Apples - Rand on Still Life Paintings, Plus

[Ellen Stuttle]

All due to not being prepared to conceptualize, to abstractify an art work, which has been prevalent throughout this thread. The type of person Roark was can only be seen by deduction - of what he did, and what he did not do. The percepts add up to a concept, one that is instantly recognizable to the first-time reader.

[Etc.]

Typical froth avoiding the question. And typical appeal to your direct discernment.

Ellen

Add: And funny thing is, you pretty much said the opposite here to what you say in the post quoted above:

We have the luxury of reviewing the philosophy today in it its entirety - but it's easy to forget that TF and AS were stand alone works of literature: the theme of one is individualism (not rights), and the other- Society. I believe you exceed the scope of The Fountainhead to combine them, and include Objectivist political theory.

[Ellen Stuttle]

Note corrected title:

[Rand] hadn't taken "rationality" as her primary virtue when she wrote The Fountainhead. "Independence" was the virtue she considered primary then. The change occurred in the course of her working on a non-fiction piece called "The Moral Foundation [*] of Individualism" which she started writing after The Fountainhead was published.

Ellen

[*] Edit: The correct tittle is "The Moral Basis of Individualism."

[Ellen Stuttle]

[....]

The only big thing I object to in the novel is it was too much like how imagined Nazis or idealized communists might have gone at it in the famous "rape" of Dominique by Roark ("engraved invitation"), which was too much like real rape. (I'm only talking about the actual sex, literally, not that they were Nazis or communists.) Dominique's psychology was too frigid, "stupid" (supposed Rand quote) and inexperienced to be at all real so in that sense it wasn't in turn a real rape but absolutely necessary sex to get her going sexually--as well as Roark--but Rand could have been more human about the whole thing. All that needed to be done, when Roark came into the bedroom the first time to get the measurements for the marble, was for him to actually touch her in an unmistakably sexual way looking right at her in the eye apropos to what was really going on there, so when he does come back she's really ready for it, and none of that lying on the bathroom floor until morning real rape aftermath crap. He could have stayed a while for more sex ("all, night, long!"?). That would have made the "rape" catalyst of her hiting him with her riding coup even more powerful. Instead of swiping at him as hard as she could, doing that only pro-forma, so we'd know she wasn't pissed off for him having touched her, but for not coming back for more of the same. As Rand wrote it, however, she did that right. Roark needed it big and hard so he could give it back in turn, which is precisely what he did.

I was never bothered by the "rape" scene. I thought that Dominique couldn't have conveyed her wishes more clearly unless she had sent him an "engraved invitation."

I didn't interpret Dominique's "lying on the bathroom floor until morning" as "real rape aftermath" but instead as the opposite, as her wanting to hold on to the experience instead of cleansing herself from it.

A detail in a scene shortly afterward was among those which contributed to my partial dislike of Roark - his leaving without telling Dominique he was leaving (he'd gotten a commission) and his being surprised on the train at finding that he thought of her.

[....]don't get me wrong, I'm not rewriting anything; I'm not touching it as written; I've no right to, but every reader has a right to think about these things

That readers do think about these things is indicative of the real nature of art, contra aspects of Rand's theory.

Ellen

[Ellen Stuttle]

Apropos readers thinking about such things, here's a post of mine from shortly after OL started:

I'm very reluctant to talk about The Fountainhead in an even vaguely Objectivist context because of the extremely powerful appeal Roark seems to have had (and to still have) for so many people who came to consider themselves Objectivists. Roark did not have this appeal for me. And I can't honestly say that I understand his appeal for others. There's a greal deal about the psychological dynamics of Roark, and his relationship with Dominique (and I don't mean the "rape, with an engraved invitation" scene) that I found so off-putting, I doubt that if I had read The Fountainhead first of Ayn Rand's novels, instead of reading it two years after I'd first read Atlas Shrugged, I'd have gone on to become curious about Rand's philosophy. Roark seemed to me like a person living in a "cocoon." His being "untouched," which seems to be the characteristic that appeals so much to so many who became Objectivists, to me seemed...like a person missing a dimension. And, as regards his relationship with Dominique, how could he just let her go about finding out for herself -- or whatever he was doing -- instead of trying to help her?

Wynand did appeal to me, in that he seemed like a potent male force of nature. I realized that Rand was going to end up "destroying" Wynand, and I felt sad about this. Indeed, the night when I finished the book, I went for a long drive (a drive I often took, one of several I liked to take, this one down the outer drive from Evanston, out Congress, as it was called then, back up on Edens, then returning to Evanston -- maybe an hour's drive total), working it out in my mind, or trying to, why she'd felt that the logic of her story required the ending she gave it.

I don't really know what to say to those who feel that they found an Ideal which attracts them in Roark. I'd like to understand what it is that appeals to them so much. But I don't understand it.

Ellen

[anthony]

All due to not being prepared to conceptualize, to abstractify an art work, which has been prevalent throughout this thread. The type of person Roark was can only be seen by deduction - of what he did, and what he did not do. The percepts add up to a concept, one that is instantly recognizable to the first-time reader.

[Etc.]

Typical froth avoiding the question. And typical appeal to your direct discernment.

Ellen

The question again? Oh yes: Did she mention rational selfishness in TF.

Well, no, Ellen. Not in those exact words. But I'm not going to make any head way with you by saying it's "implicit", contained, and self-obvious - am I?

Second, you know this is all a partial red herring. I answered to J.'s criticism of "immorality".

The immorality -as far as Rand was concerned- was Roark's hand in the "destruction" of Keating's independence, and the self-sacrifice of his own. ("I destroyed you..."). You guys are fixated on the "immorality" of the literal destruction of a building, so missing the point.

My "direct discernment", might well be that of many readers, too.

[Ellen Stuttle]

But I'm not going to make any head way with you by saying it's "implicit", contained, and self-obvious - am I?

No, you aren't.

Second, you know this is all a partial red herring. I answered to J.'s criticism of "immorality".The immorality -as far as Rand was concerned- was Roark's hand in the "destruction" of Keating's independence, and the self-sacrifice of his own. ("I destroyed you..."). You guys are fixated on the "immorality" of the literal destruction of a building, so missing the point.

See an "add" to post #226. I added that before I saw your reply.

Ellen

[Jonathan]

All due to not being prepared to conceptualize, to abstractify an art work, which has been prevalent throughout this thread. The type of person Roark was can only be seen by deduction - of what he did, and what he did not do. The percepts add up to a concept, one that is instantly recognizable to the first-time reader.

Indeed, dimwit, your lack of ability to conceptualize/abstract artworks is what's being mocked on this thread. Your, and Rand's, inability to "abstractify" is being made fun of by applying, to Rand's art, your own standards of judging others' art.

Does anyone for a second believe Roark (despite his author) was immoral?

Absolutely! He was an irrational vigilante who set himself up to punish people for refusing to hire him and for disagreeing with his subjective tastes. He was dishonest and violent, and his courtroom speech was delusional.

Or was ~meant~ to be immoral? (Outside of his giving a weak man, Keating, a helping hand, to the latter's disadvantage, and against his own independence and "egotism"??)

Oh, but the Objectivist PseudoEsthetics states that it doesn't matter what an artist meant or claims to have intended. It commands us to ignore outside considerations such as authorial intent, and to consider only the content of the art, and to assign metaphysical significance to every detail that was included. And it tells us that a work of art can reveal to us more about the artist than she knows herself. Therefore the content of Rand's art reveals, despite her denials, that she valued the evil of initiating force, as long as the initiator had the right heroic appearance and the right romantic style.

Ha!

Perhaps Roark tried to undermine Rand's purpose, without her knowledge?! Heh.

That's exactly the type idiotic judgment that the Objectivist PseudoEsthetics makes against all other artists!

You seem to have believed that no one would have ever thought of applying Rand's aesthetic witch hunt tactics to her art. You seem to think that it's the ultimate in silliness to apply them to Rand, but it's pure rationality to apply them to all other artists.

Man, I love it when Inquisitors are put to the question.

She's -somewhere- written about the need for 'authenticity' in literature.

Romantic-'Realism', anybody?

So, she creates a character who is credible, who's morality is not above men's possibility.

Uh-huh. Now apply that same standard to all other art, and answer the question that I asked several times but which you've evaded: Please give examples of great art which were not created by Rand and which you don't condemn as having evil messages. Identify works by other artists which you don't spit on due to their characters' not being perfect.

There is a mystical premise, and a false alternative here:

Either "Perfection", OR "Immorality".

Objectivism naturally dismisses it.

No, Objectivism doesn't dismiss it, but selectively employs it: When judging Rand's art, moral perfection is not a requirement; when judging all others' art, it is a requirement.

All this literalism, folks, is due to non-conceptualism. Not seeing the forest for the trees.

I agree! Your dimwitted literalism as applied to all non-Rand-created art is indeed non-conceptualism!

"...whether the universe is knowable or not; whether man has the power of choice or not; whether man can achieve his goals or not". [AR].

Like him or not, despise the ethics or not: that's Roark.

Wrong. As I already explained in post 204:

If we strictly apply Rand's explicitly stated method of "objective esthetic evaluation," the answers to the "metaphysical questions" are that man cannot find happiness on earth unless he abandons his own stated, rational morality, he is doomed to frustration and despair unless he is willing to initiate force by committing fraud and destroying others' property, he does not have the power of choice (he cannot choose to live morally, but must resort to acting immorally), he doesn't have the power of achieving his goals without violating others rights, he is a plaything of forces beyond his control whose only course is fraud and destruction.

As for the question, "Is man, by nature, to be valued as good, or to be despised as evil?" The Fountainhead's answer is "none of the above" -- since a man is presented as a hero who "triumphs" by becoming immoral, then Rand's view of man's nature is that he is to be valued for his evil! " Justice" equals the will to initiate force. Might is right.

J

[Ellen Stuttle]

"Metaphysical value-judgment" strikes me as something as an oxymoron. [....] Benevolent vs. malevolent sense of life. This approach seems to violate the axiomatic nature of Objectivism, both the metaphysics and the epistemology. I say "seems" for it sounds hard and absolutist even though analysis creates one kind or another kind of mush. This is emblematic of the failure of any Objectivist Esthetics and why there really isn't any such thing qua philosophy--not logically.

I think the "benevolent versus malevolent universe-premise" idea does violate what's stated to be Objectivism's metaphysics and epistemology.

According to Nathaniel, Rand had the benevolent/malevolent idea before he met her, since he says that she questioned him on which he held during his first meeting with her. I copied that passage from Judgment Day somewhere.

(See the next post.)

Ellen

[Ellen Stuttle]

Here's the passage from Judgment Day. I've added the bold emphasis.

Here's the passage I mentioned in post #160 from Nathaniel's memoir.

It's on pp. 45-46 of Judgment Day and pp. 37-38 of MYWAR. The only differences I noticed between the two versions are minor: a few slight punctuation changes , one word-order change, a preposition change, and the dropping of italics for NB's answers "Oh, yes" and "Of course."

Ayn said that there were three questions she wanted to ask me, questions that touched on the essentials of how one saw human existence. What did I think of reason? What did I think of man? What did I think of life?

[skipping the part about reason]

"When you ask me what I think of man," I said, proceeding to her second question, "I'm not sure I know what you mean." She explained that she meant, Did I think man was evil by nature or good? I found the question odd; I did not believe either. I thought that we were born with a potential for evil or for greatness. I did not believe in original sin, and I did not believe in original virtue. Frank broke his silence to laugh at this. She said she agreed with me, but this was not what she was asking. Did the concept of human being or man evoke a positive response in me or a negative one? "Put that way, I would say a positive one," I responded. Did I see man as depraved by nature? Of course I didn't. Did I see him as heroic, at least potentially? "Oh, yes." This satisfied her.

As to what I thought of life, this meant, Did I see life as malevolent or benevolent? Again, I thought the question strange, explaining that I saw life as neutral and as containing both malevolent and benevolent possibilities. But, Ayn asked, I did not think of existence as intrinsically evil? "Of course not." I did not think that the universe was such that man was doomed to defeat and tragedy? "No." Did I think that life was such that success and happiness were in principle possible for man, if man acted rationally and realistically? "Of course." This is what she meant, she explained, by the concept of a benevolent universe. "The benevolent universe premise," she called it.

"I hate the idea," she said in her thick accent, "that the essence if life is frustration, futility, and tragedy. It's very Russian, you know. That's one of the reasons I love America. In the American sense of life, happiness is normal. With all its flaws and contradictions, this is a pro-life culture. In spite of the guff about religion, I believe it's also pro-reason and pro-man, in its deepest 'instincts.'"

Ellen

[anthony]

Brant: Benevolent/malevolent universe, is a 'sense of life'. Subconscious and pre-cognitive.

It is distinct from (conscious) metaphysical value-judgments, which can contradict it.

[Ellen Stuttle]

Brant: Benevolent/malevolent universe, is a 'sense of life'. Subconscious and pre-cognitive.

It is distinct from (conscious) metaphysical value-judgments, which can contradict it.

So why did she call benevolent/malevolent universe a "premise"?

Ellen

[anthony]

All due to not being prepared to conceptualize, to abstractify an art work, which has been prevalent throughout this thread. The type of person Roark was can only be seen by deduction - of what he did, and what he did not do. The percepts add up to a concept, one that is instantly recognizable to the first-time reader.

[Etc.]

Typical froth avoiding the question. And typical appeal to your direct discernment.

Ellen

Add: And funny thing is, you pretty much said the opposite here to what you say in the post quoted above:

We have the luxury of reviewing the philosophy today in it its entirety - but it's easy to forget that TF and AS were stand alone works of literature: the theme of one is individualism (not rights), and the other- Society. I believe you exceed the scope of The Fountainhead to combine them, and include Objectivist political theory.

No, no contradiction. TF contains it all, independence, individualism and rational egoism - if one can recognise the explicit - and the implicit. Forming abstractions from concretes takes effort; by a good artist, it is not spoon-fed.

Argh! The skeptical empiricist, and the romantic conceptualist, ne'er shall they meet.

[anthony]

Apropos readers thinking about such things, here's a post of mine from shortly after OL started:

I don't really know what to say to those who feel that they found an Ideal which attracts them in Roark. I'd like to understand what it is that appeals to them so much. But I don't understand it.

Ellen

-------------

He's an antidote, Ellen. To the all-pervading sense that "The best lack all conviction" - to moral greyness - to the submission of one to the many - to "go along, to get along" - to "you owe a duty" - to "its not what you know, but who you know" - to "trust your feelings, not your thought" - to all unoriginality and dullness...

Everything which lies behind all the world's ills, today.

[Brant Gaede]

I thought the artist formed concretes from abstractions representing abstractions. Or concretes from concretes representing concretes. Or concretes from concretes representing abstractions.

--Brant

but I claim ignorance

[Brant Gaede]

Apropos readers thinking about such things, here's a post of mine from shortly after OL started:

I'm very reluctant to talk about The Fountainhead in an even vaguely Objectivist context because of the extremely powerful appeal Roark seems to have had (and to still have) for so many people who came to consider themselves Objectivists. Roark did not have this appeal for me. And I can't honestly say that I understand his appeal for others. There's a greal deal about the psychological dynamics of Roark, and his relationship with Dominique (and I don't mean the "rape, with an engraved invitation" scene) that I found so off-putting, I doubt that if I had read The Fountainhead first of Ayn Rand's novels, instead of reading it two years after I'd first read Atlas Shrugged, I'd have gone on to become curious about Rand's philosophy. Roark seemed to me like a person living in a "cocoon." His being "untouched," which seems to be the characteristic that appeals so much to so many who became Objectivists, to me seemed...like a person missing a dimension. And, as regards his relationship with Dominique, how could he just let her go about finding out for herself -- or whatever he was doing -- instead of trying to help her?

Wynand did appeal to me, in that he seemed like a potent male force of nature. I realized that Rand was going to end up "destroying" Wynand, and I felt sad about this. Indeed, the night when I finished the book, I went for a long drive (a drive I often took, one of several I liked to take, this one down the outer drive from Evanston, out Congress, as it was called then, back up on Edens, then returning to Evanston -- maybe an hour's drive total), working it out in my mind, or trying to, why she'd felt that the logic of her story required the ending she gave it.

I don't really know what to say to those who feel that they found an Ideal which attracts them in Roark. I'd like to understand what it is that appeals to them so much. But I don't understand it.

Ellen

It was his seeming invulnerability or incorruptability to everything thrown at him. I think it's an appeal more to a male than female thing, in seeing oneself from a masculine perspective. He was a supreme doer. He did not bear and nurture children. He fought wars, built bridges, piloted airplanes, explored the oceans, went to he moon, had his way (his way was her way) with women--his woman, Dominique.

--Brant

or, he had it easy

[Jonathan]

I thought the artist formed concretes from abstractions representing abstractions. Or concretes from concretes representing concretes. Or concretes from concretes representing abstractions.

--Brant

but I claim ignorance

I think you got it wrong, Brant. The artist forms forms into which to pour the concrete, and then arranges to have his local Ready Mix deliver the amount that he needs. Once it has hardened and dried, the forms are abstracted, and what's left is the concrete.

J

[PDS]

I thought the artist formed concretes from abstractions representing abstractions. Or concretes from concretes representing concretes. Or concretes from concretes representing abstractions.

--Brant

but I claim ignorance

I think you got it wrong, Brant. The artist forms forms into which to pour the concrete, and then arranges to have his local Ready Mix deliver the amount that he needs. Once it has hardened and dried, the forms are abstracted, and what's left is the concrete.

J

J:

I get the sense that your position is hardening.

[Ellen Stuttle]

I've no doubt I've stepped out of bounds. My intent was rather a fresh look, and a recreation of the *spirit* in Rand's art thesis. Its applications, some derivations and my lesser disagreements, and anything but a hidebound precision of her every argument. Long time since I read her, cover to cover, which sometimes is beneficial. Anybody want the real thing, go read the book.

Besides, doesn't double jeopardy apply here? I have been criticised above for: 1. Following Rand's word slavishly [by Jonathan]. 2. Not following Rand accurately (by [Ellen]).

[....]

I wouldn't say that you follow Rand "slavishly" but instead "erratically," adjusting in variable ways to suit the situation of the moment. However, I believe that you believe that you've "not deviated from her fundamental theory," as you say below.

"Problem", no. Only inasmuch as her theory is misunderstood, not observed or not practised.

And no, I've not deviated from her fundamental theory, only in application.

Abstraction(by artist) -> Concrete(artwork) -> Abstraction(by viewer)

Concept-Percept-Concept

Familiar in Rand's epistemology, of sensory-perceptual-conceptual.

Conceptualization, as in apprehending reality.

There you actually highlight an issue which I think is a very fundamental problem with Rand's theory of art, her idea that an artwork brings metaphysical abstractions to the "perceptual level."

For one thing, she derives from a mistaken theory of perception - a basic problem which also affects her epistemology (and her ethics).

Specifically in regard to art, I think that she made an error of analogizing in the reverse direction from the literature -> visual arts direction which Jonathan has mentioned many times (her applying her idiosyncratic meanings of "Romanticism" and "Naturalism" in literature to other types of art).

I think that she extrapolated from visual art's providing something one can look at to her idea that abstractions are made perceptible in art. However, even with the visual arts what the artist provides is a semblance which requires imaginative apprehension to "see," so the idea doesn't really work even with visual art, and it's very contrived as applied to literature and music.

Thus I part company with the first half of Rand's definition of art, as well as with the second half. (In regard to the second half, I think that what Rand calls "metaphysical value-judgments" might be present but aren't necessarily present, so "metaphysical value-judgments" don't qualify as a defining characteristic.)

The first half of Rand's definition, "a selective re-creation of reality," is tied to her idea that the "world" of an artwork is "perceptible." Since I think that the key to art is the "imaginal," I'm considering as a definition:

Art is the presentation of forms which emerge from and elicit the imaginal.

I'm not wedded to that wording, but when I get a chance (maybe in a month or so) I hope to explore the idea in a thread I'll call:

"The Missing Imaginal - Or Why Rand's Aesthetics Lacks Wings".

Ellen

[william.scherk]

There is a mystical premise, and a false alternative here:

Either "Perfection", OR "Immorality".

Objectivism naturally dismisses it. Volition is key to understanding this.

I've been spectating on this thread, and from time to time chuckling. I have a hard time grasping Tony's points -- perhaps due to not having absorbed the Romantic Manifesto -- but I love looking at the art and pondering it whenever one of the discussants adds a picture. I kind of like Tony's critical art detective stance, where I imagine him grilling The Maid for her metaphysical value judgments, her salary and perks, the entire bleak pointlessness of her life, how much milk she must pour in a day. I image Tony also sweating down a metaphorical Vermeer at his easel, questioning him as he did the maid, and sternly assessing his sense of life. So, that's fun.

I also very much enjoy Ellen's art assessments, coolly passionate, emotional and rational, well-informed on genres, techniques, schools and eras. So also Jonathan, who is a compelling artist in his own right, subjecting the artwork under consideration to his comprehensive appreciation. I like very much when he puts an artwork up and explains what he knows and feels about the piece -- whether ridiculing it as kitsch or praising it as sublime.

I can't say I enjoy Tony's machinery of art appreciation. It seems like a protracted mathematical operation that despite its complexity cannot account for differences in taste.

To Tony's identifying a mystical premise and false alternative, I just can't get my head around what he is trying to say by reference to a piece of art, In each and every instance of an artwork (and given Tony's tastes, of non-abstract work only) under discussion, do all we wrong-headed people tend to argue for 'perfection' or 'Immorality' only as opposing poles? I have not seen anybody do this so far.

Volition I never understand strongly. I almost always replace volition with Will in my mind.

So, winnowing and trimming to my understanding, Tony is saying something like this: there is no actual dichotomy between perfection and morality. Immoral artworks can be perfectly executed. It is then fallacious to argue that if a given artwork approaches perfection (per technical mastery) as measured by most observers, said perfection says something further about the morality of the artwork. Perfection assessment is thus on a different scale than moral assessment.

I sort of agree, but I probably got the pith wrong in the first place.

To add to my puzzlement are Tony's rare selections of art to illustrate his points, diagnosing defective art in sweeping terms without assembling real-world items in support. Perhaps I am primarily a visual thinker, but I find it difficult to apply his formulas for assessment across the board considering one priceless Vermeer.

I am not convinced that there can be a 'moral measurement' of a given artwork, at least one that offers an objectively rendered result in the same way an objective assessment renders a degree of 'perfection' analysis. I mean, Vermeer, despite our many and varied moralistic/romantic opinions, is judged by experts and markets as a painter of extremely valuable art. I tend to think there is no actual 'moral quotient' or 'romantic quotient' to be reliably calculated in Vermeer.

Maybe I am actually helping Tony prove his point.

Anyway, I find there is something missing, something I don't read in his latest remarks: valuing, wanting, having. I always think of an artwork as having value, first to the artist†, second to its purchaser(s) or final owner, finally to a generalized market. I think of the value of that particular work.

In the case of Vermeer, I found it so interesting that as Ellen pointed out at least once, his works were within a vernacular, a genre. In Vermeer's work, and of and in the genre, many other ostensibly similar scenes as the pouring maid were painted. How did other paintings of that genre fare in the market? Which were preserved but did not increase in value more than any other hoard of fine art? In the end, the Vermeer in question is not for sale at the moment. I forget which gallery holds it and how much it might fetch at auction or by purchase from another art museum.

I am, of course, of the opinion that art can ultimately be judged by many different measures, personally and individually and institutionally. The moral/immoral/amoral reckoning does not interest me, except in times of Piss Christ and other provocations. The technical details do interest me, so that I can find out the multiple reasons why a particular artist (eg Vermeer) chose subject matter and style. I am also interested in who is generally seen as a master in a school or genre or movement. In this case, why is Vermeer now an acknowledged master, how long did it take for his ascent, how many others of the genre exhibit the same complex qualities and effects?

Because (in part) of human's tendencies to be collectors of unique or rare or unusual items, and to deem them valuable, we know there is a vast market in everything from kitschy sculptures to Old West cowboys and beyond. Even the most personally-unappealing example from this huge trove can be worth something to somebody else. In this sense, the value scales are most interesting, and also probably the most objective means to find out what the invisible hand of the market chooses to favour or disfavour. A whole lot of interlocking subjectivities, one could say, that makes possible a hard valuation, no matter the work.

Even the most marginal art can accrue value (this I say from personal acquaintance with third tier art pricing in Vancouver). Whatever piece of art might come into your hands, you would likely never junk it, however awful you thought it was, without getting an independent assessment of dollar value.

Of course, discussing the dollar value estimations of this or that piece opens up a whole wonderful can of worms. No doubt each of us can find an item of which the price seems insane, or a whole school of artists whose works seem bizarrely awful and at the same time priced only for the insane. Maybe we all think the art market is completely insane from top to bottom. Maybe there is an Objectivist essay lurking in one of us that does what Torres and partner did, explain in excruciating Randian detail how awful shite becomes golden. Maybe the essay will be free of moralistic twaddle, maybe not.

Back to Vermeer for a moment, in the context of value. The only item** released to auction in 80-odd years, the tiny Young Woman Seated At The Virginals, once thought a fake, sold for 40 million dollars in 2004.

I love lots and lots of many types art, but my favourite artist is Francis Bacon, my favourite painting of his being Study after Velazquez's Portrait of Pope Innocent X.

This example is not currently valued as it is the property of a midwest museum, but one of Bacon's triptychs sold for over $140 million last year. An astonishing amount.

What do any of my observations add up to? Probably not a hill of beans to the main movers in this thread. The only suggestion I have for Tony and Ellen and Jonathan is to put up lots of images of art. Because this thread could become never-ending, and Tony would get a re-match on every single item.

I think I could almost write his reaction to the the subjective value/objective value of Bacon's piece above. Or rather, apply the diagnostic provided by Rand ...

As for Rand's procedure, I can also imagine she might not only be horrified at the painting's 'ugliness' and depraved sense of life, but that the accrued value of all of his paintings (as with Picasso's) is so monumental as to be evidence in itself of societal depravity in general.

All due to not being prepared to conceptualize, to abstractify an art work, which has been prevalent throughout this thread. All literalism, folks, is due to non-conceptualism. Not seeing the forest for the trees.

"...whether the universe is knowable or not; whether man has the power of choice or not; whether man can achieve his goals or not". [AR].

This is where my brains seem to slide off the table into the sandbox. I feel reasonably able to conceptualize. I think I might have conceptualized up a storm in my comments today. As for being prepared to 'abstractify,' why I am perfectly willing to do so if given the terms and a flow-chart and a slice of cherry pie.

Beyond that, I don't know if I am a damned literalist or not. I think I can conceptualize trees and forests, as well as copses, plantations, seedlings, saplings, softwoods and hard, climax forest and so on. And I do think the universe of artworks is knowable, and I do choose to understand this to my best ability. Whether or not this understanding lays down in the grooves set by Rand and obeyed by Tony, I don't think it does, and I don't care either way.

Regarding The Fountainhead, I couldn't finish it. The characters were unreal and talked too much, and interacted strangely, unnaturally with others. I think I got to around page 150 before it hit the wall -- so I can't discuss the book with the experts.

____________________

† -- I can think of many times I have viewed an item of art and wondered hard how the maker could value what I saw as an atrociously executed piece of shit.

** A 31st Vermeer may come to market.

Edited June 9, 2014 by william.scherk

[Brant Gaede]

Regarding The Fountainhead, I couldn't finish it. The characters were unreal and talked too much, and interacted strangely, unnaturally with others. I think I got to around page 150 before it hit the wall -- so I can't discuss the book with the experts.

Of course the characters "talked too much"--Rand was Jewish.

--Brant

how did you ever get through Atlas Shrugged?--she wrote that too

[anthony]

"...set by Rand and obeyed by Tony".

There is nobody here who understands Rand on Romanticism. And to refute her completely requires you grasp her completely. Ellen, alone, has made some serious attempt.

And nobody who will believe that what Rand described as of fundamental importance in art, the moral and 'spiritual' (or conceptual) need individuals have of it - is what 'I knew' or sensed, since I began reading fiction in childhood. Long before reading Rand.

Easy to cynically pooh-pooh her theory without knowing it, and without independently finding *value* there--that's a measure of your thinking, not hers.

I'm the soft underbelly, who could not explain Rand's theory adequately. I think I know the ideas intimately, but don't have the scholarly authority to impart them.

Who gets it for strongly agreeing with her - and gets it equally for sometimes disagreeing. Which is palpably bad faith argumentation.

Don't let me stop you, have at it, guys!

[btw, William: the immorality we were discussing was Roark's, NOT an artwork's - there is the false alternative. The Perfect vs immoral in man.]

[william.scherk]

Regarding The Fountainhead, I couldn't finish it. The characters were unreal and talked too much, and interacted strangely, unnaturally with others. I think I got to around page 150 before it hit the wall -- so I can't discuss the book with the experts.

Of course the characters "talked too much"--Rand was Jewish.

--Brant

how did you ever get through Atlas Shrugged?--she wrote that too

I had just finished L Ron Hubbard's Battlefield Earth when I began Atlas Shrugged. I thought AS was much better designed as a dystopia than TF was designed as then present-day America. I thought the titanically evul AS characters were less believable than L Ron's titanically evul cohort of Psyclos. About every six pages of Atlas Shrugged I winced at some howler or non-sequitur. I remember thinking "the moral decay of America under Mr Thompson leads directly to bricks falling off New York buildings." And "evul people look different than good people, with loose lips and sloven features." And "the names of these people are absurd." And so on through the entire thing. It just never felt real to me, more like an overwritten comic book. The relationships seemed drawn from a diagram, not an up-close and intimate psychological knowledge of Man, let alone Woman. By the time I flew into the Gulch with Dagny, evading its magic eraser barrier, I had of course given up on finding reality in its pages. About the best I could say is that Atlas Shrugged was an Over-The-Top fictional psychological drama without psychological drama. Lots of events, a bit of perpetual motion, and a whole lot of passages marked by moralistic cartoon characters declaiming endlessly. I also read only the first and last of the Galt Speech. For another slice of cherry pie, I might read the skipped part of the book.

I won't hurt anyone's feelings by being down on AS. So many more vituperative critics have had at it. If you want a bit more detail, my brief 2005 comments to Monica Pignotti and the FreedomOfMind forum are still on the internet:

With regard to Rand's magnum opus, Atlas Shrugged, in which she laid

out concrete examples of her philosophy in action: Oi. Fantasy. Rant.

Haranguing dialogue. Characters with the depth and realism of

Skeletor, Lex Luthor, Bizarro Superman, She-Ra and Wonder Woman.

So far I have only read the first 650,000 of its 800,000 pages. At the

moment, as I struggle through the chapter "The Utopia of Greed," it

reminds me most of L Ron Hubbard's "Battlefield Earth," with Rand's

monsters slightly more horrid and evil than Hubbard's nightmarish

slavedrivers, the titanic struggle between good and evil only slightly

more titanic . . . mind you, Hubbard's book is also slightly longer,

at 1,000,000 pages of turgid, pulpy, entertaining hooey.

All in all I thought Atlas Shrugged was what they used to call a 'pot-boiler,' a lusty sprawling saga of a lusty, brawling family, with few brawls, little lust, and a vacated realism for sagacity. It bored me and made me think Ayn Rand was a little bit nuts. If my boss at the time hadn't strongly suggested I read it -- the better to understand our company and its leaders -- I would not be here today at OL.

Edited June 10, 2014 by william.scherk

[Jonathan]

I kind of like Tony's critical art detective stance, where I imagine him grilling The Maid for her metaphysical value judgments, her salary and perks, the entire bleak pointlessness of her life, how much milk she must pour in a day. I image Tony also sweating down a metaphorical Vermeer at his easel, questioning him as he did the maid, and sternly assessing his sense of life. So, that's fun.

I see Tony going even further, and showing Vermeer prints by Cordair's artists, or by Newberry, for the purpose of inspiring Vermeer to paint better subjects and meanings. "Excuse me, Kitchen Maid, could you come in here for a second, please? Um, leap through the air with your head thrown back. There! See, Johannes? See how much better that is? Now, hire a prettier model and paint her leaping like that and you'll be a great artist! Trust me! I grasp the Romantic Manifesto where no one else does, so I really know what I'm talking about!"

I love lots and lots of many types art, but my favourite artist is Francis Bacon, my favourite painting of his being Study after Velazquez's Portrait of Pope Innocent X.

I'm curious to know, Bill, if you hate existence. Do you think that man is a plaything of fate, and incapable of happiness? Is he doomed to frustration and despair? In your view, is existence intrinsically evil?

As for Rand's procedure, I can also imagine she might not only be horrified at the painting's 'ugliness' and depraved sense of life, but that the accrued value of all of his paintings (as with Picasso's) is so monumental as to be evidence in itself of societal depravity in general.

I don't know about that. Rand was too flighty and whimsical in her tastes to know for sure how she'd respond to any given work of art. I think it would depend on how she would have learned of Bacon. For example, if some in her circle of underlings approached her with the information that they thought that Bacon was anti-religion, just like her, and that they had heard that he had read and adored Rand's novels, I think that there's a good chance that she would have endorsed his art.

What would Rand think of this:

What does Tony think of it? How would the Objectivist PseudoEsthetics measure and judge it? I mean, sure, the woman probably doesn't meet Tony's expectation of modern notions of beauty, and therefore the artist is guilty of having painted an ugly woman when he should have painted a pretty one, but what about the subject matter and the style? It's an abduction/rape, and therefore possibly "rape by engraved invitation," or possibly not, and the style is very Romantic and Realistic. Does the art reveal that the artist had severe inner conflicts and other psychological problems, or, since it's a very bold and Romantic rape, does it reveal that he had a Randian/Roarkian, heroic, take-what-you-want attitude?

Regarding The Fountainhead, I couldn't finish it. The characters were unreal and talked too much, and interacted strangely, unnaturally with others. I think I got to around page 150 before it hit the wall -- so I can't discuss the book with the experts.

That's going to be taken as nothing but proof of your inferiority as a human being. You probably need to work on your sense of life, and try to "evolve a Romantic soul," as the grand master Newberry used to advise lesser subhumans.

** A 31st Vermeer may come to market.

Personally, I have yet to be convinced that that's a Vermeer. I don't think it is. Or at least it's not a Johannes Vermeer. I think Wheelock is full of it, just like the experts who validated Van Meegeren's work as Vermeer's.

J

[Ellen Stuttle]

Tony,

In my post #243, I addressed part of your post #195 but not the concluding paragraph:

Except, we know everything in the artwork is there with a purpose, nothing random or redundant - so one does not have to differentiate concepts.

"We" don't "know everything in the artwork is there with a purpose, nothing random or redundant." I am aware of a great many works of art in which I think that there are features which might be described as "random or redundant," including in Rand's fictional works, although she was notable for her ruthlessness about detail.

So it's a process of tracking back, a posteriori, to the artist's original, motivating idea - by way of the elements and their combination in the art. Extracting the core concept.(Get stuck at the perceptual level, and "details" loom over large, blocking the process of 'abstractification'. Like dynamite and other inessentials...)

On a different thread I've discussed what I see as the reason for Rand's inclusion of the Cortlandt project - and Roark's action of dynamiting it. In this case, I indeed am tracing backward from what I think was Rand's goal - to get Roark into a courtroom on a criminal charge so as to have him deliver his speech.

You might have missed the following post, since the thread's topic ("Atlas Summit 2014") might not have aroused your interest. I'll copy my remarks in full, since they're directly pertinent to Rand's artistic process in writing The Fountainhead:

No, I wouldn't change [Roark]. I would delete the rape scene and figure out a better way to gain justice for the Cortdlandt debacle.

Figuring out "a better way to gain justice for the Cortlandt debacle" puts the cart before the horse, imo. My point about the dynamiting of the housing project is that it's a device used in order to get Roark into a courtroom on a criminal charge. Rand wanted Roark in a courtroom, having done something criminal as set up to his delivering the speech. She had trouble thinking up a plot situation to accomplish the purpose. So it isn't as if first she had the Cortlandt idea and then thought up a way for Roark "to gain justice," but the reverse - she had the courtroom in mind and thought up Cortlandt as a way to get Roark there.

Here's an excerpt from Rand's notes for The Little Street:

[bold emphasis added]

Journals, pp. 23-28

The world as it is.

Show it all, calmly and indifferently, like an outsider who does not share humanity's feelings or prejudices and can see it all "from the side."

[....]

Show that the world is nothing but a little street. That this little street is its king and master, its essence and spirit. Show the little street and how it works.

[....]

Show that humanity has and wants to have: existence instead of life, satisfaction instead of joy, contentment instead of happiness, security instead of power, vanity instead of pride, attachment instead of love, wish instead of will, yearning instead of passion, a glow-worm instead of a fire.

[....]

Show that the real God behind all their high words and sentiments, the real omnipotent power behind their culture and civilization, is the little street, just a small, filthy, shabby, common little street, such as exist around the center of every town in the world.

Show them the real, one and only horror - the horror of mediocrity.

[....]

[William Edward] Hickman said: "I am like the state: what is good for me is right." That is this boy's psychology. (The best and strongest expression of a real man's psychology I ever heard.) The model for the boy is Hickman. Very far from him, of course. The outside of Hickman, but not the inside. Much deeper and much more. A Hickman with a purpose. And without the degeneracy. It is more exact to say that the model is not Hickman, but what Hickman suggested to me.

[....]

At the end, when his last appeal has been refused and the execution awaits him, he throws away all protective hypocrisy and shouts to his jailers and the newspaper reporters what he thinks of the world. It must be the essence, the very heart of the book: his wild, ferocious cry. It must be the strongest speech ever uttered in condemnation of the world. It must strike people like a whip slapping them in the face. It must be scalding in its bloody suffering, like the yell of an animal with an open, torn wound.

Roark's speech differs in its thrust from the proposed Danny Renahan speech. However, I think it is "the essence, the very heart of the book," in the respect that it's the statement Rand geared the plot toward having Roark deliver.

About the name of the discontinued work, I suspect that Rand got the name from one of the names of a Vermeer painting she disliked - see. (The painting is sometimes called "A Street in Delft.")

Ellen

[Ellen Stuttle]

** A 31st Vermeer may come to market.

Personally, I have yet to be convinced that that's a Vermeer. I don't think it is. Or at least it's not a Johannes Vermeer. I think Wheelock is full of it, just like the experts who validated Van Meegeren's work as Vermeer's.

J

I'm hardly an expert, but I'm strongly doubtful that that's a Johannes Vermeer.

Ellen