Michelle Marder Kamhi's "Who Says That's Art?"

[Francisco Ferrer]

Hitler disliked abstract art and admired the classical art of ancient Greece and Rome. So did Ayn Rand.

Hitler's career led to the deaths of millions. Ayn Rand's career led to the rise of a political movement to set millions free.

Yet one can ignore that and still conclude that "any subjective assessment a person makes of a work of art will always be driven by the moral values by which they live their life."

[Brant Gaede]

Nice post, Francisco, but the art of the Third Reich was very different than that of ancient Greece. You are right about Nazi man, Soviet man and Rand man esthetics. That's why Rand sanctioned the publication in The Objectivist an article, "Metaphysics In Marble," about the "flaw" in Michelangelo's David--the touch of worried brow, the one necessary touch that turned it into a humanistic masterpiece. Michelangelo understood humanity in a way Rand never did. So did Victor Hugo. She was much too much of an Aspie to match up that way. This deficiency permeated her philosophy and her novels and ironically made the novels enduringly great and Objectivism a piece of philosophical lead intellectually and culturally. Her best novel qua people is We the Living. Her best novel literarily is The Fountainhead. Her greatest novel is Atlas Shrugged. Her growth novel to novel to novel was staggering, but the aspects of humanity focused on more and more delimited albeit more and more concentrated.

--Brant

[Francisco Ferrer]

I'd like to hear about how very different they were. Below is a portion of a work by Hitler's favorite sculptor, Arno Breker:

[Brant Gaede]

The question has little value now for when you throw in "Hitler" or "Nazi" the answer gets corrupted. Regardless, you cannot be supporting the idea representational heroic art is bad because Hitler liked it. Or abstract is good because Hitler didn't like it. Hitler was no Petronius for sure.

--Brant

good job of chasing Greg around the table, but he can't be caught for there are two of him: the Greg you (and I, et al.) chase and the Greg in the audience watching what he thinks is a farce making declamations while eating hot dogs and ice cream

[Francisco Ferrer]

The goal is to see whether there is real world confirmation for the theory that "any subjective assessment a person makes of a work of art will always be driven by the moral values by which they live their life."

If the statement is true, then what is it about Hitler and Rand's moral values (by which they lived their lives) that drove their positive subjective assessment of Greek sculpture?

[Brant Gaede]

Maybe yes and maybe no. Greg's wrong in his all inclusive absolutism. Man cannot react to a work of art at all; only a man can. But there is something in a man that relates to man which is completely objective. A man may not need to live in freedom, but man does considering the objective nature of man hence a man. The question is whether a man will honor his man. He doesn't have to. He can murder, rob, rape and enslave, subjectively traduce the objective. That's why human rights, which are a human invention, are objective referents to individual social needs and can be described as "natural'--i.e., they objectively match up. Not only is Greg's "totally subjective being" confusing, it's wrong. There is no man qua man in his down in the dirt abstracting.

--Brant

[moralist]

Hitler disliked abstract art and admired the classical art of ancient Greece and Rome.

... and yet his radical secular leftist Third Reich art worshipping the state as god was ugly.

Why is that?

Moral values.

Greg

[moralist]

But there is something in a man that relates to man which is completely objective.

That is actually two men reacting subjectively in the same way to the same objective reality...

...in my subjective opinion, of course.

Greg

[Francisco Ferrer]

Hitler disliked abstract art and admired the classical art of ancient Greece and Rome.

... and yet his radical secular leftist Third Reich art worshipping the state as god was ugly.

Why is that?

Moral values.

Greg

Then the subjective assessment a person makes of a work of art (Greek statues, for instance) tells us nothing about the moral values by which they live their life.

[anthony]

FF you have pin-pointed why there cannot be 'subjective values' for any consistently commited rational, objective individual.

Subjective means variable according to one's whims and wishes. Hitler may well have lauded the same art, but with an entirely subjective, immoral (superior racist) rationale.

Objective value doesn't mean 'impartial', or the same value common to all men.

Greg, if you'd use "personal" in lieu of subjective, I'd agree with you more.;)

{Can't stand that statue, btw. Propaganda art? AR's "Bootleg Romanticism"?}

[Selene]

"...Ayn Rand's career led to the rise of a political movement to set millions free."

Frank, whether her ideas led to the rise of a political movement is disputed.

Additionally, I wonder if we, as Americans, are less free today than we were when Atlas was published.

A...

[moralist]

I'd like to hear about how very different they were. Below is a portion of a work by Hitler's favorite sculptor, Arno Breker:

Yeah... Hitler would love that.

It's queer.

Greg

[moralist]

Frank, whether her ideas led to the rise of a political movement is disputed.

I'd dispute it... and I don't even argue.

The silly notion that individuals living by Ayn Rand's ideals could only be free as a political collective seems oxymoronic to me. Waiting around for other people to form a group to free you is idiotic.

You want to be free?

Then free yourself.

Additionally, I wonder if we, as Americans, are less free today than we were when Atlas was published.

As a collective... less free.

As individuals... more free.

Greg

[moralist]

Greg, if you'd use "personal" in lieu of subjective, I'd agree with you more.;)

It actually is personal in that each of us responds as a unique individual to the same reality. I just use subjective as it is the direct counterpoint to objective.

Greg

[Francisco Ferrer]

FF you have pin-pointed why there cannot be 'subjective values' for any consistently commited rational, objective individual.

Subjective means variable according to one's whims and wishes. H

I once asked an Objectivist why his favorite color was purple. He then proceeded to explain that his preference was based on the hue's perfect blend of warm and cool colors, that such a balance represented having the mind and body in perfect harmony, and that any other color choice would constitute a surrender to the irrational.

I hope your color is purple, Whynot.

Hitler may well have lauded the same art, but with an entirely subjective, immoral (superior racist) rationale.

The idea that two people could admire the same statue for radically different reasons upsets the whole Randian "art and sense of life" apple cart.

[Francisco Ferrer]

"...Ayn Rand's career led to the rise of a political movement to set millions free."

Frank, whether her ideas led to the rise of a political movement is disputed.

Additionally, I wonder if we, as Americans, are less free today than we were when Atlas was published.

A...

1. The Libertarian Party, ineffectual as it may be, can properly be described as a political movement. David Nolan, the founder, was an Objectivist as were most of the other key players at the national and state levels.

2. Yes, in almost every way we are less free than in 1957. But I would argue that such is the case in spite of Ayn Rand.

[Brant Gaede]

I once asked an Objectivist why his favorite color was purple. He then proceeded to explain that his preference was based on the hue's perfect blend of warm and cool colors, that such a balance represented having the mind and body in perfect harmony, and that any other color choice would constitute a surrender to the irrational.

I hope your color is purple, Whynot.

Ayn Rand irrational. Me too.

--Brant

feels good, and in a way new for me!

[moralist]

1. The Libertarian Party, ineffectual as it may be, can properly be described as a political movement. David Nolan, the founder, was an Objectivist as were most of the other key players at the national and state levels.

The Libertarian's intellectual Achilles heel is the theoretical fantasy of ideological purity. When they make the perfect the enemy of the better they're only aiding and abetting their political allies on the radical left. This is because of their shared values of perversion and dope.

2. Yes, in almost every way we are less free than in 1957. But I would argue that such is the case in spite of Ayn Rand.

Speak for yourself and the other victims of their own self affliction, Frank.

I'm not.

If you're less free, it's only because you don't deserve it... and you have only yourself to blame for that.


Greg

[Selene]

I dislike having to interrupt your dual Kabuki dance, however, I have a question for Frank.

Would you agree that all movements do not also have political parties?

A...

[anthony]

FF you have pin-pointed why there cannot be 'subjective values' for any consistently commited rational, objective individual.

Subjective means variable according to one's whims and wishes. H

I once asked an Objectivist why his favorite color was purple. He then proceeded to explain that his preference was based on the hue's perfect blend of warm and cool colors, that such a balance represented having the mind and body in perfect harmony, and that any other color choice would constitute a surrender to the irrational.

I hope your color is purple, Whynot.

Hitler may well have lauded the same art, but with an entirely subjective, immoral (superior racist) rationale.

The idea that two people could admire the same statue for radically different reasons upsets the whole Randian "art and sense of life" apple cart.

Your "purple" O'ist very probably made the identical fundamental error you did.

He presumed the standard of value to be his OWN life. (Not 'man's life', the abstraction).

Forest green is without doubt the only objective color-value to all O'ists, anyway.

Two people, one a raving subjectivist and one an objectivist will of course have "different reasons". What would you expect?

It "upsets" nothing.

I haven't seen anything to show that Rand also liked what Hitler liked, but as I say, irrelevant, if true.

You continue another common fallacy, that judging an artist/artwork's sense of life is of the highest importance. Sense of life is pre-conceptual. It's the experiential, subconscious base that is laid down long before an individual gains his conscious convictions.

The latter is which gives rise to the "metaphysical value-judgment" of the artist - you are (again) mixing up essential concepts.

Sense of life is still central to art, if not the most critical characteristic. Someone enjoying the picture of swimmers in a truck, is probably relating to its s.o.l -- of close and carefree people in a benign universe, as someone mentioned. One could say I think that a s.o.l. sets "the personality" of the picture, while mv-j's are its "character" and integrity.

[Francisco Ferrer]

Speak for yourself and the other victims of their own self affliction, Frank.

I'm not.

If you're less free, it's only because you don't deserve it... and you have only yourself to blame for that.

Greg

Yes, along with muggings, rape and murder, big government is God's scourge of the undeserving.

[Brant Gaede]

Speak for yourself and the other victims of their own self affliction, Frank.

I'm not.

If you're less free, it's only because you don't deserve it... and you have only yourself to blame for that.

Greg

Yes, along with muggings, rape and murder, big government is God's scourge of the undeserving.

Greg cannot debate your position by examining it from both your side and his side. He can only do his side. He does not debate; he relates. I'd call him a secular Christian. I'm a cultural Christian--that is, Protestant, but not religious at all in any conventional sense. Greg is religious.

--Brant

you--me, we--are arguing with a preacher, a preacher who keeps on smiling (usually)

[Francisco Ferrer]

Your "purple" O'ist very probably made the identical fundamental error you did.

He presumed the standard of value to be his OWN life. (Not 'man's life', the abstraction).

Forest green is without doubt the only objective value to all O'ists, anyway.

Two people, one a raving subjectivist and one an objectivist will of course have "different reasons". What would you expect?

It "upsets" nothing.

I haven't seen anything to show that Rand also liked what Hitler liked, but as I say, irrelevant, if true.

You continue another common fallacy, that judging an artist/artwork's sense of life is of the highest importance. Sense of life is preconceptual. It's the experiential, subconscious base that is laid before an individual gains his conscious convictions.

The latter is which gives rise to the "metaphysical value-judgment" of the artist - you are (again) mixing up essential concepts.

Sense of life is still central to art, if not the most critical characteristic. Someone liking that picture of swimmers in a truck, is probably relating to-enjoying its s.o.l -- close and carefree people in a benign universe, as someone mentioned. One could say a s.o.l. sets "the personality" of the picture, while mv-j's are its "character" and integrity.

Rather than serving Man the Abstraction, my friend undertook a career in business to serve himself and was thus able to avoid starvation.

Perhaps forest green is the only objective value for Objectivists, but my friend was choosing a rational, objective, scientifically verifiable favorite color for himself.

If I were an Objectivist, I would expect that a man's choice of art would deliver a clear, unimpeachable measure of his psycho-epistemology, sense of life, etc., all "laid before an individual gains his conscious convictions," of course. As a non-Objectivist, I have no such expectation.

The links showing the admiration two 20th century figures had for Greek statues were provided here.

[moralist]

...big government is God's scourge of the undeserving.

Wrong.

Big government is your own self inflicted scourge on the deserving. Your own individual personal experience of government was created out of your own unproductive needy dependence...

...so it's perfect moral justice that you should get what you made rammed down your gullet.

So choke on it, Frank, because you created it in your own image.

Sucker.

Greg

[Brant Gaede]

...big government is God's scourge of the undeserving.

Wrong.

Big government is your own self inflicted scourge on the deserving. Your own individual personal experience of government was created out of your own unproductive needy dependence...

...so it's perfect moral justice that you should get what you made rammed down your gullet.

So choke on it, Frank, because you created it in your own image.

Sucker.

Greg

Gee. What did you do to deserve to be so nasty?

--Brat[wurst]