Jonathan

Hilarious, Victor. I love the diaper. But where is his trusty evil-fighting weapon, his golden, super-pomposity-powered air conducting baton? J

Thank you, Ellen. And welcome home! I look forward to any tales (and photos) of your travels that you'd be willing to share with us. J

Rich: Imagine a radically original artistic genius, a real-life Howard Roark or Richard Halley, working on commission for a committee made up of Objectivists. Is it your impression that his masterly independent vision would be respected by the committee, or would he receive considerably more demands and advice on how to "improve" his creation than what Roark received in The Fountainhead? J

"I do hope you were able to see in your mind's eye my tongue planted very firmly in my cheek..." Yup, that's how I saw it. I just thought I'd give a serious answer along with the "good Objectivist" one. J

Hey, Christian! J

According to Peikoff's theory of moral lying, if I were having an affair with a married woman, might it be morally acceptable for me to lie to her if I felt that she was being a "snooper" about my feelings for other women? And how would we know if the story that Frank O'Connor used rows of empty booze bottles to mix artist's paints isn't an example of a moral Peikovian response to "snoopers"? J

Barbara wrote: Thanks for your understanding. As I said in my post which started this thread, I think I've been ~applying~ Objectivism to the discussions on RoR that I've participated in. A common theme among my posts over the years on SOLOYahoo/SOLOHQ/RoR has been to oppose Objectivists judging the psychological health, moral character, and "sense of life" of people based on the art that they create or find value in. If certain Objectivists see a work as glorifying something negative, like, say, hopelessness and failure, they refuse to listen to the reasons behind why others see it differently, and then claim that those people believe that hopelessness and failure are the nature of existence. A good example is my recent discussion with Joe Rowlands on Marc Quinn's sculpture of Alison Lapper: http://rebirthofreason.com/Forum/NewsDiscussions/1397.shtml Joe ignored my explanations of what I see and value in the sculpture, and tried to assign me ~his~ view of what the sculpture represents -- he sees it as saying that mankind is horrible, deformed and inadequate, and insists that deformity is therefore ~my view of existence~ despite my statements to the contrary. He believes that he can detect my metaphysical values based on ~his~ view of the sculpture, and then label me "anti-Objectivist." Kat wrote: Thank you, Kat. I agree, and I'd add that I don't expect others, including Joe Rowlands, to share my evaluations of works of art. I think Joe's methods of interpretation are shallow and sloppy, but he has the right to see a work of art any way he wants. What I ~do~ take serious issue with is his (and other Objectivists') desire to tell me, others, and, often, the culture in general what ~we~ think is "metaphysically significant" based on the art that we like, in spite of -- in denial of -- the reasons that we give for liking it. I suppose if I were to say that I like sauerkraut because it tastes good, Joe would tell me that since he thinks it tastes bad, I'm opposed to all culinary values and that I know deep in my heart that it actually tastes bad. Rich wrote: Exactly. A work of art isn't something to be contemplated, enjoyed and shared with others. It's something to be condemned as part of today's lesson in proper Objectivism. When someone has a different interpretation, the idea isn't to listen to their reasons, but to divine their "true" feelings and assign them a metaphysical point of view. I prefer Eric Johnson, Eddie Van Halen, Stevie Ray Vaughan and Leo Kottke, therefore you're an anti-life, death-worshiping pomo. Hey, I think I'm getting the hang of this "good Objectivist" thing! MSK wrote: Thank you very much, Michael, I really appreciate that. It means a lot coming from a first-hand mind like yours. OL is a place where I feel very much at home largely due to the fact that you encourage independent thinking. And more than that, you're one of the rare breed which seems to have no qualms at all about recognizing and publicly admitting when you're wrong, or that you don't yet have an answer to a difficult problem. In other words, you're wonderfully "anti-Objectivist." Renegade bastard. Yeah, we've had our differences, but I think they've pretty much been at least civil. I remember that you once groaned about one of my attempts and a little lighthearted humor and perhaps mistook it as completely vicious smart-assery, but we both got over it quickly and were back to friendly discussions in no time. I'm glad you enjoyed the cannibalism bit. :-) Dragonfly wrote: Thank you. I may take your advice and write an article based on those posts. I think it might be interesting to expand on the theme and explore some other examples of Objectivists' interpretations as well as the consequences of some of their theories. One example: Kamhi and Torres believe that Gerhard Richter's work is not art because he often uses photographic reference as his primary souce material. Their view is that he doesn't recreate ~reality~ but recreates ~images of reality~. What implications does that have for a lot of Vermeer's work, which was created using a camera obscura? Shouldn't Kamhi and Torres categorize Vermeer's work as non-art since he traced ~images of reality~ from a projection? Btw, you probably haven't read ~all~ of my posts on SOLOHQ/RoR since I was posting there before individual user accounts had been established. Back then I think I posted under a variety of names -- Jonathan, Jon, JR, JS, JRS, Anonymous User (or whatever the default may have been), etc. But the flavor of those old posts was pretty much the same as what you've read. MSK's assignment: I adopt my own appraisal, and I think that each viewer should do the same. My view has been that a person should consider the evidence contained in the work and any relevant historical, mythological or other "outside considerations" (as Rand called them) to which the art refers. (As Kamhi and Torres have observed, visual art has a long history of making extra-pictorial references. Such information shouldn't be dismissed or avoided just because Objectivists might want to apply Rand's theories of literature to visual art.) All of the information should be considered as a whole. Vital aspects of it shouldn't be ignored or contradicted in the way that Rand ignored, or for some reason wasn't able to see, the obvious visual information in Vermeer's work, or in the way that Joe Rowlands imagines that Marc Quinn's sculpture of Alison Lapper shows suffering and misery when it doesn't. The viewer should then contemplate his or her response to the art. But, then again, that's the view that I've held as an evil, pomo, anti-Objectivist dissenter, so obviously that's the wrong answer. So, to try to answer your question correctly, Michael, I guess I'd have to say that a good Objectivist would parrot Joe's views, because Rand is dead and can no longer tell us her opinion, and, therefore, can't be in charge of the Objectivist Department of Divining Other People's Senses of Life Based on the Art That They Like. That's now Joe's job. J

Thanks, all, for the comments and compliments. I'm tight for time right now but will post some thoughts when I get some free time in the next few days. And I'll do my "assignment," Michael. J

MSK: But I don't want to fit in with evil renegades like you, Michael. I want good, clean, proper Objectivists like Joe Rowlands to like and accept me. I want to learn to be just like them. I want to help change the world by figuring out how to condemn the right art (or should I say the wrong non-art?), and I don't want to just mimic and agree with Joe's opinions without actually believing them. I want to learn the principles which guide him in exempting himself from following Rand's theories and requirements for judging art while claiming that those who disagree with him are anti-Objectivist dissenters. (All of that still sounds like a contradiction to me, but that's probably because I'm still being controlled by the evil within me. Once I learn to more effectively fight my evil thoughts, I'll probably understand how not applying Objectivism is good Objectivism.) Perhaps a good first step would be for me to stop studying art and art history since there seems to be a strong correlation between lack of knowledge about art and having correct Objectivist opinions about it. The less I know the better. J

Victor: But I've already tried an independent orientation to reality, and look where it got me -- dissenter moderation!!! So, no, don't try to trick me into remaining evil, Victor. Independent thinking is just the type of thing that I should not be doing. It's "anti-Objectivist" according to the policies of Joe Rowlands and his staff at RoR. J

I, too, look forward to the discussions that an OL music section might generate. But, actually, I'd much rather hear the original music created by members here. I've heard Roger's work and think he's amazingly talented. Any chance that some of you other pros will post clips? J

To dissent is to disagree, and I've written a hell of a lot of posts in which I've disagreed with Objectivists. So it's accurate to call me a dissenter in that context. But there's more to my being officially labeled a dissenter by the staff of RoR last week. The purpose of applying the term to me, and to limiting my freedom to post, is to imply that my views aren't just disagreements with Objectivists, but that they are ~disagreements with Objectivism~. It's a chicken shit way of tainting all arguments in favor of one side before the arguments have taken place. Its purpose is to say, "Everything we say is representative of Objectivism, even if it's wrong. Everything you say is dissent, especially if you are right and have been effectively and consistently applying Objectivism to our erroneous opinions." The reason that I've been tagged a "dissenter" is that I've embarrassed people like Joe Rowlands by implementing Objectivism -- reason, logic, objectivity -- better than they have. I've committed the crime of challenging some of their rather silly evaluations of art which they've assumed are the default Objectivist positions. At least that's the way that I've been looking at the issue. But I want to be a good Objectivist. So I'm willing to reconsider my position. I'm eager to question my own ways of thinking and seriously ponder the admonishments of Objectivism's self-appointed spokesmen. When people like Lindsay Perigo, Joe Rowlands and their pals have attacked art which represents heroism, rational defiance, deep contemplation, justice, liberty and other virtues and values, I've thought that I was applying Objectivism's methods when defending the art. I've thought that I've been quite effective in using reason and providing objective evidence where my opponents have been relying on little more than their shallow, subjective reactions to the art. I've thought that I've been quite Objectivist when demanding that Objectivism's self-appointed spokesmen equally and consistently apply Rand's requirement that if a work of art "does not present an intelligible subject, it ceases to be art" to ~all~ art forms and works of art. I've thought that I've been ideally Objectivist in expecting that my opponents' aesthetic evaluations should meet Rand's requirements of ~objective~ aesthetic judgment by identifying "the artist's theme, the abstract meaning of his work (exclusively by identifying the evidence contained in the work and allowing no other, outside considerations)." Apparently I was wrong, but I need help in understanding why. I can't grasp the principle behind the view that it is "pro-Objectivist" for Objectivism's self-appointed spokesmen to attack heroic art, but it is "anti-Objectivist" or "dissent" for me to defend it. If ~I~ were to attack heroic works of art based on the type of arguments that Objectivism's spokesmen have used, it would be considered further proof of my evil, anti-Objectivist ways. So I'm totally at a loss to understand any of it. Could someone please explain, in simple terms that I might understand, the proper Objectivist principles of aesthetic interpretation, why Objectivism's self-appointed spokesmen are exempt from following Rand's requirements, and why I am "anti-Objectivist" and a "dissenter" for demanding that Objectivists adhere to Rand's guidelines? J

Good work, Robert. I'm especially looking forward to Hsieh relaying your views to Andy Bernstein and asking him (and, hell, why she's at it, all ARIans) to grant Sciabarra permission to publicly release their private correspondence with him. J

Ethan: It was the only criterion that you mentioned, at least as far as I've seen. Now you're saying that there were other criteria as well? Ethan: OK, Ethan, I apologize for shooting the messenger. Sorry for the confusion. I now understand that you were relaying the information that the "immune to argument" comment may or may not have applied to me, and that I may or may not have been placed in Dissent for other, yet to be named criteria. Please get back to me when you can relay some solid information, and then maybe we'll chat about my Objectivist church comment. J

Ethan: Yes, please do. Either that or retract your statement that I am "immune to the arguments of others." You should worry about your own baseless insults. Without evidence, you've accused me of being immune to the arguments of others. Once you've either retracted and apologized for the statement or demonstrated its truth, we can discuss whether or not my speculation about Joe wanting RoR to be something of an Objectivist church is a baseless insult. J

Thank you, Michael. That's very nice to hear. I enjoy being here and I'm glad that I've brought some value in return. J

I agree with others here that Joe has the right to do whatever he wants with his own site. Personally, with me all he had to do was ask that I not post on RoR with the type of questions or comments that challenge his beliefs and upset him, or that I no longer post at all. He apparently wants RoR to be something of an Objectivist church, a place where O'ists can congregate and praise the good Word of Rand. That's fine with me. He can do whatever he wants with his site. Since he's saying that he was considering moderation or banishment for those of us whom he classifies as dirty dog dissenters, I'll comply with his wishes and refrain from posting on RoR. Having said that, I did think that Ethan's comment here was ridiculous. In fact, if he'd like to return, I'd love it if he would point out in which ways I've been "immune to the arguments of others" (I'd like him to offer an actual argument to support that assertion). I'd seriously like him to explain which devastatingly rational points I've missed in my many conversations on the SOLOHQ/RoR site over the years. Was it my views on Vermeer, the intelligibility of music and architecture, or the meaning of AC/DC's You Shook Me All Night Long which revealed that I was immune to the arguments of others? Was it my comments on The Cremaster Cycle, Goya's rebelliousness or the meaning of Marc Quinn's work? Or what? Please explain, Ethan. I'd like to become a better thinker. Btw, MSK and Kat, if my presence here ever upsets you, please don't go to the trouble of writing or buying new software which routes me into a different category without warning. If the rules change, or if I've somehow overstepped the old ones, please just say so. If at some point you feel that you need to ask me to leave, I'll leave. J

Hey, I've been tagged as a Dissenter on RoR as well. Ethan Dawe wrote, Christ. What a joke. Joe Rowlands has been immune to ~my~ arguments. You know, in Objectivist discussions on art I often feel like I'm in that moment from Annie Hall when Woody Allen's character is waiting in line to see a film. Some know-it-all in line is yapping to his date about the writings of Marshall McLuhan. Allen's character finally gets sick of the pompous twit and pulls McLuhan out from behind a post. McLuhan tells the twit that he knows nothing about his work. The only difference is that when I "pull a McLuhan" -- when I provide extensive quotes from the artists themselves -- Objectivists like Joe deny reality and keep asserting that they're right. They sometimes even go so far as to insist that the artist is wrong about his own work, that they know his real intentions and the real meaning of his work better than he does. It's embarrassing. What would I have to do to lose my Dissenter stigma on RoR? Would I have to disregard my own experiences and knowledge of art, and mindlessly agree with Joe's rather shallow interpretations? How about if I just admit that Rand was right after all, and confess that the characters in Vermeer's paintings are not shown as pursuing or achieving values? Could I then post freely again on RoR? (Actually, I'm confused now about one of the first acts of alleged evil that I committed in an Objectivist forum and for which I might apologize in order to redeem myself. I had defended Goya against Objectivists' charges that he was anti-reason and anti-life for having painted images of cannibalism (among other things). My opponents' position was that Goya was in favor of such horrors and should be condemned accordingly. Now how do I apologize for disagreeing with Objectivists about Goya when many of them on RoR now appear to believe that cannibalism is an Objectivist virtue? I'm really lost on this one. Someone please help.) Thanks, J

Victor: Yes they are. Read Richter and Tansey's articles and interviews on the subjects of their paintings, processes, the ideas behind their art, their philosophical, aesthetic and cultural influences, etc. Read what Arthur Danto, Robert Storr, Mark C. Taylor, H. W. Janson, Anthony F. Janson and Edward Lucie-Smith have written about Richter, Tansey and postmodern painting (as well as what they've written about many other postmodernist artists who use figuration and representation in their work). Victor, Apparently I've confused you with my minor, parenthetical comment about Objectivists appropriating Rand's art. When I wrote that some of ~Bryan Larsen's~ works “would not be seen by postmodernists as diminished or illegitimate," I was referring only to ~Bryan Larsen's~ art, not to art created by Richter and Tansey (that's not to say that postmodernists would see Richter and Tansey's work as diminished or illegitimate; I was simply not referring to them or their art in my comments about romantic realists who appropriate Rand's art). I was speaking colloquially when I used the term "perfectly postmodern" when referring to ~Bryan Larsen's~ art. I was ~not~ speaking colloquially when referring to Richter and Tansey's art as postmodernist. Richter and Tansey's art is postmodernist. Victor: My point was simply that all postmodernism and modernism can't be lumped together as you had claimed. Postmodernist art is not what you've assumed it to be. J

Here are the messages that I had posted on this thread, along with an additional one that I was about to post right before OL went down: ----- Victor: A few of my favorite postmodernist paintings: http://static.flickr.com/65/196857433_1700d79b51_o.jpg http://static.flickr.com/71/196857435_f77340eb23_o.jpg http://static.flickr.com/71/196857436_010c1ccf26_o.jpg http://static.flickr.com/74/196857437_7232f8d7aa_o.jpg http://static.flickr.com/75/196857439_bacaa071ac_o.jpg http://static.flickr.com/67/196857441_bd1a8d139d_o.jpg J ----- Victor: Why the use of scare quotes, Victor? The paintings that I posted were created by very successful, prominent artists who come from postmodernist philosophical perspectives. They create art to explore and express postmodernist ideas, they're respected in the artworld, and have had significant influence over it for decades. Why would their art not be considered as representative of postmodernism? Victor: I agree. "Postmodern" does not equal "nonfigurative," "nonrepresentational," or "lack of skill." J ----- From Victor's outline: Victor, In light of what you've recently written in the articles section ("Humor, Satire and Caricature in visual Art: It’s a serious matter"), I think the caricature artist in your novel could be the most interesting character, in that the classical painters and their fans in the story, if they were anything like those in reality, would look down their noses at him for not being a "real" artist, and most of them would claim that his attempt to elevate his work to the status of fine art is the type of thing that is responsible for the modern degradation of art. And, ironically, the story's postmodernist painters (including those who paint in much more refined and traditional styles than the caricaturist) and their fans would be the ones recognizing the legitimacy of the caricaturist's work despite the fact that he looks down his nose at them, their art, and the ideological views which led them to recognize the legitimacy of his work. Interesting conflict, no? J ----- Victor: Postmodern artists' views vary widely, so it can be difficult to identify what they have in common. But, in general, most whom I've met or read about see postmodernism as opposing the constraints of modernism. They reject the idea of rejecting previous artistic styles and concepts simply because they have already been explored and expressed -- postmodernists often mock the aggression of the Avant Garde: the notion of creation being driven more by novelty than by authentic self-expression. (Btw, I suspect that to many postmodernists, the fact that certain romantic realists appropriate the style, characters or themes of Rand's novels and put their own twists on them would be seen as perfectly postmodern). In my experience, it's rare to find a contemporary self-described postmodernist painter who doesn't deal in figuration and representation, and, like the caricaturist in your novel, they don't see parody, wit, skepticism and cynicism as lesser forms of expression. Victor: The artists are Gerhard Richter and Mark Tansey. In exploring their work and ideas, you'll find much to disagree with, but hopefully you'll also discover some of their brilliance. I'm guessing that you'll especially identify with and enjoy Tansey's wicked sense of humor. J ----- Victor: No. I was thinking more along the lines of some of Bryan Larsen's art, and I wasn't implying that his work is postmodernism in action, but that postmodernists I've known would not see its legitimacy or authenticity as diminished. J ----- New post: Victor wrote, Apparently I was writing a bit too colloquially; by "perfectly postmodern," I simply meant that an artist's work would not be seen by postmodernists as diminished or illegitimate, much in the same way that Objectivists might use casual language in saying that a movie they've seen is "totally Objectivist" when what they actually mean is that it is consonant with Objectivist views even though it wasn't necessarily intended to be. J

It's great to see OL back in action. Thanks for the hard work, Kat and MSK. J P.S. As for the look of the place, I think OL should stay within the established aesthetics of Objectivist forum graphics:

Barbara wrote, "Too many Objectivists become arid pedants, forgetting that what draws people to Rand -- and what drew them -- is her presentation of the human potential, of the unlimited and joyous possibilities available to men -- and to them." It's not just Objectivists who sometimes seem to forget what drew them to Rand. I've known a few people who first loved Rand's novels, then became interested in learning more about Objectivist philosophy and began exploring the nonfiction (and, in one case, the online communities), disliked a lot of what they saw, and then years later ended up with some pretty tainted memories of what the novels had meant to them. A couple of them took my suggestion to go back for a second reading and found themselves once again enchanted. J

Barbara: It's been a long time since I've read Atlas Shrugged, but weren't there some pretty adventurous children in the novel who spent their summers exploring, taking a few exciting risks, learning about how things worked and discovering their own amazing abilities? I think some of Rand's criticism of other artists, which could be harsh, unfair, and, occasionally, rather foolish, tends to invite similar criticism of her work. That may explain part of it. I also think that the powerful philosophical content can overshadow the joy contained in her work. I've known people who have started to think deeply about the big ideas in her novels and have then pretty quickly forgotten the excitement and inspiration in the stories. They start to treat every detail of the novels as philosophical issues to be examined. I've suggested that they go back and read the books again as ~art~ to refresh their memories. When they rediscover the art, as opposed to just the philosophy, their criticisms tend to disappear. J

I wasn't necessarily thinking that Perigo would express rage on the spot, but, since he believes that his rage is praiseworthy, I was expecting him to at least flesh out his position with examples by proudly quoting from some of his nastiest past temper tantrums. I wonder why it didn't occur to him to use such an obvious and effective means of informing the bookstore's customers of the exact nature of the behavior that he believes is an Objectivist virtue. J