Mess or Masterpiece?

[moralist]

It took me a long time to understand this. The problem is not in Rand's message. It's in the mentality of people who confuse idea with identity, who confuse attitude with performance, and flock together in groups (mental and/or physical).

It's interesting that your same idea can also be applied to religion which is designed to be lived... not collectivized. Attitude is just empty intellectual posing until it's real-ized by our actions.

Greg

[moralist]

But that's Objectivism generally. Conform. Naturally enough many do after being swept off their feet by her fiction.

Ayn Rand's fiction affected me differently. Instead of being swept off my feet, it inspired me to take action. She encouraged me to create what she described.

Greg

[Brant Gaede]

But that's Objectivism generally. Conform. Naturally enough many do after being swept off their feet by her fiction.

Ayn Rand's fiction affected me differently. Instead of being swept off my feet, it inspired me to take action. She encouraged me to create what she described.

Greg

That's a great take. I think most readers found the novel somewhat discouraging in that it encouraged strikerism.

--Brant

[moralist]

But that's Objectivism generally. Conform. Naturally enough many do after being swept off their feet by her fiction.

Ayn Rand's fiction affected me differently. Instead of being swept off my feet, it inspired me to take action. She encouraged me to create what she described.

Greg

That's a great take. I think most readers found the novel somewhat discouraging in that it encouraged strikerism.

--Brant

But they didn't strike from working itself... but rather they channeled their energy and innovative talents into the Gulch. I found this to be immensely encouraging.

If I rebranded Atlas Shrugged, it would be a do-it-yourself manual called

"Build Your Own Gulch"

Greg

[Selene]

Aristotle stated that if you had the will and the power, the deed is done.

Greg simply applied that concept for himself with Ayn as the messenger.

A...

Pretty smart guy Greg

[Ellen Stuttle]

[....] I'm not really looking for Roarks so much as wondering why all of these Ellsworth Tooheys -- these bossy little control freaks who want to tell everyone what to think and do -- are attracted to Rand's art. Why are there so damned many of them?

J

Could it be that you've overlooked, whereas the people you're talking about have taken seriously, the anti-"avant-garde"-art message which is already present in The Fountainhead?

Toohey was portrayed as a champion of "avant-garde" art - which was portrayed as a racket, and as antithetic to genuine individualism.

link

There were several monthly meetings which Toohey attended regularly; the meetings of: the Council of American Builders, the Council of American Writers, the Council of American Artists. He had organized them all.

[....]

The Council of American Artists had, as chairman, a cadaverous youth who painted what he saw in his nightly dreams. There was a boy who used no canvas, but did something with bird cages and metronomes, and another who discovered a new technique of painting: he blackened a sheet of paper and then painted with a rubber eraser. There was a stout middle-aged lady who drew subconsciously, claiming that she never looked at her hand and had no idea of what the hand was doing; her hand, she said, was guided by the spirit of the departed lover whom she had never met on earth. Here they did not talk so much about the proletariat, but merely rebelled against the tyranny of reality and of the objective.

A few friends pointed out to Ellsworth Toohey that he seemed guilty of inconsistency; he was so deeply opposed to individualism, they said, and here were all these writers and artists of his, and every one of them was a rabid individualist. "Do you really think so?" said Toohey, smiling blandly.

Nobody took these Councils seriously. People talked about them, because they thought it made good conversation; it was such a huge joke, they said, certainly there was no harm in any of it. "Do you really think so?" said Toohey.

Nathaniel Branden quoted from that passage in his essay "Counterfeit Individualism." (The essay appeared in the April 1962 issue of "The Objectivist Newsletter" and was reprinted in The Virtue of Selfishness.)

Branden continued:

link

"Counterfeit Individualism"

What Toohey knew - and what students of Objectivism would do well to understand - is that such subjectivists, in their rebellion against the tyranny of reality, are less independent and more abjectly parasitical than the most commonplace Babbitt whom they profess to despise. They originate or create nothing; they are profoundly selfless - and they struggle to fill the void of the egos they do not possess, by means of the only form of self-assertiveness they recognize: defiance for the sake of defiance, irrationality for the sake of irrationality, destruction for the sake of destruction, whims for the sake of whims.

A psychotic is scarcely likely to be accused of conformity; but neither a psychotic nor a subjectivist is an exponent of individualism.

Observe the common denominator in the attempts to corrupt the meaning of individualism as an ethical-political concept and as an ethical-psychological concept: the attempt to divorce individualism from reason. But it is only in the context of reason and mans needs as a rational being that the principle of individualism can be justified. [....]

This is the basis of Objectivisms total opposition to any alleged individualists who attempt to equate individualism with subjectivism.

David Kelley commented along the same lines in a June 2010 piece called "The Code of the Creator" -

link

The Code of the Creator

June 14, 2010

Rand makes it clear from the outset that independence does not consist in nonconformity. Henry Cameron says to Roark, "I wouldn't care [about you and your work] if you were an exhibitionist who's being different as a stunt, as a lark, just to attract attention to himself. It's a smart racket, to oppose the crowd and amuse it and collect admission to the sideshow." Later on, we meet a number of artists, protégés of Toohey, who are engaged in precisely that kind of racket; the writer who did not use capital letters, the painter who "used no canvas, but did something with bird cages and metronomes," and the like. When Toohey's friends ask him how he can support such rabid individualists, he smiles blandly. He knows that these "iconoclasts" are merely playing off conventions, for the sake of shock value; they are just as dependent on others as the most abject conformist. And most of them, like the writer Lois Cook, have a smirking kind of awareness that they are getting away with something, foisting trash on a credulous public. (I sometimes think that Andy Warhol got his ideas from these passages of The Fountainhead).

Even in The Fountainhead, Rand was setting strictures on what she took to be allowable as "independence" - so maybe that part of her message registered more strongly with a subset of her readers than it did with you.

Ellen

[Brant Gaede]

What's most interesting is how Nathaniel builds right off The Fountainhead parts you quoted as if the novel were a valid source both of data and philosophical fire. It's characteristic of what I think was all wrong about Objectivism back then--Objectivism as kick ass--even though "back then" probably needed it. He was totally into it. So instead of students finding and building inner strength, they jumped onto this tar baby of a philosophy. I sure did.

--Brant

I do think Jonathan is okay in his comments if he takes Roark atomistically; after all, Rand was out to get Toohey from A to Z and he was based on a real person--the man was the most complex and deep Rand fiction character ever and the most interesting; she had thought of him--a lot (that was her job, not Roark's)

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Could it be that you've overlooked, whereas the people you're talking about have taken seriously, the anti-"avant-garde"-art message which is already present in The Fountainhead?

Toohey was portrayed as a champion of "avant-garde" art - which was portrayed as a racket, and as antithetic to genuine individualism.

Ellen,

I think you are on to something here. I have been mostly following the recent aesthetic discussions passively (except for some comments about music and modern research in neuroscience and psychology), but I have been wondering how on earth both sides of this were making sense to me.

I think you nailed it. In my earlier days, when I was relying on Rand for the bulk of my artistic orientation, I accepted her attribution of motives of avant-garde artists without checking that particular premise. In my view, they were anti-life, fakers supreme, mostly negative even when they appeared to be positive, totally irrational, and so on.

Then I fell in love with a Brazilian painter who did both representational and abstract paintings and we ended up almost marrying. We lived together for a pretty long time. I saw nothing of Rand's attributed motives in her. On the contrary, I saw an artistic drive that sometimes made me envy her. She had to paint. Period.

On one occasion, we ran out of money for new canvases and she painted the damn bedroom door and the hallway walls. Another time, she simply painted over some previous paintings.

I remember coming home one day and there was a friend of hers painting on the same canvas she was. I had a shit-fit and lectured her about integrity, individualism, not being a second-hander, not corrupting her art, and so on. She stopped and made her friend stop, but she was literally confused. She had no idea what I was talking about and saw nothing wrong in getting a little help to fill in some background. She even liked it that her friend made suggestions and showed what she meant by painting them right there on my ex's painting.

All these experiences kept building up and staying with me. They would not let me go until the day I realized Lenora was driven by something I did not understand and that Rand did not explain.

What's worse, I liked her abstract paintings far more than I liked her representational ones. (She was a bit too Brother Sun Sister Moon new agey in her representations for my substantive taste, although her stuff was always pretty.) That used to confuse me until I had my epiphany.

Now I can still get into Rand's vision and frame and it feels awfully good when I do--as I do at times. But I can't stay there for all art. There's too much good stuff outside of that frame that brings me great joy and deeply meaningful experiences to deny it.

But to be fair to Rand, and this is one of the reasons I don't disagree with her except for scope, I actually knew some avant-garde composers back at Boston University when I was studying music composition who would have fit in perfectly with Toohey's groups--motives and all. I even knew a few in Brazil.

One in particular--Gilberto Mendes--wrote a duet for coloratura soprano and weight lifter. She sang snippets from operas while he lifted weights on stage.

Michael

[Jonathan]

Jonathan, on 27 May 2015 - 7:13 PM, said:

[....] I'm not really looking for Roarks so much as wondering why all of these Ellsworth Tooheys -- these bossy little control freaks who want to tell everyone what to think and do -- are attracted to Rand's art. Why are there so damned many of them?

J

Could it be that you've overlooked, whereas the people you're talking about have taken seriously, the anti-"avant-garde"-art message which is already present in The Fountainhead?

Toohey was portrayed as a champion of "avant-garde" art - which was portrayed as a racket, and as antithetic to genuine individualism.

My statement above is not about what Toohey was a champion of. Toohey championed different conflicting positions. At times he was opposed to the old, at other times he was opposed to the new. My statement is an issue of general attitudes. Toohey's was bossy and controlling. He was primarily concerned with shaping others' opinions. He told everyone what to think and believe, and what to like and dislike. Roark didn't do any of that. Roark wasn't a Pigero. He wasn't a Dr. Mrs. Dr. Comrade Sonia, PhD. He wasn't a Kamhi or a Torres or a Newberry or a Rowlands. He wasn't about trying to limit others to his own personal, subjective tastes and aesthetic limitations.

Ayn Rand said

link

There were several monthly meetings which Toohey attended regularly; the meetings of: the Council of American Builders, the Council of American Writers, the Council of American Artists. He had organized them all.

[....]

The Council of American Artists had, as chairman, a cadaverous youth who painted what he saw in his nightly dreams. There was a boy who used no canvas, but did something with bird cages and metronomes, and another who discovered a new technique of painting: he blackened a sheet of paper and then painted with a rubber eraser.

Rand wasn't being rational when venting about art forms, techniques, or attitudes that she didn't like. Her opinions on the evil of the "avant-garde" were rash, purely emotional reactions, not to mention self-contradictory. Some of the things that she ranted about were indeed perhaps a bit nutty, but others are quite legitimate and effective methods that have been around for a very long time, despite Rand's never having heard of them due to never having exposed herself to enough knowledge of artistic techniques to know that they've been around for a very long time.

A good example would be, "...and another who discovered a new technique of painting: he blackened a sheet of paper and then painted with a rubber eraser."

That's actually quite an effective technique. I've used it many times to create very realistic images -- images which would qualify without question as being art by Objectivist criteria. Opposing the method is silly, and uninformed. It's way too frantic. What's the problem with someone creating an image by removing some of the medium?

Here's an example of a portrait of a friend that I created two years ago using the technique.

Was my use of the technique a "racket," and a "sideshow"? Did I use it "for the sake of shock value"? Are any of you seriously shocked by the image and the technique? Is anyone really that freaking delicate?

There was a stout middle-aged lady who drew subconsciously, claiming that she never looked at her hand and had no idea of what the hand was doing; her hand, she said, was guided by the spirit of the departed lover whom she had never met on earth. Here they did not talk so much about the proletariat, but merely rebelled against the tyranny of reality and of the objective.

It's interesting that there are no examples of architects -- as artists -- "rebelling against reality" by doing things that Rand didn't like, or that she hadn't heard of before. That's because her tastes in architecture were the "avant-garde" of the time.

A few friends pointed out to Ellsworth Toohey that he seemed guilty of inconsistency; he was so deeply opposed to individualism, they said, and here were all these writers and artists of his, and every one of them was a rabid individualist. "Do you really think so?" said Toohey, smiling blandly.

Nobody took these Councils seriously. People talked about them, because they thought it made good conversation; it was such a huge joke, they said, certainly there was no harm in any of it. "Do you really think so?" said Toohey.

Nathaniel Branden quoted from that passage in his essay "Counterfeit Individualism." (The essay appeared in the April 1962 issue of "The Objectivist Newsletter" and was reprinted in The Virtue of Selfishness.)

Branden continued:

Nathaniel Branden said

link

"Counterfeit Individualism"

What Toohey knew - and what students of Objectivism would do well to understand - is that such subjectivists, in their rebellion against the tyranny of reality, are less independent and more abjectly parasitical than the most commonplace Babbitt whom they profess to despise. They originate or create nothing; they are profoundly selfless - and they struggle to fill the void of the egos they do not possess, by means of the only form of self-assertiveness they recognize: defiance for the sake of defiance, irrationality for the sake of irrationality, destruction for the sake of destruction, whims for the sake of whims.

That's some pretty unprofessional and careless psychologizing. Where is Branden's proof of the above statements? Where is his research to back it up?

The arts are different from other fields. Despite certain Objectivists' emotional discomfort with the idea, nutty attitudes and beliefs often do result in very original creations and discoveries, including ones which turn out to conform very nicely with reality. The passion to follow a kooky hunch leads to many more valuable discoveries than fear and opposition to following a kooky hunch. Uptight, rule-obeying Objectivist church school goodie goodies are actually the ones who "originate or create nothing."

Contrary to the irrational, unsupported positions that Objectivism takes on art and creativity, there's quite a lot of room for "whim." Subjectivity, play, freedom, irrationality, and imagination are required in art, not prohibited. I think the thing that Objectivist theorists forget in their haste to condemn is that artists create imaginary worlds.

Anyway, there certainly are charlatans in the arts, just as there are in every other field. There are kooks whose kookiness never results in anything of value to anyone. But it doesn't logically follow that being impulsive in the arts is therefore always destructive and anti-individualistic.

A psychotic is scarcely likely to be accused of conformity; but neither a psychotic nor a subjectivist is an exponent of individualism. This is the basis of Objectivisms total opposition to any alleged individualists who attempt to equate individualism with subjectivism.

So, is Branden saying that someone is a "psychotic" if he or she uses an artistic technique that Rand and Branden are not familiar with, or to which they can't personally imagine having a deep aesthetic response after giving it a millisecond of thought? Is the artistic method of removing pigment from a surface still an example of "alleged individualists" attempting to "equate individualism with subjectivism"? Or should that condemnation maybe be thought through a little more carefully now?

Even in The Fountainhead, Rand was setting strictures on what she took to be allowable as "independence" - so maybe that part of her message registered more strongly with a subset of her readers than it did with you.

No, my point was to compare and contrast Toohey and Roark's general attitude with Rand's followers, not their specific beliefs on specific subjects. Roark was not concerned with others' tastes and opinions, period. He wasn't going around telling people what to think or to like. He wasn't shouting in their faces, "It's not art, it's not art, it's not art!!!" He wasn't proclaiming the "objective superiority" of his tastes as an aesthetic consumer.

J

[Brant Gaede]

Roark was totally fixiated on his architecture as himself rendered out there for his in here--in himself existentially projected then returned magnified. If someone agreed with his vision and had the money then Roark would design and build it for him. The purpose of the owner was to help get it built and then to maintain it. Keating was out to impress. So what he projected in his work was so that the impressed would become part of his self esteem. He held those others in higher esteem than himself. Wynand didn't want pseudo self esteem--he had real self esteem--he wanted power but didn't understand power for if he did he wouldn't have wanted it and when he found out he too collapsed for he discovered he wanted impotence and had achieved it. Toohey had no delusions about anything except power itself, so he didn't collapse psychologically, he just went on as before not understanding the impotence of evil and his own impotence. Wynand finally understood Roark and he was gone. Dominique finally understood the impotence of evil and she was saved and got her potent man back when she understood all this. That's why the ride up the gigantic Howard Roark phallic symbol of a skyscraper at the end of the novel. That novel had two climaxes. Blowing up the housing project, within the novel, and the climax to be after she got up there--finally, finally, finally!--for she was going up there for the sex. (Remember the movie? Roark was the only one up there, hands on his hips, waiting for her.)

--Brant

[Jonathan]

Keating was out to impress. So what he projected in his work was so that the impressed would become part of his self esteem. He held those others in higher esteem than himself.

My view of the real-life Objectivishistic Tooheys -- the bossy little control freak guru-wannabes who want to tell everyone what to think and do -- is that they are very lacking in self-esteem. They are extremely weak and tender. Nothing wounds them more deeply than the idea that other people might be more aesthetically aware and sensitive in some areas than they are, and might have deeper experiences and interpretations of artworks. The mere suggestion that they might not be the universal limit of aesthetic sensitivity and response is seen by them as nothing but a vicious personal attack. The Tooheys commonly claim that others are lying, making things up, pretending and rationalizing when experiencing what the Tooheys don't. They refuse to believe that they might be lacking aesthetically in any way compared to anyone else. It just can't be possible. They just MUST be superior. Questioning how we might objectively measure and test their qualifications and abilities is seen by them as not being a valid philosophical inquiry. They pout or plug their ears or flounce when their opponents don't accept their bald assertions of aesthetic superiority.

Very low self-esteem.

J

[Ellen Stuttle]

Jonathan, on 27 May 2015 - 7:13 PM, said:

[....] I'm not really looking for Roarks so much as wondering why all of these Ellsworth Tooheys -- these bossy little control freaks who want to tell everyone what to think and do -- are attracted to Rand's art. Why are there so damned many of them?

J

Could it be that you've overlooked, whereas the people you're talking about have taken seriously, the anti-"avant-garde"-art message which is already present in The Fountainhead?

Toohey was portrayed as a champion of "avant-garde" art - which was portrayed as a racket, and as antithetic to genuine individualism.

My statement above is not about what Toohey was a champion of. Toohey championed different conflicting positions. At times he was opposed to the old, at other times he was opposed to the new. My statement is an issue of general attitudes. Toohey's was bossy and controlling. He was primarily concerned with shaping others' opinions. He told everyone what to think and believe, and what to like and dislike. Roark didn't do any of that. Roark wasn't a Pigero. He wasn't a Dr. Mrs. Dr. Comrade Sonia, PhD. He wasn't a Kamhi or a Torres or a Newberry or a Rowlands. He wasn't about trying to limit others to his own personal, subjective tastes and aesthetic limitations.

"[...] an issue of general attitudes."

Jonathan, do you really mean to compare in "general attitudes" any of the people you name - or any of the others you call "Tooheys" who are attracted to Rand's art - to the actual character of Toohey as portrayed in The Fountainhead?

I think the charge is a very damning one, given the nature of Toohey's motivation.

Although Toohey did concern himself "with shaping others' opinions," what he was primarily concerned with was gaining power via destroying people's feeling of self-worth, their capacity for happiness, and their sense of values.

Toohey is presented as being a moral monster, evil to the core. (In my opinion, he's a strong candidate for the most evil character in world literature.)

Maybe you've forgotten, or never well-registered to begin with, Toohey's confessional speech to Peter Keating, at the end of which:

"Thank you, Peter," [Toohey] said gravely. "Honesty is a hard thing to eradicate. I have made speeches to large audiences all my life. This was the speech I'll never have a chance to make."

The scene in which Toohey gives his confessional speech comprises Chapter 14 of The Fountainhead.

The complete scene - indeed, the full (English) text of The Fountainhead - is provided on a Russian site called "rulit.me."

Chapter 14 begins on page 200 (scroll down) and concludes on page 203.

I reread the whole thing. Also, I found a bunch of other sites - many of them not Objectivism-related sites - on which most of or parts of Toohey's speech is quoted.

One of those sites - a currently-449-member computer programmer's site - has a web-essay, "There Are No Sith Lords" by Alan G. Carter, dated February 3, 2004, which I find very interesting in regard to a number of issues, including aesthetics issues.

I found that site by Googling on "did something with bird cages and metronomes." A copy of the original piece (with a question mark added to the title) was posted on May 24, 2012, on a site called "Subrealism" - link. The layout of the reprint is spiffier and easier to read.

More in awhile.

Ellen

[Brant Gaede]

That's quite a speech. Toohey reveals himself to be a moral lunatic. When it comes to art--or anything else--he doesn't want any greatness. However, this thread is not about greatness in art--that is, no one here I know of is objecting to it in the least. Some, though, may think they are championing greatness with their attempts at objectification. There is, of course, a hell of a lot of pretension in the arts. The Objectivist pretension is to ram morality into it. Rand did and didn't. There are no actual esthetics discussed in this speech. There is one thing we can ascertain--give reasons for--about an example of greatness in literature and that is The Fountainhead is a great novel. I'd call that a subjective objectification for there are quite a few people of a quite contrary opinion. I do think many of those folks are dishonest and doing a Toohey too, but that's the way of the world.

--Brant

objectification or objectifying means getting as close to the truth as possible out of an expandable knowledge context, but some attempts can be less than helpful except as evidence of wrongness this way or that way--stay on the road while you make the road, learning and knowing the way by bumping into things, so don't go too far too fast unless that's your pleasure!

[Jonathan]

Jonathan, on 27 May 2015 - 7:13 PM, said:

[....] I'm not really looking for Roarks so much as wondering why all of these Ellsworth Tooheys -- these bossy little control freaks who want to tell everyone what to think and do -- are attracted to Rand's art. Why are there so damned many of them?

J

Could it be that you've overlooked, whereas the people you're talking about have taken seriously, the anti-"avant-garde"-art message which is already present in The Fountainhead?

Toohey was portrayed as a champion of "avant-garde" art - which was portrayed as a racket, and as antithetic to genuine individualism.

My statement above is not about what Toohey was a champion of. Toohey championed different conflicting positions. At times he was opposed to the old, at other times he was opposed to the new. My statement is an issue of general attitudes. Toohey's was bossy and controlling. He was primarily concerned with shaping others' opinions. He told everyone what to think and believe, and what to like and dislike. Roark didn't do any of that. Roark wasn't a Pigero. He wasn't a Dr. Mrs. Dr. Comrade Sonia, PhD. He wasn't a Kamhi or a Torres or a Newberry or a Rowlands. He wasn't about trying to limit others to his own personal, subjective tastes and aesthetic limitations.

"[...] an issue of general attitudes."

Jonathan, do you really mean to compare in "general attitudes" any of the people you name - or any of the others you call "Tooheys" who are attracted to Rand's art - to the actual character of Toohey as portrayed in The Fountainhead?

I think the charge is a very damning one, given the nature of Toohey's motivation.

Indeed, it is a damning charge. In the realm of aesthetics, Objectivism's Tooheys have the same motivation as Toohey. They want power. They want to be authorities. They want obedience to their allegedly superior tastes. They wish to destroy others' self-worth and their independent aesthetic judgments.

Although Toohey did concern himself "with shaping others' opinions," what he was primarily concerned with was gaining power via destroying people's feeling of self-worth, their capacity for happiness, and their sense of values.

Yes, and that's what Objectivism's Tooheys do in the field of aesthetics. They assert their own tastes as superior, and differing tastes as inferior. They bully and ridicule others for their differing tastes. They treat artistic tastes and interpretations as a Rorschach test and as a morals exam, with their own tastes and interpretations arbitrarily imposed as the universal standard of health and goodness, and they gleefully condemn everyone who deviates from that standard. They drool at the opportunity to tell others how inferior they are.

J

[moralist]

Poor baby.

[Jonathan]

Poor baby.

Was that aimed at me, Apey? If so, haven't you noticed that I've never claimed to be a victim, and that the Objectivist Tooheys' tactics don't work on me? Haven't you noticed that I laugh at them, and have quite a lot of fun at their expense? Haven't you noticed that I enjoy exposing their stupidity?

In contrast, you tend to squeal like an infant about the existence of art that you don't like. You act as if you're victimized by it, and you work yourself up into a lather when imagining seeing destructive "feminized leftists" everywhere.

J

[anthony]

It's much easier for me to hold the view that art aims, and always has aimed, morality at us (the audience) than of Objectivism ramming morality into art.

First, the artist himself doesn't necessarily know what morality he subscribes to and often doesn't, I think; he only puts across which is important to him. Likely it's just as well for the artist's freedom of expression.

Then if one accepts that every person lives by some philosophy implicitly, often automatic and unquestioned, art (and fiction and poetry) has been one of the most effectively subtle ways of propagating that mixed bag of philosophies.

It all leads to: which philosophy - which morality?

If it's rational selfishness it's easy. Does some art correspond with existence, the nature of man, and reason -i.e., rational; and does it, sometimes, buoy one with affirmation of one's own life and impart a clear image of what one's life can, and should, be - i.e. selfish.

[Jonathan]

It's much easier for me to hold the view that art aims, and always has aimed, morality at us (the audience) than of Objectivism ramming morality into art.

First, the artist himself doesn't necessarily know what morality he subscribes to and often doesn't, I think; he only puts across which he believes is important. Certainly just as well, for the freedom of artistic expression.

Then if one accepts that every person lives by some philosophy implicitly, often automatic and unquestioned, art (and fiction and poetry) has been one of the most effective, subtle ways of propagating that mixed bag of philosophies.

It all leads to: which philosophy and which morality?

If it's rational selfishness, it's simple. Does some art pertain to existence, the nature of man, and reason -i.e., rational; and does it, sometimes, buoy one with affirmation of one's own life and impart a clear image of what one's life can, and should, be - i.e. selfish.

I don't have a problem with the view that art has always had moral content. That's not being disputed here. No one is claiming that Objectivism originated the idea of art having a moral message, or moral content.

The issue at hand is that of Objectivist guru-wannabes posing as having superior aesthetic interpretations and tastes, and as judging others as inferior, not for supporting immoral ideas contained in art, but simply for interpreting and judging works of art differently than the Objectivist Tooheys do. That is original to Objectivism and its followers.

J

[moralist]

It's much easier for me to hold the view that art aims, and always has aimed, morality at us (the audience) than of Objectivism ramming morality into art.

Same here, Tony. Art definitely communicates morality... while leftist non-art celebrates decadent depravity. I'm obviously not an Objectivist, but what I've always admired in Ayn Rand's writings is her strong sense of right and wrong... but not that alone. Also her positivity that right would prevail over wrong.

Greg

[Jonathan]

Also her positivity that right would prevail over wrong.

Except in We the Living. She must have been a feminized leftist back then.

J

[Brant Gaede]

It's much easier for me to hold the view that art aims, and always has aimed, morality at us (the audience) than of Objectivism ramming morality into art.

Same here, Tony. Art definitely communicates morality... while leftist non-art celebrates decadent depravity. I'm obviously not an Objectivist, but what I've always admired in Ayn Rand's writings is her strong sense of right and wrong... but not that alone. Also her positivity that right would prevail over wrong.

Greg

"Could," not "would," or she'd not have been a novelist.

--Brant

[moralist]

It's much easier for me to hold the view that art aims, and always has aimed, morality at us (the audience) than of Objectivism ramming morality into art.

Same here, Tony. Art definitely communicates morality... while leftist non-art celebrates decadent depravity. I'm obviously not an Objectivist, but what I've always admired in Ayn Rand's writings is her strong sense of right and wrong... but not that alone. Also her positivity that right would prevail over wrong.

Greg

"Could," not "would," or she'd not have been a novelist.

--Brant

Excellent point, Brant.

Life always includes the inherent risk of failure.

Greg

[Ellen Stuttle]

Jonathan,

Re your post #39, I see. So your problem with the folks you call Objectivist Tooheys is that they consider your tastes inferior.

But the joke's on you, if they're really "Tooheys," because of the reversedness of Toohey's perverseness. In his program for destroying greatness, Toohey decried the art which in fact he considered meritorious and praised the art which he considered mediocre ranging to fraudulent. Thus, by Toohey's reverse method, the "Objectivist Tooheys" are paying your tastes a compliment.

The issue at hand is that of Objectivist guru-wannabes posing as having superior aesthetic interpretations and tastes, and as judging others as inferior, not for supporting immoral ideas contained in art, but simply for interpreting and judging works of art differently than the Objectivist Tooheys do. That is original to Objectivism and its followers.

J

Oh, the hell it is "original to Objectivism and its followers." It's at least as old (in Western culture) as the Roman Empire. And you engage in quite a bit of it yourself.

Ellen

[Jonathan]

Jonathan,

Re your post #39, I see. So your problem with the folks you call Objectivist Tooheys is that they consider your tastes inferior.

No, you don't see. As has been true quite often lately, you seem to be trying your hardest not to see. I said nothing about my tastes. And I generally don't reveal my tastes to the Objectivist Tooheys. They are therefore not commenting on my tastes. Reread what I wrote. Seriously, go back and read it again without the silly hostility.

What's the problem, Ellen? What's really bothering you? Cut to the chase. Did I hurt you somehow? You're acting like a woman scorned. For the past several months you've been bitching and itching for a fight, to the point of behaving quite foolishly. You're going out of your way to willfully misinterpret and nitpick and misrepresent what I write, and to pretend to not understand the simplest of things. Even when I write the same opinions or sentiments that you yourself have expressed in the past, including verbatim lately, you come back with some sort of petty little nitpick criticism or ridiculous spin. What's eating you? Out with it.

But the joke's on you, if they're really "Tooheys," because of the reversedness of Toohey's perverseness. In his program for destroying greatness, Toohey decried the art which in fact he considered meritorious and praised the art which he considered mediocre ranging to fraudulent. Thus, by Toohey's reverse method, the "Objectivist Tooheys" are paying your tastes a compliment.

Yeah, one of the tricks that you use when you're in your nitpickity electron-chase moods is to pretend that you don't understand the way that metaphors, similes, analogies, comparisons, etc., work. I'll say that certain people are like Toohey in certain ways, and then Petty Picky Pants Ellen shows up and tries to play gotcha by pointing out that they are not like Toohey in other ways. And, indeed, they are not like Toohey in those other ways, which is why I never said that they were.

I suppose if I were to say that my wife is like a lily, you'd pickily point out that she is not actually a plant, and therefore conclude that I was wrong and lying and that the joke was on me!

In addition to your specific nitpicks over the Toohey issue, why not go with even more obvious ones, like the fact that Kamhi and Torres, Newberry, Pigero, Comrade Sonia, et al, are not actually named "Toohey," or that they're not all balding males with prissy little mustaches? So there! I was totally wrong to call them Tooheys because they are unlike Toohey in some ways! They would have to be exactly like Toohey in every way in order to properly be called Tooheys! Ha! So Ellen wins!!! Hooray!!!!

Jonathan, on 08 Jun 2015 - 6:52 PM, said:

The issue at hand is that of Objectivist guru-wannabes posing as having superior aesthetic interpretations and tastes, and as judging others as inferior, not for supporting immoral ideas contained in art, but simply for interpreting and judging works of art differently than the Objectivist Tooheys do. That is original to Objectivism and its followers.

J

Oh, the hell it is "original to Objectivism and its followers." It's at least as old (in Western culture) as the Roman Empire. And you engage in quite a bit of it yourself.

Well, huffity puffity piffity poop!!! Snippity sniffity snit!!!

Back up your claim with examples from as far back as the Roman Empire.

Give examples of when I have asserted that others do not experience in works of art what they say they do, or that their tastes are inherently inferior to mine. I've actually given quite a few examples of my not getting much of anything out of certain works of art which others rave about, and about which I've said, "Good for them," or "More power to 'em," etc.

J

[moralist]

Give examples of when I have asserted that others do not experience in works of art what they say they do, or that their tastes are inherently inferior to mine.

Taste in art perfectly suits each individual because it is an exact match to the quality of the moral values by which they live.

Greg