Apples - Rand on Still Life Paintings, Plus

[Jonathan]

J. I have no time for anybody who puts taunts and personality attacks above ideas.

With Ellen and Brant, there has been honest examination, albeit critical.

Your toxic behavior stifles what could have been a valuable discussion, and there's no excuse for it.

I will say with certainty that we three have reached further understanding despite your efforts at sabotage.

Heh, I guess that answers my question of how you're going to evade the fact that Rand categorized Dostoevsky's work as Romanticism.

J

[Jonathan]

Back to Newberry, Jonathan.

--Brant

Talking with Tony is very similar to talking with Newberry. They have the same style, tactics and careless, blurry cognitive method, and, most important, the same stubbornness and unwillingness to learn and admit to obvious errors.

J

[Brant Gaede]

[Rand] was all about the Sublime, not the Beautiful.

Except for Ragnar and his wife.

--Brant

the boy on a bicycle?

[Jules Troy]

So J what you are saying is it's ok for me to like rock! YAY! Lol joking I already knew that.

[Brant Gaede]

No, it's not okay.

--Brant

reality strikes!

[Jules Troy]

:(

Mua ha lol

[Ellen Stuttle]

The characters might be pursuing values of which Rand didn't approve, and the work could still be "Romanticism" according to Rand. (For example, Dostoevsky's work.) But I don't think that Tony would disagree, so I'm not understanding what point you're making there in regard to Tony's views.

[....] You are confusing the aesthetic assessments, with moral evaluation and moral values.

No, I'm not. In fact I specifically commented on the difference. Try reading the whole post? (You often seem to read only the last paragraph of a post and miss the rest.)

So OF COURSE an artwork can't be Romanticist if the artist's view of existence shown, is against Rand's - or any Objectivist's - rational morality.

Oh, yes, it can - and Rand specifically discussed that most of the Romanticists were anti-reason, and she talked about forms of Romanticism which are different from hers. See her discussion of Byron, for instance. You have some surprises in store if you re-read the book.

Ellen

[anthony]

J. I have no time for anybody who puts taunts and personality attacks above ideas.

With Ellen and Brant, there has been honest examination, albeit critical.

Your toxic behavior stifles what could have been a valuable discussion, and there's no excuse for it.

I will say with certainty that we three have reached further understanding despite your efforts at sabotage.

Heh, I guess that answers my question of how you're going to evade the fact that Rand categorized Dostoevsky's work as Romanticism.

J

That's exactly the sort of pivotal question which could have been discussed to all our mutual benefit.

Simple answer - of course not! From memory, she rated Hugo and Dostoevsky as top-ranking Romanticists. Why, because they both demonstrated man as volitional in both the senses she identified: what I call 'implicit' volition - in conviction, virtue and character - and also 'explicit' volition - in action and achievement of goals. Others, she seemed to consider successful only partially, that is showing one, but not the other form of volition.

Therefore, in art and living, thought without action, is as futile as action without thought.

But they were also not Objectivist writers! It hardly has to be repeated that Romanticism pre-dated Rand by centuries, and that she added over the best of it her own brand - one which contains her rational philosophy: volitional individuals, who are also rationally selfish. For that, she was driven to write about her own "ideal men and women".

So - it's one thing to pursue values, the crucial question is - which values, from which philosophy?

[Jules Troy]

https://readreidread.wordpress.com/tag/cat-prevents-house-fire/

There ya go!

[anthony]

The characters might be pursuing values of which Rand didn't approve, and the work could still be "Romanticism" according to Rand. (For example, Dostoevsky's work.) But I don't think that Tony would disagree, so I'm not understanding what point you're making there in regard to Tony's views.

[....] You are confusing the aesthetic assessments, with moral evaluation and moral values.

No, I'm not. In fact I specifically commented on the difference. Try reading the whole post? (You often seem to read only the last paragraph of a post and miss the rest.)

So OF COURSE an artwork can't be Romanticist if the artist's view of existence shown, is against Rand's - or any Objectivist's - rational morality.

Oh, yes, it can - and Rand specifically discussed that most of the Romanticists were anti-reason, and she talked about forms of Romanticism which are different from hers. See her discussion of Byron, for instance. You have some surprises in store if you re-read the book.

Ellen

You're correct - I reconsidered that last point. Then again, she was analyzing Romanticism prior to her, in its several variations - I recall she mentioned sentimental (or emotional) Romanticism. Few of the varieties could be called Randian, or Objectivist, Romanticism, today--I think.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

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.

Ellen,

I think you are on to something. I looked up the online version of The Tragic Sense of Life and started skimming through it. Right at the very beginning there is this:

Philosophy answers to our need of forming a complete and unitary conception of the world and of life, and as a result of this conception, a feeling which gives birth to an inward attitude and even to outward action. But the fact is that this feeling, instead of being a consequence of this conception, is the cause of it. Our philosophy—that is, our mode of understanding or not understanding the world and life—springs from our feeling towards life itself. And life, like everything affective, has roots in subconsciousness, perhaps in unconsciousness.

That sounds like an almost exact paraphrase of her sense of life concept.

Except it would be the contrary if so.

Michael

[Ellen Stuttle]

Michael,

I'm glad you took a look at Unamuno's The Tragic Sense of Life. I'm planning eventually to do some cross-comparisons between that work and Rand's notion of "sense of life."

The passage you quoted from the beginning is indicative. Repeating it with an emphasis added:

Philosophy answers to our need of forming a complete and unitary conception of the world and of life, and as a result of this conception, a feeling which gives birth to an inward attitude and even to outward action. But the fact is that this feeling, instead of being a consequence of this conception, is the cause of it. Our philosophy - that is, our mode of understanding or not understanding the world and life - springs from our feeling towards life itself. And life, like everything affective, has roots in subconsciousness, perhaps in unconsciousness.

Rand says of "sense of life" that it's an emotional-generalization pre-conceptual equivalent of metaphysics, formed from an estimate of oneself and one's capacities to cope with life, an estimate which she says becomes a metaphysical view of man's status in relation to the universe. I think the parallel is striking.

Ellen

[Jonathan]

So J what you are saying is it's ok for me to like rock! YAY! Lol joking I already knew that.

Even by Rand's official Objectivist PseudoEsthetics it's okay for you to like rock. In fact, it's probably mandatory that, if you want to call yourself an Objectivist and claim that you're rational and have a proper sense of life, you must like certain rock songs which are "Romantic" by Rand's meaning (pro-volitional), such as this:

We're not gonna take it

No, we ain't gonna take it

We're not gonna take it anymore

We've got the right to choose and

There ain't no way we'll lose it

This is our life, this is our song

We'll fight the powers that be just

Don't pick our destiny 'cause

You don't know us, you don't belong

We're not gonna take it

No, we ain't gonna take it

We're not gonna take it anymore

Oh you're so condescending

Your goal is never ending

We don't want nothin', not a thing from you

Your life is trite and jaded

Boring and confiscated

If that's your best, your best won't do

Oh, oh, oh

Oh, oh, oh

We're right, yeah

We're free, yeah

We'll fight, yeah

You'll see, yeah

We're not gonna take it

No, we ain't gonna take it

We're not gonna take it anymore...

-----

Rand identified how we should categorize such art. Since it expresses volitional choice, the pursuit of values, energetic, brave defiance in the face of power, etc., it's a perfect fit with her concept of "Romantic Realism."

Unfortunately, she neglected to identify any means by which to judge the artistry of the work. She merely told her readers to "evaluate the purely esthetic elements of the work, the technical mastery," without giving them any objective standard or method of doing so. Personally I think that the songwriter's "view of life" is pretty clear, but even clarity doesn't equal artistic competence under Objectivism -- there's a lot of art that is quite clear in its meaning that Rand would identify as being aesthetically bad.

So, since Objectivism neglects to identify any objective standards or methods of judging aesthetic competence, then such judgments, including Rand's, must be treated as a subjective matter until the time that such standards and methods are discovered and clearly defined. And until that time, I think that We're Not Gonna Take It must be rated as being among the greatest Romantic Realist works of art that also happen to be completely consistent with Objectivism. By Objectivist standards, it might even be the greatest song ever written, both aesthetically and ethically, and maybe it should even be in the running for Objectivism's theme song!

J

[Brant Gaede]

So J what you are saying is it's ok for me to like rock! YAY! Lol joking I already knew that.

Even by Rand's official Objectivist PseudoEsthetics it's okay for you to like rock. In fact, it's probably mandatory that, if you want to call yourself an Objectivist and claim that you're rational and have a proper sense of life, you must like certain rock songs which are "Romantic" by Rand's meaning (pro-volitional), such as this:

We're not gonna take it

No, we ain't gonna take it

We're not gonna take it anymore

We've got the right to choose and

There ain't no way we'll lose it

This is our life, this is our song

We'll fight the powers that be just

Don't pick our destiny 'cause

You don't know us, you don't belong

We're not gonna take it

No, we ain't gonna take it

We're not gonna take it anymore

Oh you're so condescending

Your goal is never ending

We don't want nothin', not a thing from you

Your life is trite and jaded

Boring and confiscated

If that's your best, your best won't do

Oh, oh, oh

Oh, oh, oh

We're right, yeah

We're free, yeah

We'll fight, yeah

You'll see, yeah

We're not gonna take it

No, we ain't gonna take it

We're not gonna take it anymore...

-----

Rand identified how we should categorize such art. Since it expresses volitional choice, the pursuit of values, energetic, brave defiance in the face of power, etc., it's a perfect fit with her concept of "Romantic Realism."

Unfortunately, she neglected to identify any means by which to judge the artistry of the work. She merely told her readers to "evaluate the purely esthetic elements of the work, the technical mastery," without giving them any objective standard or method of doing so. Personally I think that the songwriter's "view of life" is pretty clear, but even clarity doesn't equal artistic competence under Objectivism -- there's a lot of art that is quite clear in its meaning that Rand would identify as being aesthetically bad.

So, since Objectivism neglects to identify any objective standards or methods of judging aesthetic competence, then such judgments, including Rand's, must be treated as a subjective matter until the time that such standards and methods are discovered and clearly defined. And until that time, I think that We're Not Gonna Take It must be rated as being among the greatest Romantic Realist works of art that also happen to be completely consistent with Objectivism. By Objectivist standards, it might even be the greatest song ever written, both aesthetically and ethically, and maybe it should even be in the running for Objectivism's theme song!

J

Rand's grave just blew open and she's on her way to Minnesota. Please post your exact address or GPS coordinates or send it to Iain'tDeadEnoughNottoFuckYouUp@yahoo.com

--Brant

presented as a public service

[Jonathan]

Let's see...Cardio...Double Tap...Beware of Bathrooms...

I'm ready for her.

[Jules Troy]

Rotflmfao!!!!!

[Ellen Stuttle]

On another thread - "Literary History versus Rand Thereon" - I'm discussing Rand's earliest public presentation of her theory of art, a talk she gave at the University of Michigan, May 15, 1961, and then on the Columbia University radio station, April 26, 1962. (Excerpts from this talk were published in the November 1962 issue of "The Objectivist Newsletter" with the title "The Esthetic Vacuum of Our Age.")

Here is the section on esthetic judgment from that talk:

Man's esthetic emotion is a complex psychological sum, the result, product, and expression of his sense of life.

But esthetics is a branch of philosophy, and emotions are not tools of cognition. Just as a philosopher does not approach any other branch of his science with his emotions as his criterion of judgment, so he cannot do so in the field of esthetics, if he is to be a philosopher, as distinguished from a soothsayer. A sense of life is not a sufficient professional equipment for an esthetician. An esthetician, as well as any man who attempts to pass judgment on art, or even to discuss it in intelligible terms, must be guided by more than an emotion. He must know the objective meaning and source of that emotion, the subconscious philosophical premises from which it comes. He must translate his sense of life into a conscious philosophical metaphysics, must reconsider and correct it is necessary, and must hold it as a conscious conviction, not as a blind, unaccountable emotion. He must learn to identify the nature of art and of all its complex elements. He must learn to grasp the abstractions of values, metaphysics, sense of life - as apart from his particular values, metaphysics, and sense of life. Then, assess an artist's work in relation to the artist's purpose, by a conscious rational judgment, not by a blind emotional reaction of liking or disliking.

Some artworks will always have a greater personal meaning for him than other works of equal or even greater artistic merit. That personal meaning is the response of one's own sense of life to that of the artist, and it represents one's real enjoyment of art. But qua esthetician, one must be able to identify and to evaluate the work of an artist qua artist, apart from and regardless of his philosophical ideas - i.e., the technical, professional mastery with which an artist uses his means to achieve his ends, to project his view of life. For instance, one may dislike the subject of a painting, but enjoy the skill and mastery of the artist's style. One may appreciate a writer's style, while disliking or opposing the content of his story, his ideas, and his sense of life. One may appreciate the "how" of an artwork, while disapproving of the "what."

An objective, professional judgment in the field of art is extremely difficult to achieve and is almost nonexistent today. It requires an unusual degree of introspection and philosophical training. Today the leading schools of philosophy are schools of neo-mysticism and, consequently, esthetics is regarded as a field belonging to and ruled by some sort of special mystical elite. This kind of premise makes judgment, integrity, discussion, and art itself impossible - as witness the state of today's art. The unintelligible emotions and revelations of mystical oracles can be of no value significance to anyone, except to the primordial jungle from which they stem.

Ellen

[Brant Gaede]

There is so much wrong with that statement, most importantly the failure to explain why esthetics is a branch of philosophy. Then again, she tended to put everything in her range of interests into Objectivism, always the prime fallacy in her approach.

--Brant

if it's true it's Objectivism?--no, it's true; philosophy doesn't broker reality, reason does and you can't say they're bed-buddies therefore interchangeable for no philosophy has any monoploy on reason--it's either a philosophy of reason or not, but if it claims to be then it is taken at its word and everything it endorses is evaluated unto itself through reason not through the philosophy or it's an argument from authority, so ~if Ayn Rand said it it's Objectivism~ is silly and something she never said herself for she picked and chose what she vacuumed up into it and how heartedly and nothing more so it would seem than esthetics

[Ellen Stuttle]

There is so much wrong with that statement, most importantly the failure to explain why esthetics is a branch of philosophy. Then again, she tended to put everything in her range of interests into Objectivism, always the prime fallacy in her approach.

Well, I agree that there is so much wrong with that statement, but not with your "most importantly" candidate. For instance, I don't think that one would necessarily, or usually, be required to explain in an essay about epistemology why epistemology is a branch of philosophy, There are contexts in which some words of explanation would be in order, but in many contexts it can be assumed that epistemology is a branch of philosophy, just as in many contexts it can be assumed that biology is a branch of science. The classification is standard. Same with aesthetics, which has been classified as a branch of philosophy since Ancient Greek philosophy.

Ellen

[Brant Gaede]

There is so much wrong with that statement, most importantly the failure to explain why esthetics is a branch of philosophy. Then again, she tended to put everything in her range of interests into Objectivism, always the prime fallacy in her approach.

Well, I agree that there is so much wrong with that statement, but not with your "most importantly" candidate. For instance, I don't think that one would necessarily, or usually, be required to explain in an essay about epistemology why epistemology is a branch of philosophy, There are contexts in which some words of explanation would be in order, but in many contexts it can be assumed that epistemology is a branch of philosophy, just as in many contexts it can be assumed that biology is a branch of science. The classification is standard. Same with aesthetics, which has been classified as a branch of philosophy since Ancient Greek philosophy.

Ellen

You need an elaborate essay for esthetics because you need to put so much clothes on the essential fallacy of it all to hide the fallacy. There's a reason Rand didn't need to write an ITOE to put reason into her philosophy because it was already there as it was already in any philosphy of good science called scientific method or methodology. If you take away the ITOE you take nothing away from the scientific method for it contributed nothing to it in the first place. In that sense her epistemology is quite like her esthetics--it doesn't travel. It's unto itself. All dressed up and no place to go. Objectivism is four basic logically interlocking principles (reality, reason, ethics, politics) the first two common with science. The logic comes from atomistic, thinking individualism. Then when you get to ethics you get to work off that base into humans as social animals, not just thinking animals, and this carries into politics too, of course. And because of this one's conclusions become more tentative, especially the more the thinking and investigation that goes into them and how abstract they are and serious critical thinking is required, but it's then all Objectivism (reason) applied to reality in the name of right and truth--and in the name of Objectivism as long as you keep those principles as points of reference. An Objectivism Esthetics is simply esthetics filtered through the biases of this or that Objectivist but does not displace in the least esthetics as such. Only esthetics can objectify art by explaining what it is, not what it should be. One thing so objectified is the subjective in art. The moral imput of a philosophy demands the should be, in this case if there isn't any should be it can't be Objectivism. It's a contradiction. That one should use reason is not the same thing as what the conclusion of that use will be. If Rand had been a famous biologist who created Objectivism, there would certainly be today an Objectivist Biology and we'd be privileged to call it Lysenkoism or whatever, but not "true" or "truth." A biologist could evaluate it but biology would not be displaced in the least by it unless the science were corrupted. This is the same corruption of "consensus science" layered onto real science respecting AGW. The former is what a conclusion should be, the later is what the conclusion is or might be.

--Brant

[anthony]

What's most fundamental to Rand is that you approach and view a work of art exactly as you take in any other instance of reality: via your senses and percepts. How could it be any other way? The artist has [re]'created reality', in his purview of it. This is central to your later conceptualizing of it, as with ALL 'facts' of life. Miss this simple point, and the rest doesn't make sense of Rand's.

If a whole treatise can be written about man's senses[viz."The Evidence of the Senses" (D. Kelley)], it follows that the initial ~aesthetic~ apprehension of beauty by one's senses, has a whole lot of room for study and objective understanding--philosophically.

[BaalChatzaf]

What's most fundamental to Rand is that you approach and view a work of art exactly as you take in any other instance of reality, via your senses and percepts. How could it be any other way? The artist has [re]created reality, in his purview of it. This is central to your later conceptualizing of it, as with all 'facts' of life. Miss this simple point, and the rest does't make sense of Rand's.

If a whole treatise can be written on the "The Evidence of the Senses" (D. Kelley), it follows that the initial ~aesthetic~ apprehension of beauty by one's senses, has a whole lot of room for study and objective understanding.

Artists do not recreate reality. However they do elicit the same subjective response with their art work that the actual object would have produced in the observer. Artists are playing our subjectivity, like a musician plays his instrument. Some do so brilliantly. I found Vermeer to be a master of not only what we see, but more importantly - how we see.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[anthony]

So a painting is not 'real' or concrete? And not a representation of what is real?

The sound of music is not as real, as say birdsong, or wind through the trees?

I very much agree that a good artist has that special ability to show one HOW to see, differently or clearer.

[Jules Troy]

I have seen many photographers asked(including myself) by traditional artists " can I have permission to paint that?

I consider that a large compliment when they want to use your photos for reference.

[Ellen Stuttle]

However they do elicit the same subjective response with their art work that the actual object would have produced in the observer.

I don't believe that you're accurately reporting even your own experience, even if that's neuro "non-typical."

Ellen