Randroids would be able to appreciate the power of its abstract compositional beauty because I've subverted their robotic programming by slipping in enough mimesis that they wouldn't be able to deny that the painting is art! Btw, Elizabeth, a belated welcome to OL. You're very talented, and obviously very bright, ethusiastic and independent, and it's good to have you here. J

I liked Newberry's drawing and the implied slam so much, as well as his also having been inspired by his affection for Hong Z. and George C., that I came pretty close to buying it. I was happy that Jon Letendre identified Rich, and not you or me, as the unstable onion about to fall off the bowl's edge. :-) J

Ellen wrote, Thank you, Ellen. :-) I think that that "someone" is you: http://rebirthofreason.com/Forum/ArticleDi...558_8.shtml#178 J P.S. I think I might start calling "romantic realism" "volition-expressing realism," and the Objectivist notion of "naturalism" "lack-of-volition-expressing realism." I think it might make things much more clear, and less likely that people would confuse the terms with historical movements sharing the same names but not necessarily the same meanings. It would be pretty obvious right away when listening to music or looking at architecture and non-narrative paintings that "volition-expressing realism" vs "lack-of-volition-expressing realism" might not be an appropriate method of analyzing the art in question. In regard to paintings which include narrative, it would be more clear that ~some~ images could be analyzed according to Rand's system, but not very reliably.

Ellen: I agree - I don't find the recognition far-fetched either, but I also think that such recognitions are probably pretty common in situations which might be looked upon with disapproval by people consulting Objectivism's official rule book on virtuous sexual behavior. A gal in a night club likes a guy's studly swagger. He likes her impertinence. Each thinks the other is confident, gorgeous, and deserving of special attention. After knowing each other for all of 5 seconds they believe that they embody each other's values and they know they're destined for bed later that night. If they'd get the chance, they'd probably discover that they really do embody a lot of each other's values, at least as much as Ayn and Frank, Kira and Leo, and Roark and Dominique did. (Of course, to discover that they do, they'd have to have much, much more than a one-night stand: she might have to go off and marry other guys, for example, to try to break him because he's too good for this world, and he'd have to endure it to show that he can take it.) Same with my wife and I, as well as my best friend. Is your friendship with Regina more like two of a kind, or more like two complementary parts forming a larger whole? My best friend, in many ways, is my opposite. J

What did Roark and Dominique know of each other before having sex? Did they know whether or not they embodied each other's values? It's been decades since I've read The Fountainhead, so correct me if I'm wrong, but, up to the time that Roark engraved-invitation-raped Dominique, wouldn't his only impression of her have been that she was a petulant rich girl? Wasn't her only knowledge of him that he was a somewhat arrogant workman in her father's quarry? J

"LPI" makes me think of "Liquid Propane Installation." I picture an old, rusty tank leaking gas into the air. Seems fitting. J

Thanks for the information on Rand's later inclusion of a one-foot aesthetics summary, John. J

Judith: Sorry if I came across as curt. It's been my experience that the overwhelming majority of Objectivists say that they love "romantic realism," but their tastes are actually something I'd call romantic fantasy (and quite often romantic children's fantasy). Blunt, exaggerated heroism (exaggerated to the point of fantasy) seems to be their vision of what "romanticism" means, and that, along with a preference for ethical messages which are compatible with Objectivism, is much more important to them in art than any serious aesthetic considerations (such as depth, the presentation of complex, adult dilemmas, quality of artistry, etc.). To them, the romance part of Rand's formulation trumps the realism part, and ethical judgements trump aesthetic ones. To get to the point, I suspect that, to many Objectivists, art is often little more than propaganda which to rally behind or oppose because they believe that "romantic realism" is the standing-on-one-foot essense of Rand's aesthetics -- they falsely believe that Rand proved that romantic realism is the best art, and, therefore, they have reduced themselves to judging art ethically as opposed to aesthetically. J

I watched Sydney Pollock's documentary Sketches of Frank Gehry last night, and loved it. There's quite a lot of Howard Roark in Gehry. J

Judith: Rand said nothing of aesthetics while presenting her philosophy on one foot, and I don't think that she would have identified "romantic realism" as the essence of her aesthetic theory (she believed that art could be judged as good, or even great, whether one agreed with it or not, enjoyed it or not, and whether it was "romantic realism" or not). J

Congrats, lovebirds. J

I looked on http://www.solopasion.com/ but couldn't find any threads about NB's website.

Thank you! J