Apples - Rand on Still Life Paintings, Plus

[william.scherk]

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!

The mention of Newberry reminded me of something, so I had to go look. He published his "guidelines for detecting metaphysical value-judgments in painting" in 2002. In the article are thirteen paintings, including the thread-perennial Maid with Milk by Vermeer. It is part fun, part sad to read.

This Newberry painting is one of the thirteen, one that I call "While Orgasming, We Knocked Over The Lamp." And a bright lamp it was.

What is the position of the people in relation to the canvas? What is the main focus of the painting? What is their relationship to their surroundings? Does the light have any symbolic meaning? How would you describe their body language? What adjectives would you use to describe the mood in the painting?

What would properly describe their body language? Would 'contorted' or 'posed' be right?

Here are some more guidelines from the same Newberry lecture:

1. Describe what you see.

2. The canvas is the Universe. Approach each and every artwork as if it is a universe in itself. Simply substitute "universe" for "canvas" and a whole new outlook will become apparent.

a. Look for the size of humanity in relationship to the canvas. This is symbolic of humanity's importance in the universe: is humanity larger than life or tiny and insignificant?

b. How is humanity placed within this universe? At the top, bottom or center?

c. What is the most prominent feature within the canvas/universe and what is the main focus?

d. For non-figurative work, what are the outstanding things and how are they placed in the canvas?

3. What is the relationship of subject or person to their environment? This will tell us how important humanity is in relationship to society or nature.

a. Is there a significant difference of sizes between the setting and the subject?

b. Look for the possible symbolism of the objects and/or their relationships. For example, a barrier to freedom symbolized by a chain-link fence. Or, the state buildings are all-powerful above and humanity is crushed below.

c. Is there more emphasis placed on one thing more than another? For example, is there a disregard for the setting and is all the focus on the main figure?

4. Body language.

a. What are people doing? Are they bent, awkward or upright and elegant?

b. Think about the symbolic implications of their posture: are they approaching life as a servant, a thug, or a hero?

c. What are the most notable facial features?

5. Use adjectives to describe the style, color, and light. This is not a substitute for the facts that are represented in the painting, but using adjectives first to describe a general impression helps you find the facts. We are not analyzing whether the means of the painting are good or not, merely trying to get at the mood of the piece, just as how you might describe the weather outside as cheerful or crystal-clear.

a. Is the painting distorted, smeared, vague or is it orderly, in focus, complex?

b. Are the colors murky, dull or vibrant, bold? Are they in harmony or do they clash?

c. Is the light in the painting subdued or brilliant?

d. The symbolism of light and shadow cannot be missed: are the objects or persons dim and the unenlightened? Or are they enlightened by a radiant universe?

-- and a radiant universe within one contortionist, his lovely if back-snapping, neck-tearing "Ascension" ...

Edited July 1, 2014 by william.scherk

[Wolf DeVoon]

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

 

Good question.

 

Let's start with Rand: "Man's profound need of art lies in the fact that his cognitive faculty is conceptual, i.e., that he acquires knowledge by means of abstractions, and needs the power to bring his widest metaphysical abstractions into his immediate, perceptual awareness. Art fulfills this need: by means of a selective re-creation, it concretizes man's fundamental view of himself and of existence. It tells man, in effect, which aspects of his experience are to be regarded as essential, significant, important." [Romantic Manifesto, p.45]

 

Stated in sharper, more accessible terms: "What in hell are you really made of, Howard? After all, it's only a building. It's not the combination of holy sacrament, Indian torture, and sexual ecstasy that you seem to make of it" ... “When I listen to a symphony I love, I don't get from it what the composer got. His 'Yes' was different from mine. He could have no concern for mine and no exact conception of it. That answer is too personal to each man. But in giving himself what he wanted, he gave me a great experience.” [Fountainhead] "There were sharp little blows in the music, and waves of quick, fine notes that burst and rolled like the thin, clear ringing of broken glass." [We The Living] "She loves the music of Richard Halley. Outside the railroad, that's the only thing she loves." [Atlas]

 

Esthetic theory is deeply embedded in Rand's body of work. Her most important fiction was the story of an architect, a sculptor, and an evil art critic. Music is a recurring theme. The Romantic Manifesto paid tribute to the literature that inspired her, contrasted with "kitchen sink" naturalism. Not much ambiguity or uncertainty about it. Rand saw life as a heroic journey, with art and love as its highest, most personal and selfish experiences.

 

Straight off, let's agree that creation has nothing to do with bombing Serbia or Timbuktu. Having worked in advertising, I certify that creation is an entirely separate endeavor; it pertains to something other than marketing or pandering. Creation does not proceed from the known. It cannot be purchased by grasping the elements of tradition or pragmatism. It has no brand value, no utilitarian return-on-investment.

Neither is creation a result of science or mathematics, although creators draw on every skill known to humanity and all of our history. But just as a priest must use a dollop of mechanical physics in order to waltz half-conscious through a meaningless ritual, a thousand other trades require their practitioners to understand that 2 + 2 = 4. Slander not the creators merely because they sup from our collective storehouse of language and arts.

What separates creation from all other human endeavor is The Unknown. If you become learned and skillful, nothing has been created, unless you attack the outer fringe of your knowledge and poke at the darkness it holds.

In terms of pure creativity, an ignorant savage is better equipped to face the black Unknown than a trained scientist. Where a scholar would see recurring patterns and well-known phenomena, at least an idiot devoid of knowledge has an even chance of creation. Ignorance may never be blissful, but it certainly multiplies the probability of creation. When you consider that all religion, fable, mythology, art and romance arose from human creativity, in the absence of or in contradiction to known fact, the Unknown seems indifferent, at best, to wisdom.

 

"The Power of Creativity" G21 World Magazine, 1999

 

I wouldn't surrender one moment I devoted to consuming fine art.

[Brant Gaede]

Newberry is worse than I imagined, Bill, but I like his point #2.

I hope you don't think you and I are having an argument, Wolf.

--Brant

[Wolf DeVoon]

Of course not, Brant. Just speaking for myself in an unguarded way.

 

 

    Price Tower, Bartlesville, Frank Lloyd Wright, 1956 (below, interior)

   top floor details: copper balcony glyphs, shutters, ornamental spire

[Brant Gaede]

Ah. Zen.

--Brant

[Jonathan]

The mention of Newberry reminded me of something, so I had to go look. He published his "guidelines for detecting metaphysical value-judgments in painting" in 2002. In the article are thirteen paintings, including the thread-perennial Maid with Milk by Vermeer. It is part fun, part sad to read.

Kamhi and Torres had a nice little rebuttal to Newberry in JARS, reproduced in this PDF, beginning on page 461.

Highlights:

...Newberry proposes to demonstrate our alleged error by applying Rand’s metaphysical questions to an interpretation of selected works of visual art. In another context, he has gone so far as to declare that “answering the[se] questions is not only possible [but]...is [for him] the most rewarding and exciting aspect of appreciating painting” (2001b). Such an approach is lamentably all too common among Objectivists attempting to apply Rand’s theory to the interpretation (and even to the creation) of visual art...

...Unlike Newberry, however, we would not conclude that a painting is “not a good work” if it depends on culturally shared knowledge or associations for a full grasp of its moral (or other) import. Many paintings inspired by history, literature, or mythology have done so, to great effect...

...Contrary to Newberry’s facile interpretation, the reality Munch was concerned with conveying was not the physical appearance of external reality but, rather, the inner, emotional reality of an overwhelming sense of terror. The artist’s meaning is not that “humans are sexless and non-solid, without muscles or bone structure” or that the universe, in general, “swims and shifts, that its nature is unpredictable and unknowable.” What Munch was getting at was something more like: “This is what it feels like to be gripped by terror (regardless ofone’s gender)—one feels limp and helpless, at the mercy of an unknown power in an unstable realm.” While the image is not one we are personally drawn to, it is a powerful expression of a moment in the artist’s own experience of life—a life beset, as he reported, by illness, insanity, and the death of close family members...

...Notwithstanding such a somber view, bred in large measure of early personal tragedy, other works by Munch depict anatomically differentiated men, women, and children, in an intelligible natural world that is neither swimming nor shifting, and they thus belie the simplistic generalization Newberry draws from The Scream. Though this painting is one of Munch’s most expressionistically stylized images and has therefore been widely exploited as an icon of modernism, it is by no means wholly representative of his work. When viewed in the context of his life’s output, it is a sobering reminder of the futility of Newberry’s approach to artistic “detection.”

This Newberry painting is one of the thirteen, one that I call "While Orgasming, We Knocked Over The Lamp." And a bright lamp it was.

People do sometimes knock over lamps and other household items while orgasming, so, by Tony's method, I suppose the painting should be categorized as "life as it is"?

-- and a radiant universe within one contortionist, his lovely if back-snapping, neck-tearing "Ascension" ...

Maybe that's an example of how "life ought to be" since people don't generally jump around in back-snappping poses, and therefore it's not "life as it is"? We "ought to" work on our vertical leaping abilities and do more yoga so as to be flexible enough to do Objectivist flying back-benders? I think that's the meaning of the piece if we use Rand and Tony's theory of aesthetic hermeneutics.

Anyway, in my last post, I mentioned South Park's Fish Sticks episode in which Kanye West was hilariously ripped to shreds, and I just now discovered that he gave a response:

"South Park murdered me last night and it’s pretty funny. It hurts my feelings but what can you expect from South Park! I actually have been working on my ego though. Having the crazy ego is played out at this point in my life and career. I use to use it to build up my esteem when nobody believed in me. Now that people do believe and support my music and products the best response is thank you instead of “i told you so!!!” it’s cool to talk shit when you’re rapping but not in real life. When you meet little wayne in person he’s the nicest guy for example. I just wanna be a doper person which starts with me not always telling people how dope i think i am. I need to just get past myself. Drop the bravado and just make dope product. Everything is not that serious. As long as people think i act like a bitch this type of s– will happen to me. I got a long road ahead of me to make people believe i’m not actually a huge douche but i’m up for the challenge. I’m sure the writers at south park are really nice people in real life. Thanks for taking the time to draw my crew. That was pretty funny also!! I’m sure there’s grammatical errors in this...that’s how you know it’s me!"

Wow! It's really too bad that people like Rand and Newberry never reached Kanye West's level of maturity and learned to drop the bravado that they needed when they were coming up!

J

[Jonathan]

Let's start with Rand: "Man's profound need of art lies in the fact that his cognitive faculty is conceptual, i.e., that he acquires knowledge by means of abstractions, and needs the power to bring his widest metaphysical abstractions into his immediate, perceptual awareness. Art fulfills this need: by means of a selective re-creation, it concretizes man's fundamental view of himself and of existence. It tells man, in effect, which aspects of his experience are to be regarded as essential, significant, important." [Romantic Manifesto, p.45]

Kant beat Rand to it, as I reported here, quoting Paul Guyer's Kant:

...Kant now emphasizes that we are sensuous as well as rational creatures, and therefore need sensuous as well as rational presentation and confirmation of the conditions of the possibility of morality. He explicitly acknowledges this three years after the Critique of the Power of Judgment, when in Religion within the Boundaries of Mere Reason he asserts "the natural need of all human beings to demand for even the highest concepts and grounds of reason something that the senses can hold on to, some confirmation from experience or the like" (RBMR, 6:109). In Kant's mind, the deepest connection between aesthetic and teleological experience and judgment is that both give us sensuous images of morality and a feeling of its achievability that can supplement and strengthen our purely — but also merely — rational insight into its demands and the possibility of our fulfilling them.

...Kant's interest in aesthetic phenomena is precisely his view that the freedom of the imagination that we experience in our encounter with beautiful objects can give us a feeling of the reality of the freedom of the will that we can only postulate within purely moral reasoning, and the natural existenceof beauty can give us a feeling that nature is hospitable to the achievement of our moral goals as well, again something we can only postulate in the moral theory of the highest good — aesthetic feelings with an emotional impact that can support the effect of pure reason upon our sensible side.

J

[Brant Gaede]

Just a minute there, J. Kant is evil.

--Brant

[Jonathan]

Just a minute there, J. Kant is evil.

--Brant

Yes, Kant was so evil that Rand unknowingly copied his notion of mankind's need of art, and also unknowingly made his concept of the Sublime her signature aesthetic style! Heh.

J

[Wolf DeVoon]

Rand unknowingly copied [Kant's] notion of mankind's need of art, and also unknowingly made his concept of the Sublime her signature aesthetic style!

I call bullshit. Here's an analysis of Kantian gibberish, linking the "sublime" (something huge) with morality (duty)

Kant claims that the relation of the overwhelming sensible object to our sense is in a kind of ‘harmony’ (sect.27) or analogy to the relation of the rational idea of absolute totality to any sensible object or faculty. The sublime experience, then, is a two-layer process. First, a contrapurposive layer in which our faculties of sense fail to complete their task of presentation. Second, a strangely purposive layer in which this very failure constitutes a ‘negative exhibition’ (‘General Comment’ following sect.29) of the ideas of reason (which could not otherwise be presented). This ‘exhibition’ thus also provides a purposiveness of the natural object for the fulfillment of the demands of reason. Moreover, and importantly, it also provides a new and ‘higher’ purposiveness to the faculties of sense themselves which are now understood to be properly positioned with respect to our ‘supersensible vocation’ (sect.27) – i.e. in the ultimately moral hierarchy of the faculties. Beyond simply comprehending individual sensible things, our faculty of sensibility, we might say, now knows what it is for. We will return to this point shortly. The consequence of this purposiveness is exactly that ‘negative pleasure’ (sect.23) for which we had be searching. The initial displeasure of the ‘violence’ against our apparent sensible interests is now matched by a ‘higher’ pleasure arising from the strange purposiveness Kant has discovered. Interestingly, on Kant’s description, neither of these feelings wins out – instead, the sublime feeling consists of a unique ‘vibration’ or ‘rapid alternation’ of these feelings (sect.27).

The dynamically sublime is similar. In this case, a ‘might’ or power is observed in nature that is irresistible with respect to our bodily or sensible selves. Such an object is ‘fearful’ to be sure, but (because we remain disinterested) is not an object of fear. (Importantly, one of Kant’s examples here is religion: God is fearful but the righteous man is not afraid. This is the difference, he says, between a rational religion and mere superstition.) Again, the sublime is a two-layered experience. Kant writes that such objects ‘raise the soul’s fortitude above its usual middle range and allow us to discover in ourselves an ability to resist which is of a quite different kind…’ (sect.28). In particular, nature is called ‘sublime merely because it elevates the imagination to the exhibition of those cases wherein the mind can be made to feel [sich fühlbar machen] the sublimity, even above nature, that is proper to its vocation’ (sect.28, translation modified). In particular, the sublimity belongs to human freedom which is (by definition) unassailable to the forces of nature. Such a conception of freedom as being outside the order of nature, but demanding action upon that order, is the core of Kant’s moral theory. Thus we can begin to see the intimate connection between the sublime (especially here the dynamically sublime) and morality...

The last major section of the Critique of Aesthetic Judgment famously considers the relation between beauty and morality, which recalls the earlier treatment of the sublime and moral culture. Here, Kant claims that beauty is the ‘symbol’ of morality (sect.59). A symbol, he argues, is to be defined as a kind of presentation of a rational idea in an intuition. The ‘presentation’ in question is an analogy between how judgment deals with or reflects upon the idea and upon the symbolic intuition. Thus, if ‘justice’ is symbolized by a blind goddess with a scale, it is not because all judges are blind! Rather, ‘blindness’ and ‘weighing’ function as concepts in judgments in a way analogous to how the concept of ‘justice’ functions. In showing how beauty in general is the symbol of morality, Kant lists four points: (1) Both please directly and not through consequences; (2) Both are disinterested; (3) Both involve the idea of a free conformity to law (free conformity of the imagination in the case of beauty, of the will in the case of morality); (4) Both are understood to be founded upon a universal principle. The importance of this section is two-fold: first, historically, Kant is giving a philosophical underpinning to the notion that taste should be related to and, through cultivation, also promotes morality. This is a claim that is often rolled out even today. Second, the link to morality is a detailing out of the basic link between aesthetics in general and the pure concepts of reason...

http://www.iep.utm.edu/kantaest/#SH2a cf. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant-aesthetics/

[anthony]

J.

I have finally realised you have no idea of what Objectivist epistemology and reason is: It's all logic, right?

No, it isn't. Like Romanticism is the core of Objectivist aesthetics (which you didn't know a year ago) conceptualism is the core of Objectivist epistemology.

And "proof" of art? Mmm, how about seeing, experiencing and recognizing and knowing and thinking and...

"Examples"? If the abstractive theory is not persuasive enough - just what difference will practical examples make? I have mine, and it's for each person to find their own.

I question how much you have actually fathomed about Rand's theory of art - everything you refer to is from second hand sources.

Back to basics. Start with "Man's profound need of art lies in the fact..."#402

Agree, or disagree - but do it honestly, without the innuendo, smearing and sneering.

That's the disingenuousness I meant - I've repeated myself in several ways, and you've either ignored the conceptual import of my explanation and my interpretation of Rand -or, called it "obedience" -or, criticized Rand (ineffectually). That I have said I deviate from Rand in lesser ways (on Naturalism), has meant nothing. This glaringly illustrates that you are a bad faith debater.

All the "condemnation" here, has been by you, with little new and original to say.

[anthony]

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

Brant: I don't rightly know, either where Rand placed aesthetics in the line-up, or what the scholars make of it. It is obvious though, the significance she placed in art for the individual. So one could extrapolate from there.

I've little hesitation in analogizing visual art and literature as the fuel tank of rational egoism. (Get your motor runnin'...)

Whatever gas you fill up with, is your business.

[anthony]

What separates creation from all other human endeavor is The Unknown. If you become learned and skillful, nothing has been created, unless you attack the outer fringe of your knowledge and poke at the darkness it holds.

From a remarkable essay, these words will resound in me for a long while.

[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

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 recommend re-reading Rand on "Romanticism"/"Naturalism." She defined those classifications by reference to acknowledging versus denying volition.

I 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".

I.e., you don't even know where she discusses the issue.

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...;)

Still no answer to the question, 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"?

Still no example of a painting which you think does exhibit volitional consciousness.

And now no answer to the question whether or not the Rand photo displays volitional consciousness, so I guess you're going to talk, talk, talk, and not answer that question either.

Ellen

PS re the Rand photo, I think she was deliberately posing in imitation of a particular Vermeer, despite her general disparagement of Vermeer.

PS to Brant: yes, Rand considered her aesthetics part of Objectivism.

[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 recommend re-reading Rand on "Romanticism"/"Naturalism." She defined those classifications by reference to acknowledging versus denying volition.

I 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".

I.e., you don't even know where she discusses the issue.

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...;)

Still no answer to the question, 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"?

Still no example of a painting which you think does exhibit volitional consciousness.

And now no answer to the question whether or not the Rand photo displays volitional consciousness, so I guess you're going to talk, talk, talk, and not answer that question either.

Ellen

PS re the Rand photo, I think she was deliberately posing in imitation of a particular Vermeer, despite her general disparagement of Vermeer.

PS to Brant: yes, Rand considered her aesthetics part of Objectivism.

Ellen: If you want to know the distinction, check it for yourself.

If you believe I'm the self-styled expert you can test, you're sadly mistaken. It's the 'spirit' of Rand's theory I want to revive, especially apropos consciousness, I repeat.

As far as I know, Naturalism was generally and traditionally defined as life 'as it is', "a slice of life".. People doing ordinary things in pictures stylized in manners true to ordinary life, are therefore Naturalist. Following on, Rand - as far as I recall- built on that base, and contrasted it with Romanticism, which displays volitional consciousness to her, while the other does not. It's the third time I've tried to communicate this, that the newer concept subsumes the original one - I think. But, "life as it is" or "journalistic" remains basic.

Photojournalism depicts life as it is, right? I have done thousands of pictures of people doing things, at work in board rooms, factories etc., or at leisure. Vermeer, looked at from my pov, would have made an excellent photographer - his poses, settings, and especially lighting. So, seriously, of course I don't think Rand's pic "displays volitional consciousness"--no more than my photos did. C'mon.

[Ellen Stuttle]

Tony,

At least the above post comes closer to addressing issues than your usual, though I think that you do not have a handle on Rand's idea of "Romanticism"/"Naturalism." I strongly recommend re-reading the source.

So the photo doesn't display "volitional consciousness," in your opinion.

Will you let us in on the secret of some painting which does?

Ellen

[Ellen Stuttle]

Just a minute there, J. Kant is evil.

--Brant

Yes, Kant was so evil that Rand unknowingly copied his notion of mankind's need of art, and also unknowingly made his concept of the Sublime her signature aesthetic style! Heh.

J

Emphasis on the "unknowingly."

My belief as to the origins of Rand's formal aesthetics is that she read Unamuno's The Tragic Sense of Life" circa 1943, at Frank Lloyd Wright's instigation - he asked in a letter if she had read it. And from there she developed her two core ideas - "benevolent-universe" versus "malevolent-universe" premises and "sense of life" in her technical meaning. (She'd written of Roark that he had "a sense of life as exaltation," which I suspect was the impetus to Wright's asking her if she'd read Unamuno.)

Ellen

PS: Rand and Kant are hardly alone in noticing mankind's need of art. Plato already noticed this, and I suspect others before written works.

[Brant Gaede]

Rand wouldn't have needed to read the book even if she did. She could have worked off the title alone.

Similarly, she could have worked off David Seabury's 1930s The Art of Selfishness for we-know-what, for all we know.

--Brant

[Wolf DeVoon]

"My Bed" fetches over $4 million

http://in.reuters.com/article/2014/07/01/uk-britain-art-auction-idINKBN0F65LL20140701?

[Brant Gaede]

"My Bed" fetches over $4 million

http://in.reuters.com/article/2014/07/01/uk-britain-art-auction-idINKBN0F65LL20140701?

Probably because she didn't come with it.

Too bad for you "My Bed" wasn't your bed.

--Brant

I'd sell mine for only six figures--no, five!

bid three (anyone?)

[Jonathan]

I call bullshit. Here's an analysis of Kantian gibberish, linking the "sublime" (something huge) with morality (duty)

Pup,

If you're going to "call bullshit" on something, the idea is to then provide evidence that what was said was bullshit, not to provide evidence which supports what was said! Heh.

Here are some posts which might help you to get up to speed:

First, I found the post of mine in which I realized that Rand's novels are the best examples of Kantian Sublimity that I know of:

http://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=9077&p=105251

Then there's the post in which I discovered that I wasn't the first to observe that Rand's signature style is that of Kantian Sublimity:

http://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=9077&p=126734

In post 76 on the same thread I "essentialized" Kant's notion of the Sublime and Rand's employment of it:

"Kant's ideas on the Sublime are about reason and volition. To Kant, the experience of the Sublime is our enjoyment of having our capacity to reason stimulated, to feel our will to resist whatever incomprehensible or powerful forces man or nature may throw at us, and to adhere to our highest chosen principles...[Rand's] fiction presents objects of magnitude and terror which allow her heroes, as well as her readers, to enjoy feeling their rational capacity being stimulated in an effort to comprehend, to feel their will to resist, and to adhere to their highest principles, etc. As I said earlier, her novels are the ultimate examples of Kantian Sublimity. I know of no better examples."

And, finally, there's this thread from OO which goes into greater detail in a conversation with brainwashed Objectivist morons:

http://forum.objectivismonline.com/index.php?showtopic=23118

Highlights:

By "formlessness," Kant merely means that which instills in us the concept or "representation of limitlessness." Examples of Kantian "formlessness" are the political tyranny in Rand's novels (as well as her non-fiction), the collective against the individual, as well as what she described as the gray shapelessness of mass-ineptitude, mass-envy and hatred of the good for being good, the second-handedness and collectivism which was "everywhere and nowhere," and the threat of a culture dominated by bad ideas (ideas do not have a physical "form").

Conversely, what Rand meant by "modern art" would not be examples of "formlessness." Abstract painters were quite specifically concerned with the Beauty (as opposed to Sublimity) of the forms on their canvases. Despite the fact that you, personally, find their work to be meaningless and incomprehensible, they were aiming for meaningful expressiveness through abstract forms, just as musical composers and architects do, and they succeeded in deeply aesthetically affecting millions of people other than you.

No, what Kant succeeded in doing, where his predecessors failed, was in identifying the moral nature of our response to phenomena which his predecessors had called Sublime. He brought the idea that the phenomena challenge us, stimulate and excite our superior capacity to reason, resist and overcome. That's what makes Rand's art examples of Kantian Sublimity: she doesn't merely confront the reader with fearful forces and magnitudes, but consummates the Sublimity by creating characters which achieve their exaltation above the phenomena. That and Rand's fictional phenomena which confront her characters are not just dynamically and mathematically sublime, but that are also formless: they are not merely Shaftesburian or Burkean phenomena from nature, but moral and political ideas.

J

P.S. One more thing. I can't leave out the humor of smug guru-wannabe Michael Newberry unknowingly admitting that he proudly experienced Kantian Sublimity in the 9/11 attacks while mistakenly believing that he was opposing Kantian Sublimity:

http://forum.objectivismonline.com/index.php?showtopic=23118&page=7#entry289734

Whoever misinformed Rand about Kant (I don't think that she read him herself) ended up making fools of a lot of her followers.

By the way, Pup, I don't think that Kant's use if the word "duty" means what you might think it means. You should start over with Kant. Forget everything about him that you got from Rand. On the subject if Kant, she didn't know what she was talking about, and, like Newberry, she got everything about Kant twisted and distorted from her own poisoned mindset.

[Wolf DeVoon]

Fuck off, Jonathan.

[Brant Gaede]

The "film" is too slow to pinpoint the exact location of the bomb.

Rand declined to analyze what love meant. I'd guess, similarly, that Wolf doesn't want to break down the esthetics of his favorite novel (novels?).

--Brant

in any case, Rand mostly made her own esthetics, not Kant et al.--and no one taught her how to write two great novels that wouldn't go out of print but kept on selling in six or seven figures year after year, decade after decade

Wolf is not a wolf "Pup"--he's a wolf's wolf (mostly bite and little bark--I can't tell you about the howl)

[Wolf DeVoon]

Here's what the gibberish is calculated to accomplish: chains for everyone, Kant > Rawls > Obama
 

Kant's view is similar to the social contract theory of Hobbes in a few important respects. The social contract is not a historical document and does not involve a historical act. In fact it can be dangerous to the stability of the state to even search history for such empirical justification of state power (6:318). The current state must be understood, regardless of its origin, to embody the social contact. The social contract is a rational justification for state power, not a result of actual deal-making among individuals or between them and a government. Another link to Hobbes is that the social contract is not voluntary. Individuals may be forced into the civil condition against their consent (6:256). Social contract is not based on any actual consent such as a voluntary choice to form a civil society along with others. Since the social contract reflects reason, each human being as a rational being already contains the basis for rational agreement to the state. Are individuals then coerced to recognize their subjection to state power against their will? Since Kant defines “will” as “practical reason itself” (Groundwork, 4:412), the answer for him is “no.” If one defines “will” as arbitrary choice, then the answer is “yes.”

 

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant-social-political/#SocCon

 

"Don’t bother to examine a folly--ask yourself only what it accomplishes." - Ellsworth Toohey

There's your damn "involuntary rational agreement to the state." The corrupt leading the blind, at gunpoint.

No public work was raised without delay, confusion, cost overrun, graft, or outright disaster as a final consequence. Every morning the state mangles reason and justice to perform simple tasks that private actors ( a ) would not undertake because the project is stupid; or ( b ) could do faster, cheaper, and better than government; or ( c ) are required to do anyway, since the state has no competence except that which is supplied by private contractors. All the U.S. politicians and bureaucrats combined could not repair a flush toilet. The Constitution of Government in Galt's Gulch, p.142

[Brant Gaede]

I see "social contract" as non-existent; no one has ever entered into any such thing aside from being born into it. It's fallacious to me, however, to say that it's non-existence means no moral-ethical justification for government. Such necessity justification is another fallacy. Government just is. If something needs to be done about it or to it go do it. Or avoid it. You'll never get perfection in government--or any human being outside art or babies--it's pie in the sky utopianism. A lot of wasted blood has been split in the name of Utopia by the world's worst bastards.

--Brant

"A man's got to know his [man] limitations"