Apples - Rand on Still Life Paintings, Plus

[Jonathan]

[The last question is remarkably literalist by premise. How would you know the subject is Chopin, or what he's suffering from, or that he is courageously overcoming his disease to create and compose?

How would Ellen know? The answer is that she would know axiomatically! When she looks at a painting of a person playing the piano and interprets him to be Chopin suffering from consumption, her method of doing so is the same method that you use in identifying what's going on in a painting or sculpture with absolute objective certainty: the power of declaring it to be a fricking axiom!!!

Ive gone on about the art work as "stand alone" and "end in itself", as you know well.

What you've neglected to go on about, and then eventually evaded, is PROVING any of your assertions.

This is an imaginary painting, not an imaginary novel, yeah? A hell of an ask, for a visual artist to portray Romantically.

It's not too much to ask of the artist. He can just use the power of Axiom, and demand that viewers do the same.

Axiom, hurry in and buy some today! It turns subjective opinions into objective conclusions, and turns ignoramuses into sages.

J

[Ellen Stuttle]

By your reckoning then, whatever is voluntary is "volitional". In that case, doing ~any~ activity at all, represents Rand's "a being of volitional consciousness". Whether it's a man at his desk writing, a man being violent, a woman knitting ...in fact any and every picture portraying a human, fits the bill. To say nothing of adding "life as it should be"- on top of them!!. Nuh-uh. Unpack the concept "volitional", (in Objectivism) and one comes up with a whole other bunch of concepts: reason; conviction; virtues; principles; commitment; character; courage -- which are dependent on it. These--are what "volitional" implies and contains. These--require the existential affirmation and confirmation that's apparent in some art works. If any one of them is explicitly portrayed, the others are often implied too, in my experience.

Ah, that might be a clue. So you're taking "volition" in an art work as meaning the display of Rand's idea of a properly human, volitionally activated consciousness? Yes?

Repeating a previous statement of yours and a question I asked. Please answer the question directly.

The mere token of painting anybody doing anything, doesn't -necessarily- show man overcoming obstacles for his rational ends. [....] I'm puzzled by your and J's attempts to make "volitional" the works of artists which are anything but.

So, for instance, playing a musical instrument isn't a "volitional" activity unless it's...what? Something like Chopin playing the piano while fighting against consumption (as tuberculosis was called then)? Something of this sort?

Ellen

Yes. No.

I'd think that advocating volitional consciousness demands the question, "Volition, to what ends?"

The purpose, objectively-speaking, is to gain those attributes and virtues I listed roughly. It follows then, that a depiction in art representing at least one of those attributes - would also depict man is a being of volitional consciousness. Broadly. To repeat, a youngster should recognise many such attributes, and mostly will imo.(Depending on the artist's skill).

The last question is remarkably literalist by premise. How would you know the subject is Chopin, or what he's suffering from, or that he is courageously overcoming his disease to create and compose? Ive gone on about the art work as "stand alone" and "end in itself", as you know well. This is an imaginary painting, not an imaginary novel, yeah? A hell of an ask, for a visual artist to portray Romantically.

But it gives me a clue about jumping to cognitive conclusions too early...which has interested me.

Tony, I'm trying to find out how you claim to recognize that a painting (or sculpture) "depict man is a being of volitional consciousness" and so far you aren't telling me anything which would let me know. You have previously named Michelangelo's "David" as exhibiting volitional consciousness, but how do you know without the title and previous awareness of the story what the sculpture is depicting? And how, on the other hand, do you know that Vermeer's paintings, many of which depict people engaged in activities which require attentive commitment, aren't exhibiting volitional consciousness?

Ellen

[Ellen Stuttle]

I saw the last one in person at the Hammer Gallery in early 1970. The artist was of the opinion it was a composite of Ayn Rand and some actress (or maybe his wife)--that is, he emphatically agreed with the observation (not mine; I only saw Rand as she ought to be-should be).

This might be the fourth time we've gone over this. I think your "it" refers to the face. The body is Pilar's (Capuletti's wife at the time).

I thought at the time he was looking for a sale so he painted it for NYC and wealthy Objectivists. Peikoff finally ended up with it, I think. Must have got it from his mentor as part of her estate.

I think that Capuletti painted it with Rand specifically in mind as the buyer. She did buy the painting. I was told so by the gallery manager who was overseeing the showing.

The color reproduction is bad. The skin in the painting has a look of living alabaster marble. The crystal is intense and vivid, and the background has a richness lacking in the photo.

At the showing I attended, there was a young man who frustratedly attempted to find out from Capuletti why the crystal was in the painting. Capuletti's English was poor, and I think he didn't understand what was bothering the young man. Capuletti said, "It looked good" - an answer which his interlocutor found unsatisfactory. "But what does it mean?!," and other such questions, the young man persisted with for a time, finally giving up, but looking dismayed.

Ellen

[Ellen Stuttle]

The funny thing is that I think that Rand would vomit if she were alive to see her followers attempting to apply her literary theory to the visual arts. They'd get another scolding about their being so impossibly stupid as to misunderstand her, and then she'd praise her husband again as being the only person who could unerringly identify which works of art she would appreciate for their true Romanticism.

I share the suspicion expressed in the first sentence.

Ellen

[Brant Gaede]

Ah, Ellen, I'm combatting my "senior moments." You may have noticed over the years a precipitous drop in the quality of my OL contributions.

--Brant

off in a jet plane to bury my uncle David at Arlington tomorrow afternoon (this note is to remind me tomrrow of why I'm in DC and where to go)

[Ellen Stuttle]

Ah, Ellen, I'm combatting my "senior moments." You may have noticed over the years a precipitous drop in the quality of my OL contributions.

--Brant

off in a jet plane to bury my uncle David at Arlington tomorrow afternoon (this note is to remind me tomrrow of why I'm in DC and where to go)

You aren't alone in having "senior moments" to combat. And, actually, I think your posts are generally tighter and better these days than some of them were back when your mother was slowly dying.

My condolences about your uncle David's death.

Ellen

[anthony]

By your reckoning then, whatever is voluntary is "volitional". In that case, doing ~any~ activity at all, represents Rand's "a being of volitional consciousness". Whether it's a man at his desk writing, a man being violent, a woman knitting ...in fact any and every picture portraying a human, fits the bill. To say nothing of adding "life as it should be"- on top of them!!. Nuh-uh. Unpack the concept "volitional", (in Objectivism) and one comes up with a whole other bunch of concepts: reason; conviction; virtues; principles; commitment; character; courage -- which are dependent on it. These--are what "volitional" implies and contains. These--require the existential affirmation and confirmation that's apparent in some art works. If any one of them is explicitly portrayed, the others are often implied too, in my experience.

Ah, that might be a clue. So you're taking "volition" in an art work as meaning the display of Rand's idea of a properly human, volitionally activated consciousness? Yes?

Repeating a previous statement of yours and a question I asked. Please answer the question directly.

The mere token of painting anybody doing anything, doesn't -necessarily- show man overcoming obstacles for his rational ends. [....] I'm puzzled by your and J's attempts to make "volitional" the works of artists which are anything but.

So, for instance, playing a musical instrument isn't a "volitional" activity unless it's...what? Something like Chopin playing the piano while fighting against consumption (as tuberculosis was called then)? Something of this sort?

Ellen

Yes. No.

I'd think that advocating volitional consciousness demands the question, "Volition, to what ends?"

The purpose, objectively-speaking, is to gain those attributes and virtues I listed roughly. It follows then, that a depiction in art representing at least one of those attributes - would also depict man is a being of volitional consciousness. Broadly. To repeat, a youngster should recognise many such attributes, and mostly will imo.(Depending on the artist's skill).

The last question is remarkably literalist by premise. How would you know the subject is Chopin, or what he's suffering from, or that he is courageously overcoming his disease to create and compose? Ive gone on about the art work as "stand alone" and "end in itself", as you know well. This is an imaginary painting, not an imaginary novel, yeah? A hell of an ask, for a visual artist to portray Romantically.

But it gives me a clue about jumping to cognitive conclusions too early...which has interested me.

Tony, I'm trying to find out how you claim to recognize that a painting (or sculpture) "depict man is a being of volitional consciousness" and so far you aren't telling me anything which would let me know. You have previously named Michelangelo's "David" as exhibiting volitional consciousness, but how do you know without the title and previous awareness of the story what the sculpture is depicting? And how, on the other hand, do you know that Vermeer's paintings, many of which depict people engaged in activities which require attentive commitment, aren't exhibiting volitional consciousness?

Ellen

If I haven't clearly enough put over "man as a being of volitional consciousness" by now, you're still not going to get it. A volitional consciousness is the precursor to and prerequirement of action, in which are formed and affirmed man's virtue, conviction and character. ("Action of the consciousness" as Branden said it).

Just somebody doing something, does not exhibit it pictorially. You (again) are mixing up "volitional consciousness" with "voluntarism", I suspect.

I don't need any information to see David for what it is. I described it in Post 297, in comparison to the other sculpture - ending by saying: "David depicts something much more towards man and life as they "should be". I never "named" it as displaying volitional consciousness, actually. Stickler for detail that you are, you should know this.

You, not I, have been cognizant of extraneous details, titles and "previous awareness"; in evaluating art I've constantly rejected any and all outside knowledge--and you well know this, too.

As for Rand vomiting. I'd rather imagine that she'd respect anyone who made their own assessments of Romanticist or Naturalist art - independently, with reason and self-interest and volitional consciousness as their guide, mistaken as she ~might~ have considered them to be. To attempt the utmost, and to be in error occasionally, is no sin. THAT is volitional consciousness at work: to self-redirect.

That "perfection ideal" is in the minds of skeptics, those re-treaded mystics, who have need of some authority figure or collective. They would and did make her sick.

[Jonathan]

I don't need any information to see David for what it is.

Yes you do. You needed the title, you needed knowledge of the event to which the sculpture refers, and, most of all, you needed Ayn Rand and her official spokesmen to tell you what to think of it. That's the reason that you gave the David as an example instead of independently offering your own example which Rand and her associates never commented on. You don't have the courage to think for yourself.

I described it in Post 297, in comparison to the other sculpture - ending by saying: "David depicts something much more towards man and life as they "should be". I never "named" it as displaying volitional consciousness, actually. Stickler for detail that you are, you should know this.

Ah, so it's a big secret as to whether or not the sculpture depicts volitional consciousness, and only Tony knows, and he's not going to tell us one way or the other? Wow, what a brave little philosopher of aesthetics!!!

You, not I, have been cognizant of extraneous details, titles and "previous awareness"; I've constantly rejected any and all outside knowledge--and you well know this, too.

Are you claiming that you were unaware of the fact that the statue is named "David" and that it refers to a specific religious/historical event? Or are you saying that you struck that information from your mind, along with Rand's official judgment of the sculpture, and that we should just trust you that those "extraneous details" had no influence on your judgment?

As for Rand vomiting. I'd imagine that she'd respect anyone who made their own assesssment - independently, with reason and self-interest and volitional consciousness as their guide, mistaken as she -might- consider them to be.

Hahahahahaha!!!!! Rand was enraged by independent judgments which differed from her own. She hectored and nagged people for making different assessments than she did! And not just in private! Her official publications on aesthetics contain angry, irrational judgments of others for their aesthetic tastes! Her Objectivist PseudoEsthetics was set up so as to pretend that her subjective tastes and interpretations were the ultimate objective identifications of factual reality and that anyone who had a different interpretation was wrong, immoral and psychologically defective!

And if not, tough.

The "perfection" ideal, is in the minds of skeptics, re-treaded mystics, those who have need of some authority figure or collective. They would and did make her sick.

As I said earlier, I think that Rand would vomit over the art that is created by those who have the intention of complying with her aesthetic theories, but, also, I think that she'd beg you, Tony, to leave Objectivism alone and to stop trying to speak for it or to pretend to practice it. She'd be embarrassed and insulted to have you on her side.

J

[Jonathan]

off in a jet plane to bury my uncle David at Arlington tomorrow afternoon (this note is to remind me tomrrow of why I'm in DC and where to go)

Sorry for your loss, Brant.

J

[Ellen Stuttle]

If I haven't clearly enough put over "man as a being of volitional consciousness" by now, you're still not going to get it.

That may well be true - that I'm not going to get it. Because I don't think you have a distinction to be gotten!

A volitional consciousness is the precursor to and prerequirement of action, in which are formed and affirmed man's virtue, conviction and character. ("Action of the consciousness" as Branden said it).

Just somebody doing something, does not exhibit it pictorially. You (again) are mixing up "volitional consciousness" with "voluntarism", I suspect.

Why do reading, writing, playing an instrument, controlledly pouring milk, weighing things in a balance, gazing with a contemplative look in a room with papers, books, and a globe NOT exhibit "action, in which are formed and affirmed man's virtue, conviction, and character"?

I don't need any information to see David for what it is. I described it in Post 297, in comparison to the other sculpture - ending by saying: "David depicts something much more towards man and life as they "should be". I never "named" it as displaying volitional consciousness, actually. Stickler for detail that you are, you should know this.

You, not I, have been cognizant of extraneous details, titles and "previous awareness"; in evaluating art I've constantly rejected any and all outside knowledge--and you well know this, too.

No, I do not know that you've rejected outside knowledge. The post which you referenced, #297, for example, doesn't reject outside knowledge. You're correct that it doesn't mention "volitional consciousness." It might have been that post which occasioned my pointing out that you'd shifted from Rand's definition of "Romanticism"/"Naturalism."

Here's the relevant part of the post. The "you" to whom you're replying is Jules Troy.

OK: By "nice" I infer the sculpture is aesthetically pleasing to you. It is beautiful, it has the same elements of superior bodily form superbly rendered as, say, Michelangelo's David. But what else? You observe the drama there? The muscular tension and the expressions on the faces? All apparent is the violence portrayed of a man over a woman.

Contrast with 'David' - a man alone, in his stance of unashamedly naked pride and confidence.

The first statue evinces one's alarm or even disgust at the plight of the woman - brute force of the more physically powerful primitive person over someone weak. We don't have to be told that life can be like that, but the artist seemed to think it was important. i.e. he showed life as he views it --as it is. Conversely, 'David' depicts something much more important - further towards man and life as they "should be". Therefore, once one begins looking closely and thinking about an artwork, one can't help making a moral judgment of it, of what is 'good' (for mankind as a whole, but especially for each of us to carry away, conceptually) and what is 'bad'.

Albeit, that both works may be assessed to have aesthetic parity.

As Jonathan pointed out, the former statue by itself without the misleading clue of the title doesn't reveal what you say. And if you look at the man's expression, he doesn't look unfriendly disposed. The woman, I agree, looks unhappy about the situation, and struggling against it, but I see nothing in the statue itself which would tell you why.

Nor do I see anything which would indicate life as it "should be" from the David. One might take the man's body as a physical ideal, depending on one's ideas of masculine beauty. Or not. And "unashamedly naked pride and confidence"? What in the statue would indicate any issue of shame versus non-shame about nakedness? As to confidence, I think his expression looks worried, cautious at any rate. And why is he carrying a stone and a leather object? One might imagine all sorts of uses to which those might be going to be put.

I think you are bringing external information to assessing the meanings, for all your denying that you are.

I might go so far as to say that it isn't possible to assess meaning in visual art without external information. (No counter examples come to my mind at the moment, but I'll try to think of some.)

As for Rand vomiting. I'd rather imagine that she'd respect anyone who made their own assessments of Romanticist or Naturalist art - independently, with reason and self-interest and volitional consciousness as their guide, mistaken as she ~might~ have considered them to be. To attempt the utmost, and to be in error occasionally, is no sin. THAT is volitional consciousness at work: to self-redirect.

That "perfection ideal" is in the minds of skeptics, those re-treaded mystics, who have need of some authority figure or collective. They would and did make her sick.

The art that Jonathan and and I were talking about is what we call "Objectikitsch." Although Rand made mistakes in aesthetic judgment - for example, ascribing technical mastery to Capuletti - I think that she would have seen the second-or-lower-ratedness and imitativeness of Objectikitsch."

Ellen

[anthony]

Ellen, Nothing new, really.

But the mere token of a human subject in an artwork says nothing about the volitional faculty. It only indicates that men and women exist, physically, while indicating nothing of any moral resolve which precedes their activity. Which, while being a singular challenge to a visual artist, and rare, is possible to depict by style and representation.

The proof of the pudding is in the eating, and the "proof" of the picture is in the seeing.

It's why I believe the most sophisticated art expert can't impose upon a naive youngster anything about art. Through the fresh vision and the willing mind of the young person, an artwork is what it appears: a picture. It has crucial meaning and importance to his/her life, and indisputably to her/him, it was created by an artist with 'something to say' (some vision to share). That is, unless their minds have already surrendered to conformism and authoritarianism.

That is, also, unless anyone genuinely believes that an artist is inept, or ambiguous, or deliberately unclear in his presentation. Then anything goes, to any viewer. But I strongly doubt it.

Above all, one has to see art exactly for what it is, i.e. to have certainty in the evidence of one's senses. After which, logically and naturally follows a judgement - as with any existent in reality: good or bad for life - or perhaps neutral, mundane and indifferent.

To repeat, I count on good aesthetics as 'a given' by a capable artist; but what more is there? The aesthetics is what captures and holds the viewer's attention, but it promises far more -- and should deliver something above an ordinary reflection of life. The avid viewer who wants more, can't go far wrong (as I see it) than to have the clear vision of a youngster, the mind of a conceptual thinker, while holding the emotions of a romantic- all at once.

[Brant Gaede]

Counting on "good" esthetics front-runs appreciation and likely ruins it. It's a way of supposedly inter-jecting oneself into the creative process where the non-artist doesn't belong. If you didn't paint it you can't explain it by way of taking any credit for its creation. There is no such thing as "good aesthetics" only the discipline of. The artist did this or that by way of this or that related to this or that and /or combinations thereof, etc. Then you get "good" and "bad" or "not up to snuff" or whatever but not any "should have beens"--that's for a movie reviewer or art critic--the el cheapos--with the esthetician being more of a scholar of it all. The esthetician is not entitled to say, "Follow the yellow brick road!" What halfway decent artist would give any truck to that?

--Brant

[anthony]

We always look down stream to big goverment and politics, but never enough upstream to where it all begins, it seems to me. It's no accident that art - particularly, literature, the nursery school of abstraction and concept formation - is viewed as cynical "anything goes, whatever rocks your boat". Or, egalitarian, or elitist.

And few read novels any more. That tremendous trove of fiction by the West's writers of the 20th century- individualist, Naturalist and Romanticist- has been largely abandoned. Where else does one exert imagination, or create, exercise and apply concepts, other than in and from fiction? So... we have increasing numbers of intelligent, fact-stuffed citizens, who can't abstract and think conceptually I.E. people who lack independent thought --let alone, gain understanding of other individuals and their lives. Evidently this lack of independent thinking and suspicion is where and how societies decline into Socialish collectivism. Art both reflects and instigates those trends and the dominant philosophy.

[Ellen Stuttle]

Ellen, Nothing new, really.

Nothing new, really, in your giving a speech while avoiding answering questions.

I'll pose this question again:

Why do reading, writing, playing an instrument, controlledly pouring milk, weighing things in a balance, gazing with a contemplative look in a room with papers, books, and a globe NOT exhibit "action, in which are formed and affirmed man's virtue, conviction, and character"?

But the mere token of a human subject in an artwork says nothing about the volitional faculty. It only indicates that men and women exist, physically, while indicating nothing of any moral resolve which precedes their activity. Which, while being a singular challenge to a visual artist, and rare, is possible to depict by style and representation.

Will you give an example of a case in which you think a visual artist has indicated moral resolve preceding activity?

(And no fair using the "David" statue as an example after you chided me with the reminder that you "never 'named' it as displaying volitional consciousness, actually.")

What of this example - although it's a photograph. Does it exhibit "volitional consciousness"?

Ellen

[Brant Gaede]

What of this example - although it's a photograph. Does it exhibit "volitional consciousness"?

Ellen

Yes!--if Ayn were right-handed. The pen is in her left hand so she chose to put it in her left!

--Brant

bad, bad boy

edit: opps!--that's her cigarette holder (but demonstrates she choses to smoke?)

Edited June 29, 2014 by Brant Gaede

[anthony]

Ellen, Nothing new, really.

Nothing new, really, in your giving a speech while avoiding answering questions.

I'll pose this question again:

Why do reading, writing, playing an instrument, controlledly pouring milk, weighing things in a balance, gazing with a contemplative look in a room with papers, books, and a globe NOT exhibit "action, in which are formed and affirmed man's virtue, conviction, and character"?

But the mere token of a human subject in an artwork says nothing about the volitional faculty. It only indicates that men and women exist, physically, while indicating nothing of any moral resolve which precedes their activity. Which, while being a singular challenge to a visual artist, and rare, is possible to depict by style and representation.

Will you give an example of a case in which you think a visual artist has indicated moral resolve preceding activity?

(And no fair using the "David" statue as an example after you chided me with the reminder that you "never 'named' it as displaying volitional consciousness, actually.")

What of this example - although it's a photograph. Does it exhibit "volitional consciousness"?

Ellen

My Dad had this Army saying he'd throw at me whenever he saw I was disingenuously trying to put something over him:

"Dont you play the innocent soldier with me, lad!"

You must know, Ellen, that the basis of Naturalism (by Rand, at least, and others too) is men "as they are"-- and, "life as it is". Therefore, any picture or writing in the "journalistic" style represents Naturalism.

Before volition or non-volition even enters. (This was all-Rand, I think).

I've already tried to point out the conceptual over-lap between two concepts: a being of volitional consciousness, and man as he ought to be. Same goes here. "Man as he is" represents determinism -- but for the lucid explanation, you'd have to go back to TRM. "Art and Cognition" I think is a good place. Or maybe "The Psycho-epistemology of Art".

For starters, a big difference is in the stylizing, I'd say.

Pictures of folks involved in various activities are as journalistic as if they'd been photographed.

Compare the Rand photo with any Vermeer as an interesting exercise.

I made a speech?

Look on the bright side: no extra charge...

;)

[Brant Gaede]

"Man as he is" simply begs the question of how he got to be where he is. "Man as he should be" begs the question of how he was. (Not "should be" too?) Naturalism says he's not a being of volitional consciousness while romanticism says he is? I am of the impression none of this is the essence of any great visual art which is looking if not tactile apperception.

--Brant

[anthony]

"Man as he is" simply begs the question of how he got to be where he is. "Man as he should be" begs the question of how he was. (Not "should be" too?) Naturalism says he's not a being of volitional consciousness while romanticism says he is? I am of the impression none of this is the essence of any great visual art which is looking if not tactile apperception.

--Brant

True: It is an absorbing one. That statement is a sort of shorthand for a pretty complex concept I think. Evident in much of her writing is Rand's view that it takes a sustained effort of consciousness to get to "man as he should be" -- "proper" to life. I suppose "as he is" is the default position. So, sustained effort requires sustenance, and for that a specific form of art fits the bill.

My sense is that in all of Rand's huge concepts (collectivism, altruism, volition, for examples) one has got to (well, not "got to", since it is "volitional" consciousness, after all) see them as she did.

Anyhow, to make sense of her, it's necessary to go behind the accepted understanding and definitions.

There is the act of consciousness to deliberately absorb and hold a conviction, the corresponding physical actions themselves, and the consequences of the two. In actuality, I'm sure the threesome almost run concurrently.

It was the way it seems she saw things: not only 'altruism', say - but how a person can allow the notion to take hold in the mind (by evasion and abnegation); second, the explicit acts of obligation and duty, expressed or forced by altruism in reality; lastly, the practical and moral outcomes and ill-effects of trying to exist altruistically.

A measure of the depth and breadth of her intellect is that it appears she immediately comprehended the causal chain of any concept, from start to finish.

[Brant Gaede]

A measure of the depth and breadth of her intellect is that it appears she immediately comprehended the causal chain of any concept, from start to finish.

Really? She was quick on the draw to deductively infer. That has its pluses and minuses. Unfortunately, that doesn't jibe with her agonizingly brutal focus on squeezing every last drop of meaning out of someone else's evil prognostications in order to sound an alarm that allegedly should have been sounded centuries ago in her constant celebration of the power of philosophy, good and bad, in seeming contradistinction to her thesis of the impotence of evil.

--Brant

[Jonathan]

A measure of the depth and breadth of her intellect is that it appears she immediately comprehended the causal chain of any concept, from start to finish.

No, she didn't. She immediately had very strong reactions to things, and made sure to give her very emotionally charged opinions over and over again. She was often right, but also often wrong. Certain people are dazzled enough by her brilliance when she was right that they refuse to see where she was laughably wrong. They're the type of people who can't answer simple, direct questions or give examples to support their stupidly trying to employ her mistaken theories.

It's amusing that, despite the fact that Objectivism places so much importance on proving one's assertions, when Objectivists can't prove a highly irrational position that they hold, they claim that their opponents are being "disingenuous" in demanding proof, as Tony did in 391. I've seen it many times in O-land (Newberry, Pigero, Olivia, SoftwareNerd, Jennifer Snow...). Just think about how fucked up an Objectivist has to be to abandon reason and proof in order to cling to Rand's mistaken aesthetic theories, and to treat reason and proof as if they are traps to be avoided!

Tony has never critically thought about any of the issues that we've brought up on this thread. He has no idea how he decides if a work of art presents "life as it is" versus "life as it ought to be." There's no rhyme or reason to his interpretations, and therefore he can't explain it or even give one coherent example of an actual artwork and the method that he used to classify it as representing "life as it ought to be." He has become intellectually paralyzed by Obedience to Rand's inappropriately applying her personal theory of literature to all art works.

J

[Brant Gaede]

I don't understand these non-thinking mind sets. There was a time I thought everything out of Rand's mouth and pen was God's own truth, but I knew it wasn't in repeatable form except for the very basics so I kept my lips zipped. The reason I knew it wasn't in repeatable form--by me--was I didn't have the knowledge to take it in and put it out again except by sounding like a third-class Ayn Rand. What I also didn't understand was Rand's own frequent lack of back-stop knowledge. (This wasn't always true, she knew some of her limitations.) She did not have a good liberal arts education. Most people don't. Even Nathaniel Branden was somewhat LA deficient, but not nearly as deficient as she was. (His understanding of science was next to zilch, but he tended to do much better in other areas and he was up to rational give and take and consideration, especially after 1968.)

--Brant

[anthony]

haha. There's another option besides Randian obedience and an unthinking mindset, one which might be startling.

What if someone interpreted Rand's output, freshly without prejudicial fear or favour, compared those findings exhaustedly to their own observations, experience and thinking - discovered truth and value therein - and implemented it consistently to living - and hardly ever found it wanting??

Studying Rand and Objectivism is like peeling an onion: some of the outer layers are dry and wrinkled, and can be discarded. Cut deeper, and the undeniable truths emerge, right on down to the perfect heart of the onion. Hierarchical priority - depth and breadth- should never be lost in the outer details.

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

Art comes down to two questions (which I've yet to see satisfactorily responded to here):

Is the realm of art fully, completely, within the realm of reality AND the scope of consciousness and identity, for both creator and the contemplator? Or, is it something approaching mystique? A spiritual essence, in effect, which emanated from who knows where, too sacrosanct to question by ordinary people.

If art is of value, to whom is it of value - and why? Value - without a valuer? Is it enough that 'everybody' values a painting? Because everybody else values it? Or the experts tell us. Or it fetches huge prices. Is the aesthetics and beauty sufficient?

Art's value is then - intrinsic, collectivist, elitist, and sensory-perceptual - in other words.

Isn't it rather of value to the one person, at a time, who perceives its value, for nasty selfish reasons?

As far as the artist is concerned, I believe either response should be insulting to him and the works he agonized over.

[BaalChatzaf]

Studying Rand and Objectivism is like peeling an onion: some of the outer layers are dry and wrinkled, and can be discarded. Cut deeper, and the undeniable truths emerge, right on down to the perfect heart of the onion. Hierarchical priority - depth and breadth- should never be lost in the outer details.

That is true for any field and any subject.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Jonathan]

haha. There's another option besides Randian obedience and an unthinking mindset, one which might be startling.

Yes, there is another option, but that would involve you actually answering our questions, giving examples, and proving your positions. You refuse to do so. So, the option that we've identified is the only one that applies. You are Obedient and unthinking.

What if someone interpreted Rand's output, freshly without prejudicial fear or favour, compared those findings exhaustedly to their own observations, experience and thinking - discovered truth and value therein...

Um, that's not proof of anything. It's not the way that Objectivism or logic works. Objectivity and rationality isn't about Rand giving an opinion about her experiences and then you feeling that it resonates with your opinions of your own similar personal experiences, and therefore drawing a universal conclusion. Objectivism isn't about just Rand and Tony and what subjective tastes and interpretations they have in common. Rather, it's about all of mankind. It's about the nature of man, not the nature of just Rand and Tony. It's about objectively PROVING one's conclusions, not subjectively agreeing with Ayn Rand.

Following your irrational method, you could do the same with Rand's favorite flavors and come to the mistaken opinion that since you and Rand loved the same flavors, therefore doing so is the nature of man, and your favorite flavors are therefore objectively the best flavors for everyone.

See how having the same subjective preferences as Ayn Rand doesn't make them universal or objective? Understand?

...and implemented it consistently to living - and hardly ever found it wanting??

You haven't "implemented it consistently." On this thread you've done everything that you can to avoid applying Objectivist Epistemology to the Objectivist PseudoEsthetics. You are Obedient to the PseudoEsthetics to the point of abandoning the Objectivist Epsitemology. The Objectivist Epistemology requires you to PROVE your assertions, but your REFUSE to do so. Not only that, but you claim that your being asked to prove your assertions is a "disingenuous" trick!

Studying Rand and Objectivism is like peeling an onion: some of the outer layers are dry and wrinkled, and can be discarded.

You've discarded the Objectivist Epistemology in favor of the PseudoEsthetics. Apparently that was the layer that you thought was "dry and wrinkled." You've abandoned objectivity and rationality in favor of Rand's nonsense views on judging art and artists.

Cut deeper, and the undeniable truths emerge, right on down to the perfect heart of the onion. Hierarchical priority - depth and breadth- should never be lost in the outer details.

And yet you've abandoned the Objectivist Epistemology due to your Obedience to the Objectivist PseudoEsthetics which was never anything but subjective opinions mixed with lots of bluff and bluster. The Objectivist PseudoEsthetics is not the application of the "hierarchical priority" of the rest of the philosophy, but of ignoring and contradicting the entirety of the other branches.

Art comes down to two questions (which I've yet to see satisfactorily responded to here):

Is the realm of art fully, completely, within the realm of reality AND the scope of consciousness and identity, for both creator and the contemplator? Or, is it something approaching mystique? A spiritual essence, in effect, which emanated from who knows where, too sacrosanct to question by ordinary people.

We've already answered your question multiple times. We've informed you that we don't accept your dishonest phrasing of the question. The answer is that art is not limited to Tony's and Ayn's personal experiences.

(Maybe the lack of this previously unstated implication is something that is throwing Tony for a loop: Art most definitely includes Tony and Rand's experiences, which are just as valid as anyone else's, but art is not limited to their experiences: others may experience more than Tony and Rand, or they may experience less, or they may experience the same or very different things, all of which are valid regardless of whether or not Tony and Rand experienced them as well.)

If art is of value, to whom is it of value - and why?

We've been asking you "why." And also "how." Over and over and over again. How and why do you judge a work of art to be "Romantic"? Hint: "Rand and I had the same experience" isn't a valid answer according to Objectivism.

Which activities that are depicted in a painting represent "life as it ought to be," and why? By what OBJECTIVE standard do you conclude that certain depictions represent "life as it is" versus "life as it ought to be"?

Above, you asserted that the realm of art is either fully, completely within the realm of reality and the scope of consciousness and identity, for both creator and the contemplator, or it something approaching mystique: a spiritual essence, in effect, which emanated from who knows where, too sacrosanct to question by ordinary people.

If it is within the realm of reality, and the scope of consciousness and identity, then you should be able to PROVE and IDENTIFY an objective method of finding meaning in art, as well as an objective method of classifying art as "Romantic" versus "Naturalist." You should have no problem giving examples of how to objectively determine if a painting represents "life as it is" versus "life as it ought to be." But you can't do either. All that you can do is parrot Rand's subjective and self-contradictory opinions. So, in other words, by your own formulation, your view of art must be one of "mystique": there is a "spiritual essence" which emanated from Ayn Rand and is too sacrosanct to be questioned by ordinary people; they will not be given logic and reason in response to their questions, nor even examples in reality of judging works or art to be "Romanticist," because logic and reason are not applicable when the standard of judgment is Rand's and Tony's subjective tastes and interpretations.

See what I'm saying, Tony? In refusing to prove your position, identify an objective method of aesthetic interpretation and judgment, and give examples of aesthetic classification, YOU are being the "elitist" who is advocating the "mystique" of his "axiomatic" and unexplainable opinions. Get it? Please, get it! C'mon, man, just get it!

I feel like Carlos Mencia in this clip from the fishsticks (fish dicks) episode of Southpark:

http://www.southparkstudios.com/clips/224096/im-not-actually-funny

Value - without a valuer? Is it enough that 'everybody' values a painting? Because everybody else values it? Or the experts tell us. Or it fetches huge prices. Is the aesthetics and beauty sufficient?

Your answer is that you and Rand had the same opinion and therefore your opinion is "axiomatic." Dunce.

Art's value is then - intrinsic, collectivist, elitist, and sensory-perceptual - in other words.

Isn't it rather of value to the one person, at a time, who perceives its value, for nasty selfish reasons?

Why "nasty"? Who are you dishonestly trying to smear as having said that valuing art for selfish reasons is "nasty"?

As far as the artist is concerned, I believe either response should be insulting to him and the works he agonized over.

You don't know anything about real artists. Your entire opinion comes from Rand's fantasy vision of art. She didn't even follow her own stated rules of artistic creation, and her own work is both aesthetically bad and ethically evil when her own method of judging art is applied to it. Apparently she never investigated the possibility of being hoist by her own petard. Her PseudoEsthetics is so unscholarly and hastily constructed that she didn't even take the time to test it by consistently applying the method behind her harsh judgments of others to herself and her own work. And you are limited to her mistaken "knowledge" and subjective aesthetic judgments.

She wanted to believe that her subjective tastes and judgments were "objective," and you do too. You want to believe it so badly that you're willing to twist yourself into illogical pretzels and abandon reality. You want to believe that you and she share a "measure of the depth and breadth of intellect" which allows you to "immediately comprehended the causal chain of any concept, from start to finish." Unfortunately, it's just a fantasy. It's a sort of religious need to believe in something larger than the reality that you're living.

J

[Brant Gaede]

But the "Objectivist Esthetics" are not part of Objectivism. If they are when and where did Rand say so? If you apply Objectivist epistemology to "Objectivist Esthetics" they can neither be validated nor invalidated for they aren't there for that. You are asking Tony for the impossible. And where has Tony claimed they are actually part of her philosophy? Everybody, except me (blush), is pretending this has something to do with Objectivism. It certainly has something to do with "the philosophy of Ayn Rand," but that ain't Objectivism except that little neglected part over in the corner. Tony's avoidance of critical thinking is part and parcel of what Rand dished up for public consumption, but she did a better job of laying down smoke to conceal its lack and discourage it in her followers. I think there was a lot of delusion about the importance of philosophy relative to other disciplines impacting human being, history and culture and no consideration at all of the complete deficiency of all philosophy generally of human psychology and knowledge of the difference between philosophy-psychology as such and as such applied. That's why philosophy studied in college is so much mind-bending fluff.

Now if Rand did say they were part of Objectivism, we can go look at and consider that.

--Brant

first basics, then discuss, discuss, discuss