WilliamHalley

First, I want to thank everyone for their comments. I find Romantic Realism very appealing, but the philosophical foundations of how she saw art remain unclear to me. I think she didn't explain it as clearly as her ideas in other areas. I am very curious to hear their arguments and reasoning for Rand's view of art. The fact that he has something to show (his art) doesn't mean he finds it important. What if a novelist just wants to tell a fun story and chooses a subject because it makes for good drama, but doesn't think it's important in wider existence? Isn't the purpose of a novelist not to create an interesting story, not to 'show his world'? I also don't know of anyone who looks out novels or movies to 'see his world'. I could be wrong, but I'm trying to find an explanation of why this would be the case. In the RM she writes that the sense of life is what steers the artists decisions. In the art of Fiction she also stated that you should create with subconscious and then afterwards critique it with reason. But if you define art as a re-creation of reality, you still can't classify it as art.

I have been studying the Romantic Manifesto and trying to really understand it completely. However there are some aspects that mystify me. I was hoping someone would be interested to discuss these points and spread their rationality by pointing out what I am missing. I have tried getting answers to these questions elsewhere without any luck so I'm trying here. 1. THE ARTIST 1.1) According to Rand an artist portrays what he considers metaphysically essential to make a new concrete that shows the abstraction. Do artists really always do this? Isn't it imaginable that an artist would portray something inessential. What if a novelist were to write about someone going to the bathroom because it's necessary for the story or some other reason? Or what is a painter was forced to paint an insect by a pope. It seems perfectly possible to create metaphysically inessential things in art. 1.2) Rand writes that the purpose of artists is to bring their view of man and existence into reality. I can't say I have ever heard an artist say this was their goal. How do you know the artist didn't just want to paint a pretty picture or write a fun novel? 2. THE AUDIENCE Rand writes that people seek works of art because they have a need to see their view of existence confirmed and see his values concretized. I have never heard anyone say, "Let's go to the cinema, I really need some concretes today!" Don't people engage with art because of fun or beauty? Rand herself wrote in the same book: "I read for the sake of the story" (156) 3. STYLE 3.1) On page 25, she writes that all the decisions of the artist are controlled by his sense of life. Didn't Rand write in various places that "Form follows purpose" and that the artist should make all his decisions based on the theme and purpose of the work? Shouldn't you rationally think about your choices instead of letting your emotions take control? This makes it sound like an artist is just a robot following its sense of life programming to create art. 3.2) She also wrote that a art style that is blurry will move people who are motivated by the fog of his feelings. Isn't it imaginable because of the same "Form follows purpose" rule that an artist would want to express chaos or a moment of confusion and therefore paint a blurry picture or write a confused sentence or film a blurry shot? 4. ETHICS Here I am just confused. Rand wrote that the focus of art is on metaphysics not ethics, but she also says that an artwork necessarily projects a message and metaphysical judgment. So the metaphysical value judgments are not ethics, but aren't the metaphysical value judgments also value prescriptions for the viewer? Doesn't that mean it's ethics? Are there two different messages? A metaphysical one (what should a man be) and a ethical one (the theme or message)?