Why is modern art so bad?

[Jonathan]

I agree that "coming close" is not purely being "objective," J. But achieving perfection is also impossible in many things, yet I believe the striving for it is both a magnificent incentive and a noble one. This is how I view the "objective" in aesthetics. We may never be capable of attaining the speed of light but attempting to has its own inherent value.

I agree that it can be valuable to study which aspects of art might possibly be judged objectively. Unfortuntately, the quest usually ends with nothing but "My favorite art is objectively better than yours." There's never any value in that.

I don't include that "otherness" in the realms of the objective. Yet is another significant ingredient missing from much of art in the last century or so.

It's missing the ingredient only according to you and your subjective responses, or lack thereof, to certain works of modern art. Others feel that the magical "otherness" has increased due to modernism.

The clarification of your position on "intentions" touches on other concerns of mine that are too involved for me to get into at this point. To simplify, every medium, from the visual arts to music to literature, has elements definitional and unique to that medium, and the greatest art is that which addresses those unique elements of the respective medium. When an artist stretches his work to inhabit one or more other mediums it waters down the mediums and makes it difficult to assess it on any recognizable level.

Modernists would agree with you that each medium has its own definitional characteristics. They would tell you that they were getting to the core of what they thought that visual art is when eliminating the elements which had been historically imposed on it. In short, they saw visual art as not being primarily about narrative (they saw narrative as being inappropriately imported from literature), but about visual composition -- very much like architecture minus the utilitarian considerations.

J

[Jonathan]

My "notions" of objective aesthetics come from various sources on the subject written through the ages; they are out there to be found from Vesari to Rosenburg to Scruton. It is also a subject I have personally expanded upon through my own observations, experiences, and teaching, and hope I'm bringing something fresh and valuable to the table of discussion. Little if any of my conclusions come from a connection to Prager University (btw, why the snide quotation marks? Is it difficult to accept the idea of a virtual online academy?). If anything, Prager and his associates have been influenced by my positions.

I only asked because you said "Well said" to Greg about his comment on subjectivity and objectivity, which I took to be agreement with his views. And his views are peculiar, to say the least. They are not representative at all of the views held by "various sources on the subject written through the ages."

I have read much Rand, J. Your interpretation of her being subjective when discussing objective quality may be accurate for you, but she herself would not have agreed.

Oh, definitely! She would have likely adamantly refused to acknowledge that any of her subjective opinions were subjective. She needed to believe that she was purely objective about everything.

But, her wishing didn't make it so. Her preferences for sharp outlines and bright colors were subjective preferences, regardless of how stubbornly she would have refused to accept that fact.

J

[Jonathan]

(btw, why the snide quotation marks? Is it difficult to accept the idea of a virtual online academy?

The scare quotes were not "snide." Prager "University" is not actually a university, and that's all that I was identifying. It appears to be about expressing opinions more than teaching actual knowledge.

J

[Jonathan]

Jonathan has a problem with his attitude.

I don't have a problem at all with my attitude. You do. You don't appear to like it when people disagree with you, especially when they bring up points that you can't answer with anything resembling rational substance. Your resentment of effective criticism will not serve you well in life, Greg. Getting angry on the inside at the reality of the outside world can only bring frustration and harm to you. See how you've already chosen evil and how you're therefore enraged by my goodness? Well, don't be jealous. There's no need for that. Just work on becoming a better person rather than trying to tear me down.

J

[moralist]

Jonathan has a problem with his attitude.

I don't have a problem at all with my attitude. You do. You don't appear to like it when people disagree with you, especially when they bring up points that you can't answer with anything resembling rational substance. Your resentment of effective criticism will not serve you well in life, Greg. Getting angry on the inside at the reality of the outside world can only bring frustration and harm to you. See how you've already chosen evil and how you're therefore enraged by my goodness? Well, don't be jealous. There's no need for that. Just work on becoming a better person rather than trying to tear me down.

J

I would feel like that if I were you... except I'm not.

Greg

[Jonathan]

"I'm rubber and you're glue. Whatever you say bounces off me, and sticks on you!"

Greg, I've been trying to think of the best term to describe you, and I think I've finally hit on it: Juvenile Parvenu-Poseur Blatherskite.

Yeah, it's sure a mouthful, but it totally nails it.

J

P.S. "I know you are, but what am I?"

[Robert Florczak]

(btw, why the snide quotation marks? Is it difficult to accept the idea of a virtual online academy?

The scare quotes were not "snide." Prager "University" is not actually a university, and that's all that I was identifying. It appears to be about expressing opinions more than teaching actual knowledge.

J

And modern universities aren't rife with opinionators? They are filled more with indoctrinaires than teachers, which is why Prager "University's" motto is "We teach what isn't taught." And there is a wealth of knowledge in the videos, contrary to your assessment (have you watched many?). It may not be an accredited establishment but it does have immense value, if only in exposing another side of critical subjects and getting people to discuss them--as has nicely happened on this blog.

Robert

[moralist]

P.S. "I know you are, but what am I?"

Just someone with a bad attitude.

Greg

[Brant Gaede]

Remember guys, these argumentia are only fun if you keep climbing up your ladders to the fresh air of benevolent and rational discourse*.

--Brant

in the meantime, I'll stay down here and keep the fires going (want to join me? Heh, heh, I'm not lonely but I love variety)

*bullshit

[Brant Gaede]

P.S. "I know you are, but what am I?"

Just someone with a bad attitude.

Greg

Frankly, Greg, he's just logically combative--with everybody who isn't logical in his areas of interest. Your philosophical foundation is illogical because it's ungrounded, intellectually, and circular, intellectually. You yin and yang it--good and bad it--all over the place with little in between. In that way you're like most folks to most folks who take (or trade) what they want and need and leave the rest. In the meantime, I've learned more from you than anyone else who has ever posted on OL. That's because of the totality of it all more than any particular thing. You've made yourself a complete person, at least in your own mind. In Chariots of Fire there were two good-guy protagonists. One was a complete person--the Christian--and the other incomplete--the Jew. The Jew learned from the Christian and grew. The Christian needed nothing from anybody, but he would not run on Sunday. In that sense, I am the Jew. Jews will always be the incomplete wandering people--they'll wander even if they never leave the house--a house likely with many books.

You and Jonathan are two completes going at each other from different platforms.

--Brant

I need a bigger house

there are no Jews in Ayn Rand's fiction; she was a Jew writing for Christians

[Jonathan]

P.S. "I know you are, but what am I?"

Just someone with a bad attitude.

Greg

I know you are, but what am I?

[Jonathan]

Frankly, Greg, he's just logically combative--with everybody who isn't logical in his areas of interest. Your philosophical foundation is illogical because it's ungrounded...

Good use of electrical terminology!

Greg is apparently a very financially successful electrician who believes that his position in an economic class automatically qualifies him to hold a similar position in intellectual, artistic and cultural classes. Despite having worked very hard to earn his economic success, he seems to believe that he doesn't have to put in any effort whatsoever to achieve intellectual success. The logical, critical thinking that absolutely must be brought to working with electricity is something that he calls a "bad attitude" when it is brought to the realm of philosophy.

J

[Gary Fisher]

And modern universities aren't rife with opinionators? They are filled more with indoctrinaires than teachers, which is why Prager "University's" motto is "We teach what isn't taught." And there is a wealth of knowledge in the videos, contrary to your assessment (have you watched many?). It may not be an accredited establishment but it does have immense value, if only in exposing another side of critical subjects and getting people to discuss them--as has nicely happened on this blog.

Don't know about Jonathan, but I have. The material is presented so poorly and one-sidedly that it makes me not want to agree even with the stuff I agree with.

[Jonathan]

(btw, why the snide quotation marks? Is it difficult to accept the idea of a virtual online academy?

The scare quotes were not "snide." Prager "University" is not actually a university, and that's all that I was identifying. It appears to be about expressing opinions more than teaching actual knowledge.

J

And modern universities aren't rife with opinionators? They are filled more with indoctrinaires than teachers, which is why Prager "University's" motto is "We teach what isn't taught." And there is a wealth of knowledge in the videos, contrary to your assessment (have you watched many?). It may not be an accredited establishment but it does have immense value, if only in exposing another side of critical subjects and getting people to discuss them--as has nicely happened on this blog.

Robert

I'm not saying that the site is without value, or anything like that. I just think calling it a "university" is a bit pompous/pretentious, as is calling 5-minute videos "courses."

And, yes, I've watched several of the videos, and even generally agree with the ideas and mindsets of the presenters, or "teachers" or "professors" or "headmasters" or whatever.

J

[Jonathan]

Don't know about Jonathan, but I have. The material is presented so poorly and one-sidedly that it makes me not want to agree even with the stuff I agree with.

Yeah, that's true of some of the vids.

J

[PDS]

P.S. "I know you are, but what am I?"

Just someone with a bad attitude.

Greg

I know you are, but what am I?

Hilarious.

Kidding aside, Greg really does have a bad attitude. He gets more slack here than he deserves.

As just one example: Greg believes in a God that banishes some subset of his created beings to eternal damnation, and torment. He also believes these people (who were preordained to be in this camp, by the way) are "getting what they deserve." He then--like most who hold this view--exempts himself from any such punishments, damnation or torment by claiming to have signed on to a dotted line of beliefs about said God.

This is just one example of one of Greg's attitudes. If this isn't a slander and a bad attitude toward God, I don't what could be.

[Jonathan]

"Man's knowledge is not acquired by logic apart from experience, or by experience apart from logic, but by the application of logic to experience. All truths are the product of a logical identification of the facts of experience". [AR]

Tastes are not a product of logic. They are not objective. Rand recognized that fact in her comments on music: she knew that unless certain criteria were met, musical preferences could not be called objective, but must be treated as a subjective matter. She knew that those criteria have never been met. She knew that her own stated process of objectivity has never yet applied to anyone's judgments of music.

1) Are you intending to imply that tastes are truths?

2) Rand expected that "her own stated process of objectivity" could be applied to judgments of music someday. She thought that the problem in such application was a temporary result of lack of knowledge of the physiology of musical response.

Ellen

1) No, I'm not intending to imply that tastes are truths. Tastes are pleasure responses.

2) Yes, Rand did think that the lack of objectivity in judging music was a temporary thing. Unfortunately, she had no reason to hold that belief other than the fact that she wanted musical tastes to be objective.

Questions that seem to have never entered Rand's mind:

Shouldn't the expectation/prediciton of discovering objective standards of judging music also apply to abstract art? If Rand can assert that music and our responses to it will someday be explained due to advances in knowledge of physiology, can't I make the same assertion about abstract art, and shouldn't my assertion carry exactly the same weight as Rand's prediction of future events? Shouldn't both music and abstract art therefore be treated the same -- until the time that clearly identified, objective "conceptual vocabularies" are discovered, shouldn't both be classified as non-art according to Objectivism so as not to employ irrational double standards. Or shouldn't both be given a pass? (Along with dance and architecture as well.)

If we're expecting one of Rand's favorite subjective things to become objective, shouldn't we also expect that someday someone will -- or must -- discover an objective basis for all other tastes? And then what? Will people be objectively wrong to prefer the flavor of, say, seared opah to beef stroganoff, or spinach to lettuce? Will Objectivism advise people to ignore their own aesthetic pleasure responses and force themselves to adopt the objectively correct ones?

When the hoped-for objective "conceptual vocabulary" of music is discovered, and it happens to turn out that Rand's favorite music was objectively inferior, will Objectivists accept it as truth, and change their own tastes? Or will they accept a "conceptual vocabulary" as objectively valid only if it confirms Rand's and their tastes as superior?

J

[moralist]

Greg believes in a God that banishes some subset of his created beings to eternal damnation, and torment.

Either find a direct quote where I specifically said that, or withdraw your statement. Just because you disagree with my view doesn't mean you have to make up lies about it...

...well, then again maybe you do need to.

I'll be waiting for the direct quote or your retraction.

You're going to have a tough time because I've never said that.

Greg

[PDS]

Greg believes in a God that banishes some subset of his created beings to eternal damnation, and torment.

Either find a direct quote where I specifically said that, or withdraw your statement. Just because you disagree with my view doesn't mean you have to make up lies about it...

...well, then again maybe you do need to.

I'll be waiting for the direct quote or your retraction.

You're going to have a tough time because I've never said that.

Greg

If you don't believe in Hell, just say so Greg. That will end the matter and I will make a "retraction."

[Brant Gaede]

Greg likes to use "God" the way I like to use "reality." Sort of. If you make the substitution you'll get rid of some of the confusion. The confusion left over will be cheerce.

--Brant

[moralist]

Greg believes in a God that banishes some subset of his created beings to eternal damnation, and torment.

Either find a direct quote where I specifically said that, or withdraw your statement. Just because you disagree with my view doesn't mean you have to make up lies about it...

...well, then again maybe you do need to.

I'll be waiting for the direct quote or your retraction.

You're going to have a tough time because I've never said that.

Greg

If you don't believe in Hell, just say so Greg. That will end the matter and I will make a "retraction."

Quit trying to weasel out of it.

Find a quote where I said that or retract your lie.

I'm still waiting for you to find what doesn't exist.

Greg

[PDS]

Greg believes in a God that banishes some subset of his created beings to eternal damnation, and torment.

Either find a direct quote where I specifically said that, or withdraw your statement. Just because you disagree with my view doesn't mean you have to make up lies about it...

...well, then again maybe you do need to.

I'll be waiting for the direct quote or your retraction.

You're going to have a tough time because I've never said that.

Greg

If you don't believe in Hell, just say so Greg. That will end the matter and I will make a "retraction."

Quit trying to weasel out of it.

Find a quote where I said that or retract your lie.

I'm still waiting for you to find what doesn't exist.

Greg

Greg:

Since my idea of Hell would be to wade through 2,428 of your comments on this blog to find your previous comments about Hell, and because you aren't willing to simply state what I asked you to simply state above about your beliefs on the subject, I have a simple solution: I hereby retract my comments about your view(s) of Hell, if any.

Let's let the audience decide, so to speak.

Fair enough?

[Brant Gaede]

Greg believes in a God that banishes some subset of his created beings to eternal damnation, and torment.

Either find a direct quote where I specifically said that, or withdraw your statement. Just because you disagree with my view doesn't mean you have to make up lies about it...

...well, then again maybe you do need to.

I'll be waiting for the direct quote or your retraction.

You're going to have a tough time because I've never said that.

Greg

If you don't believe in Hell, just say so Greg. That will end the matter and I will make a "retraction."

Quit trying to weasel out of it.

Find a quote where I said that or retract your lie.

I'm still waiting for you to find what doesn't exist.

Greg

Greg:

Since my idea of Hell would be to wade through 2,428 of your comments on this blog to find your previous comments about Hell, and because you aren't willing to simply state what I asked you to simply state above about your beliefs on the subject, I have a simple solution: I hereby retract my comments about your view(s) of Hell, if any.

Let's let the audience decide, so to speak.

Fair enough?

David, I understand that you're pissed that Greg called you out on a "lie," but he never said in my experience of reading almost all his posts on OL what you said he said. It's not a lie. It's a mistake. Your mistake. I think you simply got extremely frustrated with his implicit anti-intellectual collectivized one thing fits all I'm morally(?) perfect and all who disagree with me are imperfect to the extent of the disagreement. Regardless, you still owe the man an apology or the proper reference or he's going to be entitled to keep calling it a "lie." It all comes down to a fact is a fact and you're on the wrong side of the fact fence.

If you think I'm right in what I said then apologize. He'll more than respect you for it. It's a man to man thing. No more and no less.

--Brant

[PDS]

Greg believes in a God that banishes some subset of his created beings to eternal damnation, and torment.

Either find a direct quote where I specifically said that, or withdraw your statement. Just because you disagree with my view doesn't mean you have to make up lies about it...

...well, then again maybe you do need to.

I'll be waiting for the direct quote or your retraction.

You're going to have a tough time because I've never said that.

Greg

If you don't believe in Hell, just say so Greg. That will end the matter and I will make a "retraction."

Quit trying to weasel out of it.

Find a quote where I said that or retract your lie.

I'm still waiting for you to find what doesn't exist.

Greg

Greg:

Since my idea of Hell would be to wade through 2,428 of your comments on this blog to find your previous comments about Hell, and because you aren't willing to simply state what I asked you to simply state above about your beliefs on the subject, I have a simple solution: I hereby retract my comments about your view(s) of Hell, if any.

Let's let the audience decide, so to speak.

Fair enough?

David, I understand that you're pissed that Greg called you out on a "lie," but he never said in my experience of reading almost all his posts on OL what you said he said. It's not a lie. It's a mistake. Your mistake. I think you simply got extremely frustrated with his implicit anti-intellectual collectivized one thing fits all I'm morally(?) perfect and all who disagree with me are imperfect to the extent of the disagreement. Regardless, you still owe the man an apology or the proper reference or he's going to be entitled to keep calling it a "lie." It all comes down to a fact is a fact and you're on the wrong side of the fact fence.

If you think I'm right in what I said then apologize. He'll more than respect you for it. It's a man to man thing. No more and no less.

--Brant

He didn't ask for an apology; he asked for a retraction. That's what he got.

I don't really give a shit what Greg thinks of me. But I do respect your opinion, as well as others', so if Greg is willing to confirm that my statement of his beliefs about Hell (which, by the way, may be different that what he happens to have specifically said) is wrong, then I would be happy to apologize. I really would. And the reason I would is because I truly believe that anybody who believes in the traditional notion of Hell is more or less slandering God. If Greg is not in that camp, then God bless him. The world needs more people who do not accept such absurd notions.

Greg and I may have our differences, but I do believe he sincerely believes in the God of the Bible. So if I have misstated his position on what I believe to be a very important issue, then he deserves more than a retraction. I agree with you.

[Jonathan]

I'm still waiting for you to find what doesn't exist.

Greg

That line pretty much sums you up, Greg.

J