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

[Selene]

Greg's post 1049 supra

Adam writes:
Do either of you "believe" that we have a "mind," or, a "soul?"
If so, is there any distinction between the two (2) in your opinion?

Tony already answered, so I'll also offer my opinion.

My mind is the where thoughts are.

My soul is me examining thoughts while deciding upon which ones to act,
and which ones to leave unresponded.

Can the mind's activity, or, the soul's be measured?

Eventually, they can, however, is anyone aware of it being done now?

A...

Sorry about that...

[Roger Bissell]

@ Adam in #1051 - Robert Efron, a neurophysiologist and former Objectivist (and brother of Edith Efron), did a number of experiments, mostly in the 1960s and 1970s, that made such measurements. The one I remember best was "perceptual durations." He claimed that being able to measure temporal attributes of something gave it the same status as physical entities and meant it was no longer "the ghost in the machine." Personally, I think the mental phenomena he was measuring were actually brain processes as experienced and reported introspectively - just as our sensory data like redness are actually reflectance properties of physical objects as experienced perceptually.

REB

[Selene]

@ Adam in #1051 - Robert Efron, a neurophysiologist and former Objectivist (and brother of Edith Efron), did a number of experiments, mostly in the 1960s and 1970s, that made such measurements. The one I remember best was "perceptual durations." He claimed that being able to measure temporal attributes of something gave it the same status as physical entities and meant it was no longer "the ghost in the machine." Personally, I think the mental phenomena he was measuring were actually brain processes as experienced and reported introspectively - just as our sensory data like redness are actually reflectance properties of physical objects as experienced perceptually.

REB

Correct.

It is tempting to cross over that line, however I won't either.

My dad belonged to a number of associations, clubs and societies.

One of them was a para-normal society in Northern Italy where he spent six (6) months out of the year at his apartment.

Several business, medical and science folks were members. They took pictures of auras that were quite striking.

However, they all agreed that there were enough scientifically measurable events that did not mean it was a person's soul that they captured.

A...

[Brant Gaede]

Brant in #1046: "...all art seems abstract."

I would say so, too. For your consideration...

Rand in "Basic Principles of Literature" said regarding characterization: "A human being is the most complex entity on earth; a writer's task is to select the essentials out of that enormous complexity, then proceed to create an individual figure, endowing it with all the appropriate details down to the telling small touches needed to give it full reality. That figure has to be an abstraction, yet look like a concrete; it has to have the universality of an abstraction and, simultaneously, the unrepeated uniqueness of a person." (TRM, p. 87, emphasis added)

Regarding plot (same essay), she said: "...Gail Wynand's conflict, being a wide abstraction, can be reduced in scale and made applicable to the value-conflicts of a grocery clerk." (TRM, p. 84, emphasis added)

In "Art and Sense of Life," she referred to "the popular notion that a reader of fiction 'identifies himself with' some character or characters of the story. 'To identity with' is a colloquial designation for a process of abstraction: it means to observe a common element between the character and oneself, to draw an abstraction from the character's problems and apply it to one's own life. Subconsciously, without any knowledge of esthetic theory, but by virtue of the implicit nature of art, this is the way in which people react to fiction and to all other forms of art." (TRM, p. 37, emphasis added)

All art is abstract, and it conveys abstractions to you embodied in concretes - whether concrete images of people and their actions, or concrete images of colors, shapes, musical events - whether more or less realistic concrete images of entities, or in concrete images that present metaphors of entities and motion, or in concrete images that make abstract suggestions of people, events, ideas, emotions. I'm most interested in the latter two categories of art and music, usually being bored to tears or somnelescence by cuckoo and lightning music.

In my experience, some tonal music sucks, and some atonal music definitely does not suck - just as some representational art sucks and some abstract art sucks. The only reason I call atonal music "abstract" music as against tonal music, is that atonal music abstracts out, or away from, the metaphors or character-like themes and plot-like progressions which are the meat-and-potatoes of 19th century music and a lot of more recent music. Obviously, except fot the cuckoo and lightning stuff, music is "abstract," in that it doesn't present same-modality images of entities and actions.

In music, the metaphor is the thing, with melodies that "sound like" characters in action and progressions that "sound like" plot progressions unfolding in a story. That's also the reason that atonal music, which abandons those metaphors, is so hard for listeners to access and enjoy, compared to 19th century music &c. Yet, both kinds of music find effective use in sound track music, helping to amplify the emotional nature of the action in the story.

Peikoff gave a very interesting lecture about 20 years ago called "The Survival Value of Great Though Philosophical False Art," where he talked about "the life-sustaining value of certain artworks, even if they're built on anti-life themes." That pretty well summarizes my own embracing of more rather than fewer stylistic varieties and "messages" of art and music.

Peikoff talked a while about reading Dostoevsky and Tolstoy, then summarized nicely, part of which I will excerpt here:

What I retain is the sense of looking at life with the eyes of an artist. And what such art, whether true or false in its theme, keeps alive in me, as nothing else can, is a non-everyday view of the world—and therefore, a really philosophical view of the world. I also want to point out that there is an emotional reward, which is not exactly the emotion that I just hopefully invoked in you. I find, if it’s great art, a kind of emotional excitement or inspiration or even fuel.

Now, obviously, I do not mean this in the sense that I get emotional fuel from reading Ayn Rand. I don’t get a sense of man the heroic, or the possibilities of human greatness, or the ideal embodied,or what might be and ought to be. It’s a totally different sense, but nevertheless a sense that is real. There’s a certain sheer excitement in experiencing this X-ray stylization. It’s the excitement of feeling: “I am, for now, in a unique dimension, where I can experience reality profoundly, and in a way I don’t normally.” It’s like seeing the world in color and three dimensions, when normally it’s black and white and flat. Now, the fuel from reading Atlas Shrugged is pure pleasure and uplift from the fact of living on earth. But the fuel in Tolstoy and Dostoevsky is more of being in outer space—a special outer space, where you prepare yourself for life once you land. Now, this kind of fuel or inspiration is often in direct contradiction to the evil theme of the book. So, the authors are giving you this, despite their theme.

For example, essential to both Dostoevsky and Tolstoy is the logic of the events and portrayals that they offer. And that implies the value, the validity, the reliability of logic, regardless of their continuous sniping attacks at it. Or, inherent in deliberate, methodical characterizations is the idea that men’s purposes do count, that chosen values do matter, regardless of what the artist may preach as his theme. Or, inherent in the clarity and logical structure in these words is the implicit message that the world is intelligible, that our minds can understand it, that we are able to function, we are important, we can be efficacious.

Now, these are messages that come through by the very nature of the art, if it’s great art, purposeful and stylized, despite the themes. So, in that sense, you can say: great art, or at least the kind I like, even if its theme is wicked, implies a valid philosophy, to an extent, by the sheer fact of its perfect, stylized integration...there’s a limit to this implication and to the fuel that it provides—an obvious limit, since the theme contradicts the implicit message. Nevertheless, the message is there, and you can be uplifted by it, despite the contradiction.

REB

Thanks for the think piece; just note the thinking isn't done and what we have is a slew of interesting opinions: yours, Rand's and Peikoff's. As far as that goes, it's a positive approach to esthetics. As an end result, not. There is no end result; there never will be. Best result so far is always possible, but who argues about that?

--Brant

slicing and dicing with a sledge hammer--that's me!

[Ellen Stuttle]

Brant in #1046: "...all art seems abstract."

I would say so, too. For your consideration...

[....]

All art is abstract, and it conveys abstractions to you embodied in concretes - whether concrete images of people and their actions, or concrete images of colors, shapes, musical events - whether more or less realistic concrete images of entities, or in concrete images that present metaphors of entities and motion, or in concrete images that make abstract suggestions of people, events, ideas, emotions. I'm most interested in the latter two categories of art and music, usually being bored to tears or somnelescence by cuckoo and lightning music.

But, Roger, you're using Rand's meaning of "abstraction" - which Jonathan has said isn't his meaning. See his post #211.

On the other hand, though for awhile I thought I understood what Jonathan meant, I'm now lost again, since, judging from his posts #1036, #1045, and #1048, his meaning is so widely inclusive, I don't see the use of it.

Ellen

[moralist]

Adam writes:

It is tempting to cross over that line, however I won't either.

A wise decision, Adam.

Brain activity which is a symptom of thought can be quantified because it is physical (electrochemical).

However, it is impossible to quantify the soul that observes those thoughts, for that would violate the sanctity of our free will as sovereign individuals to choose.

Greg

[Ellen Stuttle]

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.

No, it doesn't, since Rand said that one could respond to artworks on many levels besides full sense-of-life affinity.

(I have multiple criticisms of Rand's "sense of life" idea - as she explicates it, I don't think it exists. But Hitler's and her both liking Greek statues isn't an applecart upsetter of her views.)

Ellen

If one saw, in real life, a beautiful woman wearing an exquisite evening gown, with a cold sore on her lips, the blemish would mean nothing but a minor affliction, and one would ignore it.

But a painting of such a woman would be a corrupt, obscenely viscious attack on man, on beauty, on all valuesand one would experience a feeling of immense disgust and indignation at the artist. (There are also those who would feel something like approval and who would belong to the same moral category as the artist.)

The emotional response to that painting would be instantaneous, much faster than the viewers mind could identify all the reasons involved. The psychological mechanism which produces that response (and which produced the painting) is a mans sense of life.

--Ayn Rand, The Romantic Manifesto

And?

I've objected to that passage elsewhere, since how could one know how one would react to a painting unless one saw the painting? However, the quote doesn't say that two people couldn't like a painting for different reasons.

Rand specifically says toward the end of the same essay:

Even in the realm of personal choices, there are many different aspects from which one may enjoy a work of art - other than sense-of-life affinity. One's sense of life is fully involved only when one feels a profoundly personal emotion about a work of art. But there are many other levels or degrees of liking; the differences are similar to the differences between romantic love and affection and friendship.

The full passage from which that statement comes is provided in post #287.

Ellen

[Ellen Stuttle]

I have multiple criticisms of Rand's "sense of life" idea - as she explicates it, I don't think it exists.

Ellen

Go on! I am curious. Totally out of the blue I am guessing you might relate to sense of style rather than sense of life. I am reading Lessing's Prisons We Choose to Live Inside. Thanks for the hat tip. Her writing (non-fiction) is a pleasure to experience. It has a nice ebb and flow as she gently leads you through observations and ideas; some ideas and thoughts that are quite brutal - like one of the reasons for war is that people enjoy it.

Michael,

I made multiple posts about the "sense of life" issue on the "Romanticist Art..." thread. See post #295 for the start of the discussion.

I'm glad that you've found the "hat tip" re Lessing worth pursuing.

Ellen

[Ellen Stuttle]

You're still not getting what the term "abstract" means in the arts. "Abstract" subsumes the concept of "analogical."

[....]

That, in part, is what "abstract" means.

See #1055.

As for your views about Kandinsky, and about my views of comparing him to Mondrian, I'm really not interested in your speculations after having read a mere fraction of Kandinsky's work, none of Mondrian's, and none of the context of visual art history of the time. [....]

J

It doesn't need much reading of Kandinsky to see that he was steeped in Theosophy.

I notice in the second part of Concerning that he presents a life-of-colors graphic which is an adaptation of an astrological chart. I'm looking forward to reading the explication.

Ellen

[Jonathan]

Brant in #1046: "...all art seems abstract."

I would say so, too. For your consideration...

[....]

All art is abstract, and it conveys abstractions to you embodied in concretes - whether concrete images of people and their actions, or concrete images of colors, shapes, musical events - whether more or less realistic concrete images of entities, or in concrete images that present metaphors of entities and motion, or in concrete images that make abstract suggestions of people, events, ideas, emotions. I'm most interested in the latter two categories of art and music, usually being bored to tears or somnelescence by cuckoo and lightning music.

But, Roger, you're using Rand's meaning of "abstraction" - which Jonathan has said isn't his meaning. See his post #211.

That's right, Ellen, Roger's use of "abstraction" is not "my" meaning, nor is it the established meaning in the arts.

Roger might as well say that since all art forms use pigments in one way or another -- novels and musical scores are printed in ink, obviously paintings use paint, dance costumes are colored with dyes, etc. -- therefore all art forms are abstract, because pigments are abstracted from flowers and rocks and such.*

On the other hand, though for awhile I thought I understood what Jonathan meant, I'm now lost again, since, judging from his posts #1036, #1045, and #148]#1048, his meaning is so widely inclusive, I don't see the use of it.

Do you want to see the use of it?

In the past, prior to the existence of this thread, what did you think people were talking about when using the term "abstract art"? Prior to this thread, could you tell the difference between a Vermeer and a Mondrian? If so, the terms "representational" and "abstract" are the words that people use to signify that difference. See the use now?

J

* Chrysanthemum Yellow Pigment

Alias name: Coreopsis Yellow Extract

Lanceolin , lanceloetin , leplosin , leptosidin ,etc flavonoid pigment are the main parts of the chrysanthemum yellow pigment.We can see chocolate brown glutinous liquid and primrose yellow after dilution with our naked eyes,smell the chrysanthemum delicately fragrant odor. It is absolute a natural pigment abstracted from the inflorescence of Coreopsis lanceleta L. by modern biotechnology.Widely used in beverage,cold drink, fruit-flavored water, fruit-flavored powder, fruit syrup, soda pop,the mixture of wines,candy,cakes and canned goods as foodstuff coloring.

[Jonathan]

You're still not getting what the term "abstract" means in the arts. "Abstract" subsumes the concept of "analogical."

[....]

That, in part, is what "abstract" means.

See #1055.

As for your views about Kandinsky, and about my views of comparing him to Mondrian, I'm really not interested in your speculations after having read a mere fraction of Kandinsky's work, none of Mondrian's, and none of the context of visual art history of the time. [....]

J

It doesn't need much reading of Kandinsky to see that he was steeped in Theosophy.

I notice in the second part of Concerning that he presents a life-of-colors graphic which is an adaptation of an astrological chart. I'm looking forward to reading the explication.

Ellen

The issue under consideration was not whether or not Kandinsky was steeped in Theosophy. Do you even remember what the issue under consideration was, or have you already become lost again chasing electrons?

J

[Brant Gaede]

Adam writes:

It is tempting to cross over that line, however I won't either.

A wise decision, Adam.

Brain activity which is a symptom of thought can be quantified because it is physical (electrochemical).

However, it is impossible to quantify the soul that observes those thoughts, for that would violate the sanctity of our free will as sovereign individuals to choose.

Greg

When we say "soul" we are also saying "ghost."

--Brant

not calling Ghost Busters (too much collateral damage)

[Brant Gaede]

Brant in #1046: "...all art seems abstract."

I would say so, too. For your consideration...

[....]

All art is abstract, and it conveys abstractions to you embodied in concretes - whether concrete images of people and their actions, or concrete images of colors, shapes, musical events - whether more or less realistic concrete images of entities, or in concrete images that present metaphors of entities and motion, or in concrete images that make abstract suggestions of people, events, ideas, emotions. I'm most interested in the latter two categories of art and music, usually being bored to tears or somnelescence by cuckoo and lightning music.

But, Roger, you're using Rand's meaning of "abstraction" - which Jonathan has said isn't his meaning. See his post #211.

On the other hand, though for awhile I thought I understood what Jonathan meant, I'm now lost again, since, judging from his posts #1036, #1045, and #1048, his meaning is so widely inclusive, I don't see the use of it.

Ellen

To displace narrower meanings since we keep talking about abstract this and abstract that?

--Brant

can't we all just get along?

[Jonathan]

Michael and Roger cannot adjust to Jonathan's style of engagement because they can't backpedal and start over. So everything is reduced to ego vs manners or Jonathan's ostensible lack of them. This leaves J one up, but not one up on much. With well over 1000 posts, where is the +1000 posts of value? If you can't precis this thread down to 10% of that, you aren't trying. The substance would then be partially revealed, encouraging another, final precis on that.

--Brant

I wonder how many additional books we've helped Kamhi sell with over 1000 posts and over 13,000 views?

J

[Jonathan]

You're still not getting what the term "abstract" means in the arts. "Abstract" subsumes the concept of "analogical."

[....]

That, in part, is what "abstract" means.

See #1055.

As for your views about Kandinsky, and about my views of comparing him to Mondrian, I'm really not interested in your speculations after having read a mere fraction of Kandinsky's work, none of Mondrian's, and none of the context of visual art history of the time. [....]

J

It doesn't need much reading of Kandinsky to see that he was steeped in Theosophy.

I notice in the second part of Concerning that he presents a life-of-colors graphic which is an adaptation of an astrological chart. I'm looking forward to reading the explication.

Ellen

The issue under consideration was not whether or not Kandinsky was steeped in Theosophy. Do you even remember what the issue under consideration was, or have you already become lost again chasing electrons?

J

Here's the relevant post:

Mondian's mystical energy essence "fit's in" in exactly the same way that any other mystical approach does: it really doesn't. It's just a mystic's attempt to explain something in reality. Since he was a mystic rather than a scientist or other rational thinker, he attempted to explain real effects in the mindset of mysticism, and therefore ended up getting a lot of things wrong, and only some things right. Kandinsky was tainted by some of the same sort of thing, but was actually quite rational when getting down to the business of analyzing and explaining the effects of color and shape. In fact, Kandinsky was much more rational, coherent and successful -- much more objective -- at explaining the effects of color than Rand was at explaining the effects of music.

Mondrian wasn't the only person in history whose mysticism distorted his attempts at understanding the causes of aesthetic effects. Many people, including realist/representational artists, musicians, architects, etc., have spoken very similarly to Mondrian about the effects of their art forms, and the belief that gods and other magical, mystical forces were the ultimate cause of them.

Plus there is the difficulty of not knowing for certain if an artist or theorist is speaking literally or metaphorically, or a combination of both. When it comes to spiritual essences and energies and outer vibrations matching inner ones, etc. (kind of sounds like our Moralist Greg, doesn't it?), I think that Kandinsky and Frank Lloyd Wright were more metaphorical than literal, where Mondrian was probably the opposite. I guess that in O-land it boils down to eliminating the prejudicial hatreds and irrational passions, perhaps by asking if the same doubt that is directed at Kandinsky and Mondrian would also be applied with equal passion to Wright. When Wright wrote of the spiritual effects of the abstract shapes of architecture, would anyone here try to use his quotes as a reason to deny the reality of the aesthetic effects that architecture has on people other than Kamhi and Torres?

J

[Brant Gaede]

3/4ths "views" are bots.

[Jonathan]

3/4 of the "posts" are by 'droids.

J

[Newberry]

It's from the same paragraph/section. It reminds me a little bit that art is the technology of the soul.

What is a soul? Is that anything like a mind? If so a soul has as much substantial existence as a mind.

Ba'al Chatzaf

I like your question.

Yesterday I volunteered and taught 28 12 year olds, how to come up with their unique art signature, how light and shadow are are made up of five distinct properties, and to use those properties on a special object of significance. The class more or less got it, with some better than others and some more comfortable than others. Their brains more or less got it, but there was also more than just thinking about it.

They had to use their imagination, sensory visual awareness, individual uniqueness (to evaluate which was their best art signature out of ten, which has nothing to do with science but what feels right to them). Making art and art related stuff calls on science, introspection, imaginations, senses, interpretation, feelings, observations, thought, and the kitchen sink. I use "soul" which has all those elements under one heading. Art calls on the artist to use and hopefully master all those elements for the purpose of creation.

[Jonathan]

I want to go back to something that Roger mentioned way back in post 345. He wrote:

The chief (but not only) culprits seem to be harmony and melodic intervals and melodic "direction." (Tempo and rhythmic style are important, too.) For instance, upward tending melodies connote striving, major key harmonies connote optimism, the melodic interval of the 6th moving to the 5th connotes joy - and not just because I'm "reading them in," or because countless composers and song-writers have used them in that way during the past 4 centuries, but because there are physiological factors that make them work that way. Deryck Cooke's 1960 book The Language of Music is very helpful with details, as is Helmholtz' The Sensations of Tone.

One of the things that I've been doing consistently on this thread is challenging unsupported assumptions and premises. When Kamhi announces her criteria for art, and then asserts that abstract paintings and sculptures, and architecture, don't make the grade, but that other art forms do, I don't just take her word for it. I expect to see proof that all of the art forms -- and each individual work of art, for that matter -- that she accepts as valid actually meet her criteria, and that those criteria employ the exact same rigid standards that were used when rejecting the art forms that she doesn't like. No double standards, please. No special cases or classes or exemptions.

So, I'd also need to see proof of Roger's position above, which is that certain musical features connote striving, optimism or joy, and "not because countless composers and song-writers have used them in that way during the past 4 centuries, but because there are physiological factors that make them work that way."

How would he prove his position that society has not been significantly conditioned by four centuries of what David Huron calls musical "clichéd devices"? Four centuries is a hell of a lot of conditioning! To me, the position seems quite counterintuitive, given my own observations of how different people respond differently to music, and, more importantly, given others' observations that people from one culture won't respond in the same way to the music of another culture. Rand herself made that observation, as did David Huron in one of his works that MSK brought up on this thread and which I quoted earlier:

For many thoughtful musicians, such clichés raise the question, “Why do these techniques work?” To this question, an ethnomusicologist might add a second: “Why do they often fail to work for listeners not familiar with Western music?” And an experienced film composer might insist on adding a third: “Why do they sometimes fail to work, even for those who are familiar with Western music?” [emphasis added]

In seeing older people failing to "get" rock music because they've never listened to it, and listened instead to mostly cotton candy barbershop quartets and polkas, and they therefore haven't been trained and conditioned to understand rock's "clichéd devices," there appears to be much more nurture involved than Roger's claim of universal nature in the alleged "physiological factors that make them work that way."

Earlier I asked Roger to identify the emotions in Rolling Stones' music, and I asked specifically because Roger has said that he doesn't get much out of their music, and that he isn't a fan of theirs. Despite his not liking it or connecting with it, he still should be able to identify the universal "depersonalized emotion" that Rand believed that each piece of music conveyed to almost all listeners.

She wrote:

"Music communicates emotions, which one grasps, but does not actually feel; what one feels is a suggestion, a kind of distant, dissociated, depersonalized emotion—until and unless it unites with one’s own sense of life. But since the music’s emotional content is not communicated conceptually or evoked existentially, one does feel it in some peculiar, subterranean way.

"Music conveys the same categories of emotions to listeners who hold widely divergent views of life. As a rule, men agree on whether a given piece of music is gay or sad or violent or solemn. But even though, in a generalized way, they experience the same emotions in response to the same music, there are radical differences in how they appraise this experience—i.e., how they feel about these feelings."

As has been typical here, Roger didn't answer. Perhaps Roger can't do so with rock music because he doesn't speak and understand the "language" of rock, at least not very fluently, because he has spent most of his time immersed (gasp!) in the "language" of classical, jazz and the American pop songbook, and not in rock?

J

[anthony]

It's from the same paragraph/section. It reminds me a little bit that art is the technology of the soul.

What is a soul? Is that anything like a mind? If so a soul has as much substantial existence as a mind.

Ba'al Chatzaf

I like your question.

Yesterday I volunteered and taught 28 12 year olds, how to come up with their unique art signature, how light and shadow are are made up of five distinct properties, and to use those properties on a special object of significance. The class more or less got it, with some better than others and some more comfortable than others. Their brains more or less got it, but there was also more than just thinking about it.

They had to use their imagination, sensory visual awareness, individual uniqueness (to evaluate which was their best art signature out of ten, which has nothing to do with science but what feels right to them). Making art and art related stuff calls on science, introspection, imaginations, senses, interpretation, feelings, observations, thought, and the kitchen sink. I use "soul" which has all those elements under one heading. Art calls on the artist to use and hopefully master all those elements for the purpose of creation.

Great reply. Michael, it is a peeve of mine that "a conceptual consciousness" is often viewed as only empirical and science-based. All facts are facts, inclusive of all things like "introspection, imaginations..."etc., and are dependent on those disciplines too. In a consciousness, art and science meet and mingle around the curve, our concepts literally are "created", and so it looks to me that Objectivism, in tune with these realities, is an 'artistic' philosophy as much as anything.

[Jonathan]

Back in 2007 on the Art and Subobjectivity thread, I offered a scenario in which the act of placing of a shopping cart in a gallery would qualify as legitimate art by Objectivist standards and criteria:

An idea for a play:

A gallery owner is sweeping the floors of one of his empty gallery rooms while waiting for one of his artists to deliver her latest work of art. The artist arrives with an empty shopping cart, and rolls it to the center of the room. The gallery owner asks what's going on. The artist answers that she's delivering her latest work. The owner asks where it is. The artist answers that the shopping cart is the art. They argue about it, discussing various aesthetic theories and definitions of art.

When they realize that they're getting nowhere, they invite members of the audience to become art patrons and "jurors" in the play who will decide whether or not the shopping cart is art (much like in Rand's play Night of January 16th). Victor, being one of the audience members selected, immediately shows his disgust and shouts that of course the cart is not art. He and the other jurors discuss the matter, offering all sorts of interesting ideas and arguments, and they eventually decide that the shopping cart is not art.

End of play.

In post #59 on that thread, I stated that I had "established a scenario in which the act of placing a shopping cart -- or a urinal, dung heap, etc. -- in a gallery, and the resulting responses, discussions and conclusions, would be art even by Objectivist definitions and standards."

Jeff Kremer had a minor objection:

"The people in it that are unaware of it being a performance, however, are not performing. They are not reacting, not performing. They are not artists because they are not selectively recreating. One can be part of a performance an still not be a performer."

I accepted Jeff's feedback, and amended the scenario accordingly:

Good point. So let's alter the scenario a little: Some of the gallery's visitors would know that the whole thing is a performance, and some would not. Those who did not know would not be artists or performers, but, since those who were performers would be interacting with, responding to, and being influenced by the opinions of those who were not performers, the opinions of the non-performers would play a part in shaping the outcome of the art.

So, now we've established a scenario in which the act of placing a shopping cart -- or a urinal, dung heap, etc. -- in a gallery, and the resulting responses, discussions and conclusions, would be art even by Objectivist definitions and standards.

It's also a scenario which would qualify as art by Kamhi and Torres's definitions, standards and criteria. Not only that, but such an act of placing a shopping cart or urinal or dung heap in a gallery should qualify as very great, important, emotionally deep and meaningful art by their criteria, since it addresses a subject which is so metaphysical-level important and "sense of life" meaningful to them that they have dedicated their lives to pondering and writing about it!

Additionally, Rand was praised for her daringly original creativity in introducing interactivity into her play (Objectivists really like to call the art that they like "daringly" this or "daringly" that), so I would think that the act of daringly placing a shopping cart in a gallery and daringly not telling some of the participants what's going on, and daringly allowing their responses to feed the improvisational performances of the others should be praised by Objectivish-types as being quite daringly imaginative!

J

[Brant Gaede]

This thread is 95% Rand or one's idea of Rand and her esthetics.

[PDS]

This thread is 95% Rand or one's idea of Rand and her esthetics.

Why wouldn't it be?

[anthony]

I disagree, Brant. Less of Rand than any other art-thread I've been in anyway. There've been insightful thoughts from everyone. I find it a refreshing change.

Some has been derivative of her, some reminiscent, but a lot of independent thought too.

Rand's "esthetics" is actually an insignificant part of her hypothesis; it is in just a few pages of TRM on the subject of "style" in her Sense of Life chapter. She writes: "(The esthetic principles which apply to all art...are outside the scope of this discussion. I will mention only that such principles are defined by the science of esthetics--a task at which modern philosophy has failed dismally.)"

Little else.

I have never quite understood what you've always meant by "Rand's esthetics". In short, she didn't express any.

[Roger Bissell]

The Rolling Stones - "I Can't Get No Satisfaction."

Setting aside the repeated signature guitar lick on the intro and the verses which basically vamp on a couple of notes, the melody consists of (1) two alternating diminished chord licks repeated then followed by (2) four three-note scale fragments each a step higher than the last (an example of a "climb" in pop music parlance) followed by (3) another diminished chord lick repeated at the top of the melody line. (Hopefully that makes sense, if you follow along in your memory or iTunes or YouTube.)

The "climb" is a standard way in music to convey aspiration, yearning - in this case, yearning for sexual satisfaction - and the Stones song matches words to music. "I try and I try and I try and I try."

Most everything else in the song is geared to building restless, frustrated tension - as opposed to the aspirational tension in the "climb." But it all works to get across the idea that it was now socially acceptable to talk about sexual desire and frustration.

(Social commentary: how many teenage girls twitched in their seats, listening to this, thinking: "Oh those poor boys. They need sex!" And how many boyfriends tapped them on the shoulder, and said "I'm right here, and I need some, too!" And how many parents cringed in horror and revulsion, wondering if this song was going to result in unplanned, unwanted pregnancies of their daughters, whether caused by the newly emboldened neighbor boy or some scruffy, sweaty stranger holding a guitar. :-)

As for *why* this works, and why it's not arbitrary or subjective...

Repetition to build tension needs almost no explanation.

Using upward melodic motion to convey aspiration or yearning and the like was explored by Edward Lippman in his 1952 dissertation Sound and Space. (It's not published, but it's probably available from Dissertation Abstracts, or whatever that outfit in Ann Arbor, Michigan now calls itself.)

Lippman explains the physiological basis of higher and lower frequency notes being heard as similar to higher and lower position in physical space. Most relevantly to upward melodies connoting yearning, he says that tones with higher pitch are experienced as having a higher degree of tension or intensity, which is correlated with higher spatial location or with any "position" in which one has exerted effort or tension in order to get "there." Such as trying and trying and tryihg and trying - and still falling short.

It seems clear from Lippman's work that this experience of (1) higher and lower notes connoting up and down in physical space, and (2) upward melody connoting striving and yearning are neither necessary (because of variations in culture and experience), nor arbitrary (because of the natural physiological basis for the metaphor).

In Randian lingo, they are neither intrinsic nor subjective, but objective - real potentials that will be discovered, if not stamped out by society or upbringing or foreclosed by tone-deafness or some such neurological deficit. Although they are not as inevitable as forming first-level concepts of objects, actions, and characteristics, they are not merely culturally ingrained responses either.

REB