anthony Posted June 2, 2015 Share Posted June 2, 2015 A man standing fearlessly on the edge of a cliff; a woman at the controls of a train speeding through the night; the scene in a steel foundry as molten metal is poured. From rough memory, they are some of the instances of the "sublime" showed in Rand's novels.Except in passing, she didn't make anything special of aesthetics in her Manifesto on art. Except to mention it needed much more study. She covers beauty in her thoughts on "Style". It seems it was evident to her that to an artist, beauty is a given - as is the individual's reaction to it.The sublime in nature which is so central to Kant's aesthetics, I think is merely man's subconscious and emotional response to something huge and overwhelming, not inherent in the property of a mountain (e.g.). In art, it's a descriptive device.Probably, all authors use the device at some stage to describe and show characters' emotional reactions to something : wonderment, awe, temporary fear, etc. We the readers share it through their experience and by their responses understand more about the characters.No big deal. Beauty and the sublime have importance to man, but not as a totality.Kant, in my reading, wanted to make beauty - everything, or, "an end in itself". I suggest there is intrinsicism of a mystical kind in this.Rand conversely was concerned above all with the mind and the 'mind-made' (which of course is what art is) but more, the man-made shown within romanticist novels and paintings (his physical creations... man's conveyed character...his goal-directed nature). If a Romantic hero sees a vast valley he's not intimidated, he's immediately considering how to build a bridge over it - to be simplistic.Kant continues and combines his "sublime" from nature into the "sublime" in fine art, as almost an afterthought, with very little distinction that I read. It is all beauty to him. He mostly neglects to distinguish the naturally-given from man-made.And even then, his main focus in fine art was on the artist - "the genius", as I believe he called him - hardly on the viewer's needs and responses. Which drops the context and ignores the purpose of art, I think.In essence, Rand emphasised "Content! content!" The ideas put across by novel and picture to the reader and viewer are what were critical to her.The aesthetics carry the ideas and are simply their vehicle. IOW, the two are non-contradictory parts (the implicit and the explicit) - with "the idea" (the artist's "metaphysical value-judgment") mostly supreme.The most telling difference between them to my mind? Kant perceived 'the sublime' in nature, and carried it into his ethics; Rand saw the sublime in man, and did the same.I estimate that any apparent similarity between Kant and Rand is coincidental and superficial, in art especially. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brant Gaede Posted June 2, 2015 Share Posted June 2, 2015 Well, Rand was an artist; Kant wasn't. Or do you just mean Kant is "superficial"?--Brant Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anthony Posted June 2, 2015 Share Posted June 2, 2015 Well, Rand was an artist; Kant wasn't. Or do you just mean Kant is "superficial"?--BrantNo one could ever call Kant superficial! Rather, it's as if he made highly complicated what a simpler person usually would take as read. Like some brilliant people he seemed short of common, grounded sense and became quite a mystic in later years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brant Gaede Posted June 2, 2015 Share Posted June 2, 2015 I'm much too Kant ignorant to continue.--Brant Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anthony Posted June 2, 2015 Share Posted June 2, 2015 Oh, I am too. I'm not able or interested to delve too deep into Kant, but I think I can spot some of his broader premises. And some quotes of his are too revealing. There's a very good, neutral overview of much of his works at Stanford U. (Google: Kant and Aesthetics). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
moralist Posted June 3, 2015 Share Posted June 3, 2015 I'm much too Kant ignorant to continue.--BrantSame here... I can'tdo Kant.Greg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonathan Posted June 3, 2015 Share Posted June 3, 2015 Oh, I am too. I'm not able or interested to delve too deep into Kant, but I think I can spot some of his broader premises. And some quotes of his are too revealing. There's a very good, neutral overview of much of his works at Stanford U. (Google: Kant and Aesthetics).You're not even able to delve into simple, neutral overviews without twisting everything around due to your having been poisoned by Rand and her followers.J Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anthony Posted June 3, 2015 Share Posted June 3, 2015 That's for pointing out that Rand put the importance of substance ahead of beauty? Kant, the reverse? It's clear to any neutral analyst of both. (I've mentioned, I tended toward the content in art many years before I heard of Rand).By your logic, likewise anyone who places beauty over and above the rest, has been "poisoned" by Kant and his followers. No?But I don't claim that, because I don't know. An Objectivist "follower" is ultimately an oxymoron. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mikee Posted June 3, 2015 Share Posted June 3, 2015 I gave "The critique of pure reason" a month or two of study years ago and thought it was obtuse. I admit to being jaded by the philosophy profession since. I admire Ayn Rand for her great books, her ideas, her intelligence and belief in reason, her individualism and her love of joy in living. I'm very glad she was not a professional philosopher. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Selene Posted June 3, 2015 Share Posted June 3, 2015 Bravo gentlemen!Theoretically Tony you are correct...An Objectivist "follower" is ultimately an oxymoron.And the Gospel according to Ayn purists merely blunt the effect she had on everyone...As Joe Mike aptly explains, [ and it is in his avatar geez]I admire Ayn Rand for her great books, her ideas, her intelligence and belief in reason, her individualism and her love of joy in living. I'm very glad she was not a professional philosopher.Yep and Amen.A... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
moralist Posted June 3, 2015 Share Posted June 3, 2015 An Objectivist "follower" is ultimately an oxymoron.When I was inspired by Ayn Rand's writings I didn't even know Objectivism existed, so there was nothing for me to follow except her business model......which worked like a charm.Greg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mikee Posted June 4, 2015 Share Posted June 4, 2015 Bravo gentlemen!Theoretically Tony you are correct...An Objectivist "follower" is ultimately an oxymoron.And the Gospel according to Ayn purists merely blunt the effect she had on everyone...As Joe aptly explains,I admire Ayn Rand for her great books, her ideas, her intelligence and belief in reason, her individualism and her love of joy in living. I'm very glad she was not a professional philosopher.Yep and Amen.A...Joe??...I thought I was bad with names... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
moralist Posted June 4, 2015 Share Posted June 4, 2015 I thought you were Joe too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brant Gaede Posted June 4, 2015 Share Posted June 4, 2015 Joe-Joe?https://youtu.be/qzRRAgAjGTo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonathan Posted June 4, 2015 Share Posted June 4, 2015 That's for pointing out that Rand put the importance of substance ahead of beauty? Kant, the reverse?No. As always, you're making inferences which cannot logically be inferred. My comment about your inability to read and understand simple overviews of Kant without getting them twisted around in your Rand-distorted head was not in relation to any one single issue that you randomly wish to arbitrarily pluck from the sky. Rather, it is every issue, every aspect of every issue, and every subaspect of every issue.By your logic, likewise anyone who places beauty over and above the rest, has been "poisoned" by Kant and his followers. No?You're making illogical inferences and assigning to me positions that I haven't taken and arguments that I haven't made. An Objectivist "follower" is ultimately an oxymoron.I've heard Rand and her official approved spokespersons and "heirs" say the same thing. A person who thinks for himself wouldn't have parroted it in this context.J Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brant Gaede Posted June 4, 2015 Share Posted June 4, 2015 "Objectivist follower" is not an oxymoron. Make your case for "objectivist follower."--Brantbut that makes it a trite subject Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Selene Posted June 5, 2015 Share Posted June 5, 2015 As Joe Mike aptly explains, [ and it is in his avatar geez]I admire Ayn Rand for her great books, her ideas, her intelligence and belief in reason, her individualism and her love of joy in living. I'm very glad she was not a professional philosopher.Yep and Amen.A...Sorry about that! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brant Gaede Posted June 5, 2015 Share Posted June 5, 2015 Gee. I didn't know she did it for free. Why do philosophical hacks on state salary get professional respect? The PhD granted them by other hacks?--Brantnext up on the "professional" shit list are the economists, but the philosophers are generally on the very bottom with the likely exceptions in political philosophy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brant Gaede Posted September 23, 2015 Share Posted September 23, 2015 deleted Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Newberry Posted October 14, 2015 Share Posted October 14, 2015 Newberry (who now claims to be "an internationally-recognised artist") has recently taken to calling his work (and that of some of his friends) the "Neo-Sublime."https://www.facebook.com/michael.newberry.12http://www.michaelnewberry.com/bio/bio1.htmOne of the new artworks he is touting is part of a 'smoke series.' Here is one of them. I think it is beautiful. Abstract and beautiful. Neo-Sublime, I don't know. One of the new artworks he is touting is part of a 'smoke series.' Here is one of them. I think it is beautiful. Abstract and beautiful. Neo-Sublime, I don't know.I also think it's beautiful. But, would Kamhi and her universal "average viewer" be able to objectively identify its subject and meaning without having access to "outside considerations"? If the Rand-deformed spawn at OO were exposed to it without knowing that it was created by one of their elderly, fading brothers, would they hesitate for even a millisecond before reviling it and its creator for "disintegrating the mind" and turning people into "drooling monstrous degenerate mewling infants with empty drooling monstrous eye sockets," or whatever?JThanks you two for the compliments on the beauty of the piece. Smoke looks abstract, but it is what it is. It was enjoyable to try this subject, and see if I could make something work from the experiment. I didn't write the "internationally recognized" thing. J's angry tone feels misplaced to me, he sounds peevish and jealous. Perhaps it has to do with selling his art services instead of being a true artist? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brant Gaede Posted October 14, 2015 Share Posted October 14, 2015 Please fix the first link. Thanks.The second link goes to a work making great use of light and color, IMHO.--Brant Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
william.scherk Posted October 14, 2015 Share Posted October 14, 2015 I'd like to see more of the Smoke series put up. Nice to see your work again, Michael. You big smokey diptych touted elsewhere is a nice rendering. I like the smokey abstraction above for selfish reasons, I think, selfish emotions. It reminds me of some of my exuberant gestural drawings and sketches, and the human and animal form suggestions in the smoke form my favourite part. It's playful and sensual without any hint of mawkishness.The surety and non-finicky play of ephemera is indicative of a good gestural instinct, to my jaded eyes. I wish I saw more of that instant power in more of your work. My least favourites contain a stiffer, overworked surface -- it just doesn't capture my heart's mind as much.More smokey abstractions, please. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonathan Posted October 14, 2015 Share Posted October 14, 2015 J's angry tone feels misplaced to me, he sounds peevish...Yeah, it's pretty common that Rand's cultural deputies don't like it when I reflect their (and/or Rand's) tone or attitude right back at them, especially when I laugh about it. The funniest thing is that they never seem to be bright enough to recognize themselves in that mirror.But speaking of angry peevishness, Newbsie, have you gotten over your misplaced, willful misinterpretations and vilifications of Kant's notion of the Sublime yet? After all of the evidence that has been provided to you in an effort to help you grasp the Rand-brainwashed stupidity of your hateful misjudgments of Kant's aesthetics, are you still, after all this time, stubbornly clinging your dumb position? Even after it has been pointed out to you numerous times that Rand's aesthetic "sense of life" is pure Kantian Sublimity, and that all of her novels contain the Kantian Sublime as their signature aesthetic style?...and jealous. Perhaps it has to do with selling his art services instead of being a true artist?Oh, absolutely, it must be jealousy of Grand Master Newberry! It just cannot be that my criticisms of Objectivish half-baked ideas on the philosophy of aesthetics have merit (and so much so that Rand's followers can't offer coherent responses). No, when I sting them with reality, it's really just my jealousy of Newbsie's being a "true artist"! Heh.If there's any jealousy, Newbsie, you're the one who's wallowing in it. You're upset -- and jealous -- that I'm rational and intelligent, and that I do real philosophy where you pose and pretend and parrot Rand. You're angry that I've done philosophy so well, specifically in regard to the issue of Kant and the Sublime, that I've embarrassed you by revealing what a pretender, amateur, and Rand-brainwashed hack you are.You're way out of your league in the realm of ideas. You should stick to painting. It's the one thing you do well.J Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Newberry Posted October 14, 2015 Share Posted October 14, 2015 I'd like to see more of the Smoke series put up. Nice to see your work again, Michael. You big smokey diptych touted elsewhere is a nice rendering. I like the smokey abstraction above for selfish reasons, I think, selfish emotions. It reminds me of some of my exuberant gestural drawings and sketches, and the human and animal form suggestions in the smoke form my favourite part. It's playful and sensual without any hint of mawkishness.The surety and non-finicky play of ephemera is indicative of a good gestural instinct, to my jaded eyes. I wish I saw more of that instant power in more of your work. My least favourites contain a stiffer, overworked surface -- it just doesn't capture my heart's mind as much.More smokey abstractions, please.I get all those thoughts William, and nice observations from your eyes. I may or may not do a larger one, this was only 8 x 8 inches. Kind of interesting is that “idea” painters, like Bosch and Magritte, aren’t always good painters. And painter’s painters aren’t always good with ideas. Doesn’t change that I think big projects should attempt both. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Newberry Posted October 14, 2015 Share Posted October 14, 2015 Newbsie, have you gotten over your misplaced, willful misinterpretations and vilifications of Kant's notion of the Sublime yet? After all of the evidence that has been provided to you in an effort to help you grasp the Rand-brainwashed stupidity of your hateful misjudgments of Kant's aesthetics, are you still, after all this time, stubbornly clinging your dumb position? Even after it has been pointed out to you numerous times that Rand's aesthetic "sense of life" is pure Kantian Sublimity, and that allof her novels contain the Kantian Sublime as their signature aesthetic style?I would have to say not. My published articles and paid lectures about the connection between Kant’s and Postmodern aesthetics are damn brilliant, and original. You made a good addition by adding that there were other thinkers and ideas prior to Kant that discussed the awesome terrifying nature of the Sublime, which never detracted from my view. You're upset -- and jealous -- that I'm rational and intelligent, and that I do real philosophy where you pose and pretend and parrot Rand. You're angry that I've done philosophy so well, specifically in regard to the issue of Kant and the Sublime, that I've embarrassed you by revealing what a pretender, amateur, and Rand-brainwashed hack you are. You're way out of your league in the realm of ideas. You should stick to painting. It's the one thing you do well.You are absolutely right if pressing "send" is your only qualification. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now