"Romanticist Art" Is Not The Essence Of The Objectivist Esthetics

[anthony]

Busted! Got me.

Somebody had to find out. Naturally, I found accord with Rand's literature, seeing as I share her malevolent universe premise!

(But how did I recognize it, seeing as we can't know such things..? Huh.)

You must have missed where I said Romanticism is made of sterner stuff; no blushing violet is it.

It must pertain to reality to have any thrust. Guess what, in reality people sometimes suffer and always die.

But further:

How do we avoid suffering, how do we deal with it, and does suffering and mortality define man's life?

Take a look at this passage:

"She smiled. She knew she was dying. But it did not matter any longer. She had known something which no human words could tell and she knew it now. She had been awaiting it and she felt it, as if it had been, as if she had lived it.

Life had been,if only because she had known it could be, and she felt it now as a hymn without sound, deep under the little hole that dripped red drops into the snow, deeper than that from which the red drops came. A moment or an eternity - did it matter?

Life, undefeated, existed and could exist.

She smiled, her last smile, to so much that had been possible."

===========

Here is the young death of a central character (clear-eyed Kira is one of my two favorites in Rand's fiction) but ~almost~ contradictorily, an affirmation of life too.

It took her death, in fact, to achieve that target - in Rand's intent, I think.

I think there's a special trick to appreciating Romanticism - fiction especially- and that is to read with double vision: at the level of explicit reality (actions by the protagonists, and so on) AND at the level of metaphysical abstraction both together.

Actually, your "special trick to appreciating Romanticism" is to arbitrarily ignore any aspects of a work of art which don't support your predetermined judgment of it and its creator.

Go one way, and it falls into the hole of dull 'literalism' - like following a text-book, you recall I argued with an ultra-literalist on O.O - and going the other, becomes airy-fairy rationalism. (So bad boy Roark is an individual-rights transgressing fraud whom Rand should have had locked up because Rand told us that you must never initiate force.Blah-blah.)

Its about the IS and the OUGHT, that Romanticism bridges. Also about the life of one man and equally life of all men ever.

J., I assume you do not see the same metaphysical values as me in WtL?

Happy endings are not indicative of Romaticism, so long as the character's life was purposeful and their own.

Wrong. Objectivism's view is that there are false versions of Romanticism. They include tragic endings. They mean that the artist's view of existence is that man possesses volition only in regard to consciousness, but not in regard to existence -- in regard to his own character and value choices but not in regard of the possibility of achieving his goals in reality. Heroic characters who experience tragic endings represent, according to Objectivism, the artist's belief that man must lead a heroic life and fight for his values even though he is doomed to defeat by a malevolent fate over which he has no control.

That is the view presented in We The Living. From a truly benevolent universe point of view, there was no legitimate reason for Kira's death. There's no good reason that she couldn't have successfully escaped to freedom and lived.

The better known AS has such a finale, in the second-last sentence Rand ever wrote in fiction: "The road is cleared", said Galt. "We are going back to the world".

Why are you talking about Atlas Shrugged? Just as you've decided to selectively and arbitrarily ignore any of Shakespeare's works which don't support your silly, predetermined judgments of his sense of life and metaphysical value-judgments, I'm ignoring certain works by Rand. Her true sense of life and metaphysical value-judgments are in We The Living and The Fountainhead. Come on, Tony, try to pay attention. I'm using your method of detecting metaphysical value-judgments, so don't bring up stuff that is irrelevant to your method.

J

Actually, you also have a "special trick" of winkling out the apparent self-contradictions, claiming they are central to Rand's theory, then "showing" how she didn't know her own metaphysical value-judgments(!) - even though they are clear throughout her philosophy, and openly illustrated in her fiction - and then lambasting Objectivists for not knowing what Romanticism IS.

Half the time, you criticise AR for unsubstantiated, sweeping assertions. The other half, Oists get it in the neck for not interpreting the self-same 'assertions' properly (by your lights). Which is it to be?

There is no mention by Rand of including "tragic endings" in the volition-dichotomy she describes, which you apparently referred to.

(What is Romanticism?, pp108,109):

"On this level, there emerges a class of writers whose basic premise is, in effect, that man possesses volition ~in regard to existence, but not to consciousness~, i.e. in regard to his physical actions, but not in regard to his own character."

[she calls this writing "unconvincing". And,"they lead to a total breach between action and characterization". "The stories are Romantic, the characters Naturalistic."]

Then, the other side of the dichotomy:

"...there are Romanticists whose basic premise ..is that man possesses volition ~in regard to consciousness, but not

to existence~, i.e., in regard to his own character and choice of values, but not in regard to the possibility of achieving his goals

in the physical world...[characterized by] grand-scale themes and characters, no plots, and an overwhelming sense of tragedy, the sense of a "malevolent universe".

This is the passage you refer to above, and I don't see any where she called these "false versions of Romanticism" - though I may agree with what appears your own appellation, or more like "quasi versions".

But where did she equate "tragic endings" with a malevolent universe premise? I don't consider such endings (within context) as having "an overwhelming sense of tragedy", and apparently nor did Rand. It is still your contention, not hers; it fits your 'narrative', perhaps.

The question I ask you is, do you view We The Living as having an "overwhelming sense of tragedy, the sense of a malevolent

universe...???

Considering the full entirety of the novel - plot, character, theme, ending, and all?

"Life undefeated, existed, and could exist". What do you make of this?

Where, in other words, do you see Rand contradicting herself? Was she wrong in her theory, or wrong in her novel?

Romanticist writing is not fairy tales for children. One has to see the big picture, not only the details.

(Rand's "overwhelming sense of tragedy" fits Shakespeare to a 't'. Apart from his Tragedies, quite apart from his "star-cross'd lovers" - who always died by stupidity and ill-fortune - can anyone show one 'Comedy' that you can crack a smile at or feel happy over? Let alone anywhere he portrayed man as a being of volitional consciousness?)

[Jonathan]

I'd like to describe a couple beauty experiences of a breath-taking sort. I'm wondering how experiences like these would be fit into O'ist ideas of beauty.

One is in process now, just past its most spectacular peak.

Along about half of the back wall of our house there's a row of Azalea bushes. The height is such that a splash of blossoms can be seen across the lower part of the dining room windows. The color is a flame orange, or red with an orange cast, a setting-sun sort of color. It's one of my favorite colors. The back of the house faces South. Thus from dawn to dusk whatever sunlight is shining makes the blossoms glisten and glow and flash with sparks in their depths as if the fire were residing in them.

The dining room can be entered from three directions: a back hallway to one side, the kitchen to the other, or, coming down the stairs from ithe upper floor and turning round the bend from the living room area. Each time I enter from any of those ways during the about two weeks when the blossoms are in full display, I feel a shock of indrawn breath at the sight. I've seen that blossom display many times over the course of the twenty springs we've lived in this house, but it still produces a surprised startle reaction. And then I want to stand there and look for awhile, "feasting" my eyes on the details.

The other experience was the only time I've ever seen the moon (Earth's moon) through a telescope.

This was a year ago spring. I'd gone with Larry to the regional meeting of the AAPT, American Association of Physics Teachers. The place was a private school called the Thayer Academy. The school has a small dome-encased telescope, and a smaller outdoors one. The moon was at half.

After the banquet lecture, a couple of the school's physics faculty members invited those who wanted to go to do some viewing. While some of the people were in the domed structure, a few of us went to look at the moon through the small telescope.

Our host-guide made some remarks as he got the telescope positioned and calibrated. "Astronomers tend to be negative about the moon," he said, "because moonlight interferes with viewing. But I think that anyone who could look at this and not have an 'Ooh!' reaction doesn't have a soul."

I was first up to look, deference to the female in the group, and just after he said 'Ooh,' as he was finishing the sentence, I said with an audible sharp intake of breath, "OOH!"

Everyone laughed, and I said, "It wasn't deliberate. It's amazing!"

The shine, the size, the clarity. The edge of the silver glisten was serrated in stretches so that one could tell it was falling across mountain ranges. Just an amazing sight.

I don't see, however, how "harmony" could be enlisted to explain these reactions. Or another of the type, which I suppose most everyone has experienced: the indrawn-breath "Ooh!" at certain bursts in a fireworks display.

Ellen

Right. "Harmony" can pertain to some instances of beauty, but not to all. Harmony is not beauty's "essence."

J

[ginny]

J, isn't one's own emotional response a part of what we find beautiful. Take the infamous Piers Morgan. When he was a judge on that talent show, I was seriously crushing. The man was beautiful and his accent sheer magnetism! Then got his own show and opened his mouth for real. Now, I find him about as attractive as my old smelly sneakers. What makes us respond, btw, is a different story.

[Jonathan]

Actually, you also have a "special trick" of winkling out the apparent self-contradictions, claiming they are central to Rand's theory, then "showing" how she didn't know her own metaphysical value-judgments(!) - even though they are clear throughout her philosophy...

In judging art by Rand's proposed objective method, we are not to bring in any "outside considerations." We are not to consider what we know of her philosophy from sources outside of the work of art in question.

I've often researched artists whom Objectivists have accused of having nasty views of mankind and of existence (including Shakespeare), by reading interviews, essays and other works outside of their art, only to be told that those outside sources have no relevance to judging the art, and that the art itself reveals what and who those artists really are, and what their art means. Therefore Rand must be judged the same way.

...and openly illustrated in her fiction - and then lambasting Objectivists for not knowing what Romanticism IS.

I don't recall lambasting Objectivists for not knowing what Romanticism is. I've only lambasted them for falsely asserting that it is the essence of the Objectivist Esthetics. They usually know that, in Rand's view, Romanticism presents man as heroic, volitional, and as capable of achieving his goals. They know what it is. They just don't know what the essence of the Objectivist Esthetics is. When presented with the fact that Objectivism holds that a work of Romantic art can be judged to be bad and that a work of Naturalism can be judged to be great, they go into mental freeze.

Half the time, you criticise AR for unsubstantiated, sweeping assertions. The other half, Oists get it in the neck for not interpreting the self-same 'assertions' properly (by your lights). Which is it to be?

Both. Rand made unsubstantiated, sweeping assertions, and her followers can be quite bad at interpreting those assertions. Have you seen my comments about some of the moderators over at OO? They can be so dense as to take a statement like "Is photography art? The answer is: No" to mean "Yes, lots of photos are art, but not all."

You're another example. Despite what Rand said about not being able to identify others' senses of life, you think that you can. Like a lot of Objectivists, you've ignored Rand's commandment that you're not on her level, and you've promoted yourself to it.

Where, in other words, do you see Rand contradicting herself? Was she wrong in her theory, or wrong in her novel?

She was wrong, like you are, to announce that she had identified the true meanings of works of art, as well as the artists' senses of life and metaphysical value-judgments.

Like Rand and a lot of other Objectivish-types, you've got some heavy-duty blindnesses and aesthetic deficiencies where you image competency. One more element of proof of this is the great difficulty that you appear to be having grasping my very transparent position. You don't pick up on sarcasm and irony too quickly.

(Rand's "overwhelming sense of tragedy" fits Shakespeare to a 't'. Apart from his Tragedies, quite apart from his "star-cross'd lovers" - who always died by stupidity and ill-fortune - can anyone show one 'Comedy' that you can crack a smile at or feel happy over? Let alone anywhere he portrayed man as a being of volitional consciousness?)

Much Ado About Nothing.

Actually, it sounds as if you're asking me to identify a Shakespearean comedy which makes YOU feel happy all over. Is that the objective standard for determining metaphysical value-judgments? Your feelings?

J

[Jonathan]

J, isn't one's own emotional response a part of what we find beautiful. Take the infamous Piers Morgan. When he was a judge on that talent show, I was seriously crushing. The man was beautiful and his accent sheer magnetism! Then got his own show and opened his mouth for real. Now, I find him about as attractive as my old smelly sneakers. What makes us respond, btw, is a different story.

I think that there are a lot of parts of our judgments of beauty that we'll never understand.

J

[anthony]

Actually, you also have a "special trick" of winkling out the apparent self-contradictions, claiming they are central to Rand's theory, then "showing" how she didn't know her own metaphysical value-judgments(!) - even though they are clear throughout her philosophy...

In judging art by Rand's proposed objective method, we are not to bring in any "outside considerations." We are not to consider what we know of her philosophy from sources outside of the work of art in question.

I've often researched artists whom Objectivists have accused of having nasty views of mankind and of existence (including Shakespeare), by reading interviews, essays and other works outside of their art, only to be told that those outside sources have no relevance to judging the art, and that the art itself reveals what and who those artists really are, and what their art means. Therefore Rand must be judged the same way.

...and openly illustrated in her fiction - and then lambasting Objectivists for not knowing what Romanticism IS.

I don't recall lambasting Objectivists for not knowing what Romanticism is. I've only lambasted them for falsely asserting that it is the essence of the Objectivist Esthetics. They usually know that, in Rand's view, Romanticism presents man as heroic, volitional, and as capable of achieving his goals. They know what it is. They just don't know what the essence of the Objectivist Esthetics is. When presented with the fact that Objectivism holds that a work of Romantic art can be judged to be bad and that a work of Naturalism can be judged to be great, they go into mental freeze.

Half the time, you criticise AR for unsubstantiated, sweeping assertions. The other half, Oists get it in the neck for not interpreting the self-same 'assertions' properly (by your lights). Which is it to be?

Both. Rand made unsubstantiated, sweeping assertions, and her followers can be quite bad at interpreting those assertions. Have you seen my comments about some of the moderators over at OO? They can be so dense as to take a statement like "Is photography art? The answer is: No" to mean "Yes, lots of photos are art, but not all."

You're another example. Despite what Rand said about not being able to identify others' senses of life, you think that you can. Like a lot of Objectivists, you've ignored Rand's commandment that you're not on her level, and you've promoted yourself to it.

Where, in other words, do you see Rand contradicting herself? Was she wrong in her theory, or wrong in her novel?

She was wrong, like you are, to announce that she had identified the true meanings of works of art, as well as the artists' senses of life and metaphysical value-judgments.

Like Rand and a lot of other Objectivish-types, you've got some heavy-duty blindnesses and aesthetic deficiencies where you image competency. One more element of proof of this is the great difficulty that you appear to be having grasping my very transparent position. You don't pick up on sarcasm and irony too quickly.

(Rand's "overwhelming sense of tragedy" fits Shakespeare to a 't'. Apart from his Tragedies, quite apart from his "star-cross'd lovers" - who always died by stupidity and ill-fortune - can anyone show one 'Comedy' that you can crack a smile at or feel happy over? Let alone anywhere he portrayed man as a being of volitional consciousness?)

Much Ado About Nothing.

Actually, it sounds as if you're asking me to identify a Shakespearean comedy which makes YOU feel happy all over. Is that the objective standard for determining metaphysical value-judgments? Your feelings?

J

Yeah, OK. I knew I'd stir up some flak with my comment on the Comedies.

They contain amusing word-plays and action, I admit. But rather 'heavily' done in my opinion.

(In Elizabethan terms, a Comedy was anything with a happy ending, which should make you glad!).

My over-all impression of Shakespeare is unchanged.

Thinking of 'over-all' I'm reminded of something quite significant.

Talking of Rand and her "sweeping assertions", one big criticism of her has always been "How the hell does she know that?!" The criticism is then passed on equally to all Objectivists.

The facile answer is that they all just mouth-off her assertions, imitatively. Although they have and do, early on (before making the concepts all their own) there's an error and an injustice, here.

Fact is, Objectivist reason has as two crucial components, induction and deduction. Induction is the one I'm putting forward here - 'a posteriori' - "from effect to cause"- "the general inference from particular instances" - as induction is defined.

I have no doubt that this is the method a practised reader assesses a novel, thereby gaining extra insight into a host of things - one, of course being the metaphysical value-judgments contained in it. "From effect to cause" explains the tracking-back to its metaphysical source, discovering the purpose of that artwork.

Drawing inferences from specifics - "over-all", as I put it - is self-explanatory.

Induction still has to be validated deductively, but if it is, one arrives at a pretty solid conclusion of value-judgments made by the author: which you claim is impossible.

Is this why, Jonathan, it appears you have trouble accepting a. those "sweeping" assertions by Objectivists or Rand? b. that Objectivists can and do elicit their own conclusions separately to Rand, though by the same application of methodology? c. that you believe this to be hubristic by O'ists?

??

Honestly, I have the sense your frustration with Romanticist art, literature and Rand's theory generally, stems largely as a result of implementing "cause to effect" deductive reasoning, primarily.

Having said that, I think you're spot-on with beauty. There may have been a good reason Rand didn't expand too much there. It's of high value to man, subjectively, I believe - and somewhat objectively by what is generally pleasing to most eyes. But it still exists in nature, independently, so what is beautiful to the individual is of worth for him. "Beauty" in all its forms is worthy to man.

[Jonathan]

Yeah, OK. I knew I'd stir up some flak with my comment on the Comedies.

They contain amusing word-plays and action, I admit. But rather 'heavily' done in my opinion.

(In Elizabethan terms, a Comedy was anything with a happy ending, which should make you glad!).

Wow. You're just not getting it. I'm not the one who condemned tragic endings.

I have no doubt that this is the method a practised reader assesses a novel, thereby gaining extra insight into a host of things - one, of course being the metaphysical value-judgments contained in it. "From effect to cause" explains the tracking-back to its metaphysical source, discovering the purpose of that artwork.

How have you objectively verified that your attempts at tracking back to the metaphysical sources have succeeded? Your proposed method for judging artworks is: I have read the novel, and I have interpreted it to have a certain meaning, and therefore it does have that meaning, and in order to have that meaning the person who created it must believe certain things. Your method fails to recognize the possibility that you might err in your attempts to track metaphysical value-judgments through art.

Honestly, I have the sense your frustration with Romanticist art, literature and Rand's theory generally, stems largely as a result of implementing "cause to effect" deductive reasoning, primarily.

Where did you get the idea that I'm frustrated with Romanticist art and literature?! WTF?!!

Having said that, I think you're spot-on with beauty. There may have been a good reason Rand didn't expand too much there. It's of high value to man, subjectively, I believe - and somewhat objectively by what is generally pleasing to most eyes. But it still exists in nature, independently, so what is beautiful to the individual is of worth for him. "Beauty" in all its forms is worthy to man.

I'm glad that you agree that beauty is a subjective value.

I don't agree with you that such subjective values become "somewhat" objective by being generally shared by most people. The number of people who share a taste or opinion doesn't have anything to do with its being objective. Objectivity is a specific process of judgment, not an aggregation of subjective opinions. The statement "2 + 2 = 17" wouldn't become "somewhat objective" if 99% of the population believed it to be true.

J

[Brant Gaede]

If I were a painter I'd paint without thinking about objectivity or sense of life and if my work revealed my sense of life it would be someone else's evaluation and I'd just scratch my head, WTF? I am what I am and it's neither tra la la through the tulips nor a black plague tsunami.

If I were a writer of novels I'd think Rand over-stressed plot and under-stressed character almost to the point of painting by the numbers when she got to her magnum opus AS. She did let one character write itself--the "Wet Nurse"--to her own bewilderment; it just flowed out of her. I do love a great climax and appreciate the proper build up to one. Read Victor Hugo's Ninety Three to see the best combo of character, plot and climax in a novel I've ever read. (I've never read The Man Who Laughs. I tried decades ago but the translation was so blah I couldn't continue plus the deformed hero aspect turned me off. Les Miserables is kind of disjointed. It appears to be several books cobbed together structure-wise. Also, beware [be aware], I'm not a big reader of fiction or really any literary expert.)

Objectivity in art is objective description, not objectivity inside then out. Rand turned herself into an intellectual dead end with being so sure she was so right about what mattered to her. The most important was she was not wrong about the what.)

--Brant

[anthony]

Yeah, OK. I knew I'd stir up some flak with my comment on the Comedies.

They contain amusing word-plays and action, I admit. But rather 'heavily' done in my opinion.

(In Elizabethan terms, a Comedy was anything with a happy ending, which should make you glad!).

Wow. You're just not getting it. I'm not the one who condemned tragic endings.

I have no doubt that this is the method a practised reader assesses a novel, thereby gaining extra insight into a host of things - one, of course being the metaphysical value-judgments contained in it. "From effect to cause" explains the tracking-back to its metaphysical source, discovering the purpose of that artwork.

How have you objectively verified that your attempts at tracking back to the metaphysical sources have succeeded? Your proposed method for judging artworks is: I have read the novel, and I have interpreted it to have a certain meaning, and therefore it does have that meaning, and in order to have that meaning the person who created it must believe certain things. Your method fails to recognize the possibility that you might err in your attempts to track metaphysical value-judgments through art.

Honestly, I have the sense your frustration with Romanticist art, literature and Rand's theory generally, stems largely as a result of implementing "cause to effect" deductive reasoning, primarily.

Where did you get the idea that I'm frustrated with Romanticist art and literature?! WTF?!!

Having said that, I think you're spot-on with beauty. There may have been a good reason Rand didn't expand too much there. It's of high value to man, subjectively, I believe - and somewhat objectively by what is generally pleasing to most eyes. But it still exists in nature, independently, so what is beautiful to the individual is of worth for him. "Beauty" in all its forms is worthy to man.

I'm glad that you agree that beauty is a subjective value.

I don't agree with you that such subjective values become "somewhat" objective by being generally shared by most people. The number of people who share a taste or opinion doesn't have anything to do with its being objective. Objectivity is a specific process of judgment, not an aggregation of subjective opinions. The statement "2 + 2 = 17" wouldn't become "somewhat objective" if 99% of the population believed it to be true.

J

J. Your frustration is apparent when you argue that a reader cannot have, may not have, or rarely has, an idea of what is being imparted to him of the author's metaphysical value-judgments.

If they are that much unknowable - what's the point? Or if one person 'reads' this, another 'reads' that - you have blown away the central premise of Romantic art.

it is not just implicitly that the artist creates "according to [his] metaphysical value-judgments" (man is volitional etc etc, - or not) it's also explicitly, i.e. that he demonstrates those judgments in concrete form.. consciously and selectively, by every choice he makes from selection of subject matter to rendition.

It is, or should be, of value to the "receiver" - who won't find that value, if he is unable to perceive it.

So I'm saying that it's no great shakes to be able to perceive metaphysical value-judgments by any good or great artist:

He wants them to be visible!

I'm afraid you've continually mixed up 'sense of life' with 'mv-j''s, which doesn't help our progress here.

Because I 've regularly claimed to understand a writer's - most particularly a Romanticist's and radical Naturalist's - value-judgments, (as can anyone) is not a claim that I CAN PERCEIVE HIS SENSE OF LIFE. As with psychologizing a person, I might privately make informed guesses - that's all.

A mv-j is a conscious conviction held by the artist, which "confirms or denies the efficacy of man's consciousness, according to whether an art work supports or negates his [the viewer's] own fundamental view of reality"; the other (s.o.l) is "a preconceptual equivalent of metaphysics, an emotional, subconsciously integrated appraisal of man and existence".

"A sense of life is formed by a process of emotional generalization..."[AR]

In the simplest terms, sense of life is a product of what a man deemed as "What is important?" in his life so far - subconsciously - and is the driving motivation to create... while mv-j's appear in the finished content, signifying: "What is good?" .

From far back, I had always basically seen the artist as a person who creates the world again in his own image. Philosophically, this means in regard to his own value-system. To be of value to others - although not necessarily his first ambition - it must be recognizable.

(While looking the definitions up in TRF, I notice Rand validates my earlier induction/deduction hypothesis :

" Speaking metaphorically, the creative process resembles a process of deduction; the viewing process resembles a process of induction."[p.35]

I must have read this once and forgotten it, but either way it's good to see it confirmed.

As an artist, J., it would explain your deductive dominance.

Without induction, we can't track-back the overall value-judgements in a piece of art. Without induction, and volition, in fact, we could not and would not conceptualize, as you know. (And without Romanticist art, the effort of volition would be that much harder and lonely.)

[ginny]

Brant, amen, brother. I shudder at the thought of how many so-called objectivist writers have ruined themselves by trying to create an 'objectivist' world and hero, then becoming paralized. I have to give credit to Peikoff's daughter who is working on her second book without any apparent qualms. Interestingly, she doesn't seem to qualify as an objectivists writer as far as I can tell. GOOD FOR HER!!

[Ellen Stuttle]

I'd estimate the number of writers who ever did, approximately, what Tony describes as 0-1.

AR herself, vaguely, and given that she's badly misusing the terms "deduction" and "induction" in the quote from pg. 35 (I guess TRF was meant to be TRM), post #184.

Ellen

J, I'll get back to the stuff we were talking about, still preoccupied by the O'Connor family.

[anthony]

Brant: My take is, it is not so much that art can be totally objective, but to make it as objectively understood and understandable as is possible.

The alternative is mysticical subjectivism which defies any definitions. It's self-evident there is some art that never fails to uplift and encourage - based on real existence, for real and rational people.

Saying the same thing: the core of Rand's theory is an art that acknowledges we are of volitional consciousness.

That's all and that's what I take home.

ginny: Yes there is a problem - or a "challenge" as they say - for young artists to stay true to their personal voices, after reading Rand's fiction, and her Romanticist theory. I feel sad to see derivative writing or art so imitative of her - let's face it -overwhelming style. (I couldn't even get into The Sword Of Truth, and I can normally read everything and gain some value.)

However, let's be fair, it's not her 'fault' or her doing.

Baby and bathwater, yes? All one can advise a young artist is to move past it, to let their individuality speak

for itself - and actually, not to worry about how their 'metaphysical value-judgments' will be perceived!

[anthony]

I'd estimate the number of writers who ever did, approximately, what Tony describes as 0-1.

AR herself, vaguely, and given that she's badly misusing the terms "deduction" and "induction" in the quote from pg. 35 (I guess TRF was meant to be TRM), post #184.

Ellen

J, I'll get back to the stuff we were talking about, still preoccupied by the O'Connor family.

As I quoted, she did write "Speaking metaphorically..." Ellen.

To my mind, I'd go even further in how the process works, of abstraction to concrete for the artist - then in reverse, for the receiver. It's like a detective scanning for clues - what the artist says and doesn't say, and how he says it, is all relevant to the inductive process to generalize his existential values, and find commonality with one's own premises (or not).

If Rand were the only explicitly Romanticist writer and artist, I'd have had a big problem. As it is, I have managed to find bits and pieces of romantic individualism in many writers and painters. Like most people, artists have mixed premises too. You take the good, and leave the iffy.

[ginny]

WhyNot - no, no,I wasn't blaming AR. Not in the least. I have met writers of the Obj. pursuasion who can really write, but they'll never sell many books. It's a shame. Personally, I have always felt that is what happened to Barbara. Damn, we know the woman can write. Yet she never did any fiction and only one non-fiction. I could be wrong, but truly, don't think so. Oh, I know Barbara sold books; that's not what I meant.

[Ellen Stuttle]

Tony,

I know she said "Speaking metaphorically," but it's no fly even there. Rand's fiction works might be the only ones in the history of literature written with the approach she used, especially Atlas - the approach got more so with each succeeding book.

As for the method indicated for reading a novel, I feel sorrow for the person using it.

Ellen

[Brant Gaede]

Brant: My take is, it is not so much that art can be totally objective, but to make it as objectively understood and understandable as is possible.

The alternative is mysticical subjectivism which defies any definitions. It's self-evident there is some art that never fails to uplift and encourage - based on real existence, for real and rational people.

Saying the same thing: the core of Rand's theory is an art that acknowledges we are of volitional consciousness.

That's all and that's what I take home.

Tony, my take is an esthetician objectifies the subjective preferences of artist and consumer. (Also, technique.) Did they ask for help? Objectivity in art is only objective in so far as it's man qua man, but man qua man is all over the place, not just its place in Objectivism. Man is not "the rational animal." That's her subjective philosophical preference. Man is the conceptual, thinking animal. (The quality of that is all over the map.) That's objective, but qua art, so far, rather trite, regardless of The Thinker or "The role of the mind in human existence." Whether man is a volitional animal or not is irrelevant for he chooses regardless. (His choice is.) That's the determinism debate. Who cares if this art or that art is determined or free-willed? That's a faux battlefield.

The core of Rand's theory of art as you've described it is subjective except, maybe, respecting her (subjective) art.

--Brant

but not mysticical

[anthony]

Brant: My take is, it is not so much that art can be totally objective, but to make it as objectively understood and understandable as is possible.

The alternative is mysticical subjectivism which defies any definitions. It's self-evident there is some art that never fails to uplift and encourage - based on real existence, for real and rational people.

Saying the same thing: the core of Rand's theory is an art that acknowledges we are of volitional consciousness.

That's all and that's what I take home.

Tony, my take is an esthetician objectifies the subjective preferences of artist and consumer. (Also, technique.) Did they ask for help? Objectivity in art is only objective in so far as it's man qua man, but man qua man is all over the place, not just its place in Objectivism. Man is not "the rational animal." That's her subjective philosophical preference. Man is the conceptual, thinking animal. (The quality of that is all over the map.) That's objective, but qua art, so far, rather trite, regardless of The Thinker or "The role of the mind in human existence." Whether man is a volitional animal or not is irrelevant for he chooses regardless. (His choice is.) That's the determinism debate. Who cares if this art or that art is determined or free-willed? That's a faux battlefield.

The core of Rand's theory of art as you've described it is subjective except, maybe, respecting her (subjective) art.

--Brant

but not mysticical

Fair enough. I think there must be hundreds of levels we can enjoy about every conceivable form of art, before reaching the metaphysics, and questions of volitional beings, and so on. Art has impact on places of the consciousness we hardly knew existed. A bright and carefree picture has its worthy place, as does a dark, foreboding novel. We learn something from every good artist, if simply about what we are, and what IS existence. Or merely, what his view is, and compare with it.

As you alluded somewhere, there is hierarchy. I think that one can 'go down' through many levels of (objective) hierarchical values before meeting the genuinely subjective. Often, the error is made that whatever is not of first magnitude of objective significance - has to be subjective!

To study art, is to examine it to its limits of objectivity, first. Then draw normative conclusions, second.

In part, I think of Rand's study as challenging the elitist 'unknowability' of art ("if you have to ask, you wouldn't understand..."); and of removing the mysticism, without removing the mystique.

I'll continue to enthusiastically endorse Rand's core, normative argument: that the attempt by men to become and to remain rational in a confusing world, requires something extra from art. This sort of art provides affirmation that although one has a solitary path in life - fundamentally - it is a valuable endeavor, and the tools are there to achieve it.

If all else is equal at all levels, this is a turbo-charged version of art, and quite rare. But we somehow got presented with the false dichotomy from Rand or by her followers :- either admire this - OR, you have an 'evil sense of life'. Which is guaranteed to turn people off. I don't see how this came about, since such condemnation is not reflected in The Romantic Manifesto.

"Sense of life" is over-rated among many Objectivists, I feel. Especially, when it is being related to moral evaluation. Rand dedicated a lot of explanation to it, and it is clear (to me) she meant it as something akin to a 'metaphysical given'. A man cannot be judged by his younger and subconscious influences. Like a personality, it formed largely on its own. (But character though, is all one's own achievement).

Personally I had/have a pretty bleak sense of life, rooted back in childhood and later: I surmise from my experiences, observations and poor general assessments of existence. ( How many share this, I wonder).

I believe and have seen there IS some changing effect upon sense of life - less, as one ages - as fresh evaluations of existence filter into the subconsciousness... but mostly we just live with it, as not really important.

After all, it's the conscious and deliberate choices that matter infinitely more to the 'metaphysical self-

made' person than all that.

[Brant Gaede]

You can study art. You can study Rand's art. You cannot prescribe art except your own art. Esthetics is not doctoring and artists qua their art are not patients. Artists can read estheticians and benefit thereby (or crash and burn), but would probably benefit more by studying techniques, cutting out the middleman--being their own esthetician.

--Brant

Dr. Branden. I'm an aspiring writer. What should I do to further my writing career? NB: "Write!"

[anthony]

Tony,

I know she said "Speaking metaphorically," but it's no fly even there. Rand's fiction works might be the only ones in the history of literature written with the approach she used, especially Atlas - the approach got more so with each succeeding book.

As for the method indicated for reading a novel, I feel sorrow for the person using it.

Ellen

Ellen, "Sorrow"? Why "sorrow"? I find it hard to accept that you'd only take the superficial and explicit from a work of art, without wanting to squeeze every last drop from it.

[Ellen Stuttle]

Tony,

I know she said "Speaking metaphorically," but it's no fly even there. Rand's fiction works might be the only ones in the history of literature written with the approach she used, especially Atlas - the approach got more so with each succeeding book.

As for the method indicated for reading a novel, I feel sorrow for the person using it.

Ellen

Ellen, "Sorrow"? Why "sorrow"? I find it hard to accept that you'd only take the superficial and explicit from a work of art, without wanting to squeeze every last drop from it.

Oh, man, could you maybe try to figure out how false I consider the alternative you suggest?

Ellen

[Ellen Stuttle]

It's self-evident there is some art that never fails to uplift and encourage - based on real existence, for real and rational people.

Can you give some examples of art regarding which it's self-evident that it "never fails to uplift and encourage" for "rational people"?

I hope you realize that you've made a claim such that you can then proceed to state, if person X isn't unfailingly uplifted and encouraged by artwork Y, person X isn't rational.

You also have a vice-versa problem. If person X claims unfailingly to be uplifted and encouraged by artwork Y, which you list as one of your examples, does this certify that person X is rational?

Saying the same thing: the core of Rand's theory is an art that acknowledges we are of volitional consciousness.

The only artwork I know of which "acknowledges" - attempts to portray through the characters - the imaginary phenomenon "volitional consciousness" is Atlas Shrugged.

On the other hand Shakespeare does portray loads of volitional action. His characters choose what they do, except in some cases of enchantment, such as in "A Midsummer Night's Dream," but then, most of the action of that play is a dream.

Ellen

[Ellen Stuttle]

WhyNot - no, no,I wasn't blaming AR. Not in the least. I have met writers of the Obj. pursuasion who can really write, but they'll never sell many books. It's a shame. Personally, I have always felt that is what happened to Barbara. Damn, we know the woman can write. Yet she never did any fiction and only one non-fiction. I could be wrong, but truly, don't think so. Oh, I know Barbara sold books; that's not what I meant.

Barbara did write a novel, years ago, which she then "put in a drawer" as too Rand-influenced.

Near the start of this century - I think it was before 9/11, but I'd have to check old correspondence - Barbara got an idea for a novel which I thought sounded like THE novel which was her personal song. In a white-heat stretch, she wrote a lengthy mock-up/outline. However, she had another project in planning, a non-fiction work which I think was to be called "Ayn Rand and the People Who Knew Her," or something like that. Her agent advised her to do the non-fiction work first.

I feared on hearing this, since I thought, the Bard's words coming to the occasion, "There is a tide...."

Ellen

[Ellen Stuttle]

J,

Last night I looked up the "beauty" comment on pg. 448 of OPAR.

"Last night I dreamt I went to Manderley again."

Speaking of Barbara, and of responses to artworks, I interrupt speaking of Peikoff to repost an old post:

Ellen, I haven't read My Cousin Rachel , but I'll read it. I would kill to have written an opening line like "Last night I dreamt I went to Manderley again." And I'm interested to read more of the writer you would most like to sound like if you wrote fiction. I remember that du Maurier does cast a powerful and lasting spell, but it has been many years since I've read anything of hers.

Barbara

I would be exceedingly interested to hear how you would react to Rachel. I find her one of the most fascinating female characters I've ever encountered.

Another is Anna Karenina. Ever since I read Anna K., which was after I learned that Rand hated it, I've felt that Rand badly missed the boat in her assessment of what Tolstoy is "saying." I can understand why she'd have reacted as she did, reading the story as a student in Russia; but I think she didn't recognize that Tolstoy was on Anna's side -- and was in love with her himself.

I don't like the Greta Garbo movie. A filmed version I saw which I thought was perfect was a BBC Masterpiece Series several-part production with Nicola Paget as Anna. To me, the way Nicola Paget played the role was Anna.

I was thinking today, reminded of Rachel, and then of Anna, of some other female characters who appeal to me with a particular sort of fascination. One is a character whose name I'm not sure of -- maybe it's Amelie -- and whom I don't remember well, just the feeling of being intrigued by her. She's featured in one of Samuel Shellabarger's novels set in Italy during the Renaissance, a novel called Lord Vanity. Another -- who in my opinion appears on stage much too seldom in the tale -- is M'Lady from The Three Musketeers. Another is Janna from Penmarric. (Have you ever read Penmarric?)

If/when you read My Cousin Rachel, we could have a wonderful time discussing what I see as a common characteristic amongst these women (they have multiple differences, too, but there's a typologic thread) -- and why I think that Ayn could never have delineated that type of female.

"Your mission, Barbara, should you choose to accept it," is to read the du Maurier. ;-)

Ellen

People reading this thread who are interested in literature, the post I've copied was in the midst of a lengthy lierature side-discussion on a thread titled "Wagner." If you go to that post - link - and then look for what precedes and follows it, you can find quite a bit on the dampening effect on writers of Rand's literary strictures, and related issues.

Next post I'll get back to Peikoff and beauty.

Ellen

[ginny]

Ellen. I think a lot of her talent might never be known. Is she still still working on that non-fiction book? Sounds like it's been over a decade.

Free will, blah blah, I still think Rand crushed a few souls.

[anthony]

It's self-evident there is some art that never fails to uplift and encourage - based on real existence, for real and rational people.

Can you give some examples of art regarding which it's self-evident that it "never fails to uplift and encourage" for "rational people"?

I hope you realize that you've made a claim such that you can then proceed to state, if person X isn't unfailingly uplifted and encouraged by artwork Y, person X isn't rational.

You also have a vice-versa problem. If person X claims unfailingly to be uplifted and encouraged by artwork Y, which you list as one of your examples, does this certify that person X is rational?

Saying the same thing: the core of Rand's theory is an art that acknowledges we are of volitional consciousness.

The only artwork I know of which "acknowledges" - attempts to portray through the characters - the imaginary phenomenon "volitional consciousness" is Atlas Shrugged.

On the other hand Shakespeare does portray loads of volitional action. His characters choose what they do, except in some cases of enchantment, such as in "A Midsummer Night's Dream," but then, most of the action of that play is a dream.

Ellen

"The imaginary phenomenon [volitional consciousness]" for you perhaps, not to me.

"Man is a being of volitional consciousness" - is not: "Man is a volitional being".

Like WS's characters who perform an act according to what is fatalistic, pragmatic, superstitious, conformist, deceitful, self-sacrificial, cowardly or authoritarian - one could say they made "a choice", yes.

"Of volitional consciousness", contains and implies all that is proper to man - in his choosing to identify percepts and form his concepts according to reality and his nature. From those concepts come his (effortfully-acquired) morality, virtues and character.

If (as I think you've stated) you disagree with Rand's epistemology - and apparently her metaphysics (at least, volition) - then we are reading off different pages in different books. TRM is in some ways a continuation of ITOE in its delving into consciousness, I think.

If a rational and selfish person seeks upliftment in art - yes, I could conclude that a person who seeks upliftment in art is rationally-selfish.

I won't enumerate the 100's of novels, plays, poems, paintings, sculptures, music and films that have provided me with encouragement.

As I said, apart from the mixed premises that most artists have, many of them provide some form of romantic individualism, while not Romanticism per se.

Since I'm not a mind-reader, I won't attempt to answer to your "sorrow" comment and your cryptic next remark. Far from sorrowful, I think the process is endlessly beneficial and exciting.

Can you explain the abstract process of art appreciation, as you see it?

I've put my case - and tried to interpret Rand's case - as best I can, and at too much length and will shut up for a while.