Mess or Masterpiece?

[anthony]

Michael, I have answered, with analogy and reasoned explanation (by man's metaphysical nature). To repeat, not all art.

Tony,

In other words, art is necessary for humans except when it is not necessary.

But how can art be one thing and not be that thing at the same time?

Art is art except when art is not art. That is the error I am honing in on for precision of thinking.

Michael

Michael, Art is not "one thing", unless and until it has been turned into some sort of floating, mystical and Platonic abstraction, which I sense sometimes. My understanding rests on the assumption that this thing we call "art" is as varied as is the number of individual artists (and at different stages of their careers). So the "permutations" and possibilties of artworks are quite endless.

But certain categorizations can be made, do you agree?

It is all "art" but singularly it has varying degrees of value or dis-value, against the standard of man's life.

I might have imagined it, though I'm very sure Rand used the word "fuel" or similar for the Romantic Realist category. No matter, I only have to randomly scan her book to read passages like this:

"The reason why art has such a profoundly *personal* significance for men is that art confirms or denies the efficacy of a man's consciousness, according to whether an art work supports or negates his own fundamental view of reality".

Dozens like that, to do with art's purpose and necessity to man.

You'll see she hasn't made any normative judgment there. Whatever your view of reality may be, she's saying, some or other artwork will confirm it or oppose it. An irrational life-hating person will find, somewhere, an artwork that confirms his view of reality. Mostly not that extreme and irrational, people swing all over the place. Can you agree with that?

If heroes are "fun" and part of the popular culture, you have an insight there. Heroes today are shallow, in response to a shallow culture and philosophy. Often, I see the hero is the best of an ugly bunch of killers (but Charlize is crazy about him - he's good to kittens - he only fires a revolver when he's being sprayed with automatic fire- etc.). The psychological need is there, I agree: humans have an implicit need for heroic characters and exploits, but they've settled for the anti-hero half the time - or the inauthentic super-hero otherwise (great fun, but who can relate to one, in reality?)

Certainly, 'core stories' and such, would have a large influence on a sense of life. A sense of life is (yes, according to Rand) "pre-conceptual and subconscious", gelling in one's subconscious at an early age, I gather. It is almost completely not of one's own making, so the existing myths and narratives surrounding one will permeate (for better or worse). My interpretations.

Actually, I get a little tired of 1. This is just Randian jargon you are spouting 2. Then, when I speak originally from my own thoughts and observations (as I always do when I'm not quoting her ) -- but Rand didn't say that!

I don't speak as the expert on Objectivism, however I have expertise in my own life and do know something about life and people in general.

So I'm damned both ways. For thinking for myself and for not being an accredited academic student of Objectivism.

[Brant Gaede]

"The reason why art has such a profoundly *personal* significance for men is that art confirms or denies the efficacy of a man's consciousness, according to whether an art work supports or negates his own fundamental view of reality".

Dozens like that, to do with art's purpose and necessity to man.

You'll see she hasn't made any normative judgment there. Whatever your view of reality may be, she's saying, some or other artwork will confirm it or oppose it. An irrational life-hating person will find, somewhere, an artwork that confirms his view of reality. Mostly not that extreme and irrational, people swing all over the place. Can you agree with that?

Her normative judgment hangs over her idea of "art" like a sword of Damocles. She is also making statement after statement on art and many other subjects as end results without much support, analysis and evaluation. Ex cathedra. That's how she ended up and all she could tolerate unless she was trying to personally help you see the light (read AS first!). Or, she digested all her ideas and now it's your turn--to agree with her. She already agrees with herself. She's way ahead of you.

--Brant

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

... I'm very sure Rand used the word "fuel" or similar for the Romantic Realist category.

Tony,

No.

She used fuel to characterize all art.

Later I will dig in and do a much deeper analysis, backed by quotes and all.

I have other projects at the moment that do not allow me this time.

Michael

[anthony]

The market for art and entertainment--just look at what the majority of people buy because they want to, even under totalitarian systems--is excellent proof of everything I'm saying if you try to see it without using Randian jargon.

Michael

Michael: I thank you for putting a wealth of informative sources my (our) way.

I realise that we are talking from opposite sides of the fence. My predominant interest here is philosophy and its applications into life. Facts, societal and scientific findings are important and I've been stimulated and educated by what you and others have posted.

But I don't get much chance for pure philosophy discussions around me in SA and so carry it over to OL.

Why we're at loggerheads is simply explained here. (And another quotation by Rand).

"To reclaim the power of philosophy, one must grasp the reason why man needs epistemology. Since man is neither infallible nor omniscient, he has to *discover* a valid method of cognition. Two questions are involved in his every conclusion or decision:

What do I know?--and How do I know it?

It is the task of epistemology to provide the answer to the "How?" -- which then enables the special sciences to provide the answer to the "What?"

Etc.

[Consciousness and Identity]

For example, when I regularly yammer on about "consciousness" (about the only poster who does, I feel embarrassed to note), you've responded with interesting facts about serotonin and dopamine, and neuro-science. All fine and grist to the mill. But you see the disconnect? Your major emphasis is on "What" (science) while mine is on "How?" (epistemology). We've been doing the same in this discussion, talking past each other about totally different matters.

I agree that identification must precede normative evaluation--in fact, that is exactly my thrust all the way, here and there on art.

But the identity of many or most things isn't to be found purely scientifically - the What? in one's own life is discovered by seeing and comparing and thinking, inductively and deductively, and using introspection, and finally integrating it all conceptually -- by an individual -- who then has to make his best and honest evaluation or judgement based on that. It's a personal, tough but enjoyable process, though with always the potential for mistake - therefore, each step has to be checked continuously by him. Which means he carries the full credit when he is right, but bears the responsibility when in error. I suppose that's why it is the epistemological root of rational selfishness.

Objectivity doesn't mean Perfection or infallibility. That is a sign of religious premises. It is doing one's darndest to find the truth and live consistently by it. But never in a lifetime is one going to know the complete identity of anything; the effort continues, but assessments and judgements can't wait that long. For the sake of life, value and simple self-preservation, they have to be made soon or immediately with what knowledge we have.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Art is not "one thing", unless and until it has been turned into some sort of floating, mystical and Platonic abstraction, which I sense sometimes. My understanding rests on the assumption that this thing we call "art" is as varied as is the number of individual artists (and at different stages of their careers).

. . .

Dozens like that, to do with art's purpose and necessity to man.

Tony,

If we can just get this part right, we will have gone a long way to talking the same language. And I mean in philosophy.

You can't say art is not one thing and in the next sentence say this [one] thing we call art. And then later talk about art's purpose and necessity to man as if art were one thing.

What is this one thing that is not one thing we are talking about? And I don't mean any floating abstraction. I mean the thing that aligns and fulfills a need with "man's metaphysical nature."

I'm not trying to play gotcha. This is a serious problem of conceptual precision on a fundamental level.

That's a problem of philosophy.

Michael

[Jonathan]

Clearly, Rand applied the same objective standards to evaluating artwork as she did identifying and evaluating ... everything.

Heh. I agree. Rand used the same "objective standards" to evaluate artworks that she used to identify art as a "recreation of reality" which "cannot serve a utilitarian purpose" but yet to assert that architecture was art despite that fact that she stated that it "does not recreate reality" and that it does serve a utilitarian purpose.

Most paintings fall under naturalistic art, representing life as it is. Not, "ought to be".

Hahahaha! Tony, you haven't seen "most paintings," let alone "objectively" analyzed them for content. You're just copying Rand in pretending that your subjective tastes and arbitrary whims are "objective." You're posing and pretending. No one's buying it.

J

More "selectivity". It ignores my post, over-all.

Methinks thou protesteth too much - nastily, repeatedly and repetitively.

I think exactly the same of you!

What really bothers you, J?

Your religious approach to Rand and Objectivism.

J

[anthony]

Art is not "one thing", unless and until it has been turned into some sort of floating, mystical and Platonic abstraction, which I sense sometimes. My understanding rests on the assumption that this thing we call "art" is as varied as is the number of individual artists (and at different stages of their careers).

. . .

Dozens like that, to do with art's purpose and necessity to man.

Tony,

If we can just get this part right, we will have gone a long way to talking the same language. And I mean in philosophy.

You can't say art is not one thing and in the next sentence say this [one] thing we call art. And then later talk about art's purpose and necessity to man as if art were one thing.

What is this one thing that is not one thing we are talking about? And I don't mean any floating abstraction. I mean the thing that aligns and fulfills a need with "man's metaphysical nature."

I'm not trying to play gotcha. This is a serious problem of conceptual precision on a fundamental level.

That's a problem of philosophy.

Michael

A problem of philosophy, right, and it can be solved by philosophy. If we are agreed that each artwork is conceptual, then all artworks ever created and yet to be created -"art" - has to be 'the concept of concepts'. Because it's a high order concept, it evidently isn't easy to embrace. However, each instance of art was the creation of a single consciousness, in turn viewed and contemplated also by one consciousness at a time. And who observes, assesses and finally integrates it into his sum of knowledge. I could think of this as 'art individualism'. I think a common approach to that problem of abstraction is to mystically-collectivize art - as if it emanates from a spiritual or superior being, and is handed down to some sort of "collective consciousness". It is a lazy epistemology - identical to that seen in racial arguments, and so on - which gives rise to mystical-collectivism in the perception and reception of art .

In this way, art is not be questioned, identified, judged, and especially not "employed" for the purpose of an individual. We must just gratefully accept the gift.

[Jonathan]

Getting frustrated yet, MSK?

It's like, no matter how hard you try, and no matter how generous and patient you are, with certain people all that you get is a disconnect, spin, evasion, distractions, changes of subject, etc. No matter how simple and limited your question, you will not get a direct, honest answer. You'll get pages and pages of tangents and off-topic blather immediately after you've specifically reigned in the discussion multiple times to focus on one simple little point.

Eventually, you have to conclude that honesty, precision and objectivity are not at all important to these people.

J

[Brant Gaede]

In this way, art is not be questioned, identified, judged, and especially not "employed" for the purpose of an individual. We must just gratefully accept the gift.

Who is this "we"?

Don't like it, don't buy it. Don't look at it and don't listen to it. Don't read it, don't feed it.

--Brant

free market capitalism at work

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Tony,

This isn't rocket science.

Man has to get food and eat it to survive.

Do you agree with that statement?

It's kind of obvious. But for the record, I say he does.

Man has to create and consume art to survive.

Do you agree with that statement? That's all I've been asking at root for several posts.

Rand says he does. I believe so, too. I don't know what you believe.

However, my reasons differ from Rand's. She says it's about spiritual fuel, sense of life and so on. I say it's directly about epistemology, similar to acquiring a language. Man can't not acquire a language as he grows up. If none is available for imitation and working, he makes one up and works with that.

Man can't not do art. It's one of the ways he builds neural pathways that are used for so many other things in his life.

This is philosophy.

Don't like the term "neural pathway" for philosophy? OK. I'll do it differently. Man can't not do art. It's one of the ways he trains and exercises his mind in ways that are used for so many other things in his life.

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

Man can and man can't can.

--Brant

can it damn it

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Eventually, you have to conclude that honesty, precision and objectivity are not at all important to these people.

Jonathan,

I disagree.

Tony's got a wonderful mind.

He's arguing from a frame of the world as he sees it (as do we all). I respect that and I think he is applying the best thinking he has.

There are premises that you and I see that he doesn't. However, he is using premises that to him are self-evident and we are not including.

It's what I call the core story and this is not just brainwashing or religion. There's a lot of living that goes into a core story, too.

But talking from different core stories can give the impression of disorganized thinking. It's not. I bet some of my arguments sound disorganized to him. We are mostly talking past each other.

I have patience because I am trying to find common ground. Also, I am intimate with the core story Tony uses (or at least the Randian part of it), because I lived the Randian experience in a similar fashion.

I don't know about others, but for me, the Randian things I used to believe but now question were extremely valuable because they were far superior to what I had grown up with. I would not be where I am now without going through that.

I don't know if this will be the way it works for Tony, if he will stay where he is, if he will go fundy one day, or if he will go in a different direction. Whichever path he takes, though, I am 100% certain he will be honest about it.

Granted, some of this talking past each other gets frustrating, but I enjoy talking to him more. When I do, I am engaging an honest mind. That brings me pleasure.

Michael

[anthony]

Tony,

This isn't rocket science.

Man has to get food and eat it to survive.

Do you agree with that statement?

It's kind of obvious. But for the record, I say he does.

Man has to create and consume art to survive.

Do you agree with that statement? That's all I've been asking at root for several posts.

Rand says he does. I believe so, too. I don't know what you believe.

However, my reasons differ from Rand's. She says it's about spiritual fuel, sense of life and so on. I say it's directly about epistemology, similar to acquiring a language. Man can't not acquire a language as he grows up. If none is available for imitation and working, he makes one up and works with that.

Man can't not do art. It's one of the ways he builds neural pathways that are used for so many other things in his life.

This is philosophy.

Don't like the term "neural pathway" for philosophy? OK. I'll do it differently. Man can't not do art. It's one of the ways he trains and exercises his mind in ways that are used for so many other things in his life.

Michael

Michael, Who's knocking neural pathways? Never me. ;)

(I don't agree with your earlier statement that neuro-science is "epistemological", though. Surely not).

Suffice to say that finding out (empirically) further benefits of art, is outstanding. However - you are a good introspecter, you must have experienced long ago an 'expansion' of mind from the types and genres you art you appreciate best.

The neuroscientists are catching up with philosophers, as I say.

Rand did indeed connect epistemology to art, sense of life is only part of her theory.

(Off on a tangent.

If one puts Randian theory through one's own experiences and thinking (without skepticism) the sky's the limit. Bite off small chunks at a time, tentatively, and it makes it far more difficult, I think. As with art, it's essential to keep the big picture in mind, front and centre. The upshot is that one won't get over-awed, then let-down and ultimately - bitter at Rand.

Whatever mistakes one makes, are one's own).

To reply again: Fuel, sustenance, affirmation and "value" from art, or some art, of course! It's been my constant refrain in these threads. (It's not essential for his survival that man must "create" art, I think, but to "consume", naturally).

It's overlooked that one's emotions come into play and are "exercised" too. Certainly the first response to art should be an emotional one, otherwise I think the artist has fallen short. It is an 'identification' of a kind, and an evaluation according to one's existential premises. Action of any sort has an automated response of emotion (on the pain-pleasure spectrum). Next I'll hear from someone that that emotion is 'subjective'...but only when emotion precedes action, I believe.

Rand's way with art isn't going to be everybody's cup of tea. IF, one accepts the rest of her premises: reality, reason and rational selfishness, then it can all come together, if one is inclined. For me, it's not a matter of mutual exclusivisity. Value is available right across the arts and in unpredictable corners . It's very rare that I can't take something away from any art-work. There is always something of merit, if it isn't deadly dull. At worst, seeing something metaphysically obnoxious can lend some insight into the ugly premises of some people. What I'm getting at is that Rand's art theory needn't (shouldn't?) exclude art with some life-value from one's enjoyment of it or extraction from it. Romanticism - or nothing: would be ludicrous.

Exactly like our conceptual and hierarchical minds, as we widen and deepen our range of art we stretch our minds. Works for me.

[william.scherk]

If one puts Randian theory through one's own experiences and thinking (without skepticism) the sky's the limit.

Do you here mean methodological or philosophical skepticism? I always get confused with your use of the term ... if I encounter a thinker who does not have a skeptical methodology, I tend to think him not fully-equipped with rational tools of inquiry. Short of a full hand, so to speak.

Not to rag you, but have you ever read the magazines Skeptic and Skeptical Inquirer?

I guess I just wonder how you maintain the distinction between the good scientific skepticism (and its bad cousin philosophical skepticism) and between good empirical (reality oriented) methodology and bad empirical methodology -- do the two good/bad empiricisms correlate to the good/bad skepticisms in your mind ... ?

Don't answer if you don't want to go further off on a tangent that might be boring or a deep sucking swamp of epistemic horror -- I just wanted to note that your usage can be ambiguous and confusing when you do not signal which skepticism you are talking about.

(and yes, I did review all your OL mentions of skepticism to see where you might be laying the emphasis here. Gawd help me ...)

[moralist]

Man has to create and consume art to survive.

Just a sidebar comment...

What a man creates and consumes determines what he survives as... man or male.

Greg

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

What a man creates and consumes determines what he survives as... man or male.

Greg,

Dammit!

I walked right into that one.

Michael

[moralist]

What really bothers you, J?

Your religious approach to Rand and Objectivism.

J

Becoming fixated on Tony prevents you from becoming aware your own religious approach. Secular leftism is also a religion.

Greg

[Brant Gaede]

He's no more fixated on Tony than Michael i----------

Never mind.

--Brant

[moralist]

[anthony]

What really bothers you, J?

Your religious approach to Rand and Objectivism.

J

Becoming fixated on Tony prevents you from becoming aware your own religious approach. Secular leftism is also a religion.

Greg

It doesn't surprise any more that many don't want to be liberated from the mystery-mystique-mysticism of art.

The 'out-of-body transcendental' feeling, experiencing art sometimes, is responsible for this, I think. What Rand did is bring it within the full reach of man's consciousness (and one man's mind). Therefore, she in fact elevated art along with man's mind, giving it clarity and importance, but is instead seen to have adulterated it and dictated to it - for those of mystical bent. Far from the truth.

Yes, I think art is hazily seen as another partial surrogate of religiosity coming with its own doctrines and priesthood. Greg, your "one true God" I'm sure makes you extra aware of all the gods men erect. Don't over cook it! ;)

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

It doesn't surprise any more that many don't want to be liberated from the mystery-mystique-mysticism of art.

The 'out-of-body transcendental' feeling, experiencing art sometimes, is responsible for this, I think. What Rand did is bring it within the full reach of man's consciousness (and one man's mind). Therefore, she in fact elevated art along with man's mind, giving it clarity and importance, but is instead seen to have adulterated it and dictated to it - for those of mystical bent. Far from the truth.

Yes, I think art is hazily seen as another partial surrogate of religiosity coming with its own doctrines and priesthood.

Tony,

When you say things like this, that is where you are talking from the dogma you accept.

Those who hold a "mystery-mystique-mysticism" view of art are hard to find. Would you say Hollywood holds this view? Or the music industry? How about the writers who regularly appear on the NYT bestseller list under fiction?

Even Greg, for as religious as he is, doesn't show signs of "mystery-mystique-mysticism" view of art.

What you just wrote probably sounded like a profound truth to you, but when I try to find the actual artists and thinkers who adhere to a "mystery-mystique-mysticism" view of art, it looks to me like a strawman you set up to have Rand knock him down. That will reinforce a belief that Rand is saving the world from intellectual monsters, but in reality, this particular version is a story you tell yourself and pretend it's real--and very little else.

You have wonderful eyes. Why not use them, then check what you see through the Randian lens instead of the contrary?

Anyway, it's your mind, not mine.

Obviously you will use it as you judge best. And that's as it should be.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Tony,

I'm not sure the following point is going to be clear, but the frame in evaluating art is critical, not just from an emotional angle, from a cognitive one.

In O-Land, Rand's hardening of the categories on her frame has caused all kinds of mischief. Some people actually feel guilty for liking rock music.

Let's look at where a hardened frame breaks down--where the viewer frame flips the meaning from one end to the other even though the object is the same. And this is not a "sense of life" frame. It is a core story frame.

Even though the following image is not art, it taps into a core story. And it is so obvious, I think it is useful to see how this stuff works.

I recently came across a sign that was displayed on a Florida business:

You can imagine the outrage, the protests, the vandalism, the social media campaigns, the sermons, everything.

Right?

Maybe the neighborhood did nothing, showing how important free speech is to Americans.

Maybe this was in a Muslim neighborhood where they are more radical.

Hell, maybe the authors should be deported after being publicly shamed in some manner.

Right?

It's easy to see these thoughts going through the mind of all decent-minded Americans.

Now let's change the frame.

This was for a funeral service.

And people loved it.

The point is, this is done in art all the time. Except the frame is not external and we don't get to see the other viewer's mental frame. Why? Because we cannot physically get into another person's head. Apropos, we can suspend our own core story for a minute and try to see life through the core story of another person, thus we can partially get into his head that way.

When people all live the same core story, their interpretations of art tend to be homogeneous, but in the modern world, where people from all over can communicate, it is unreasonable to assume everyone shares the same core story--other than the really basic one of you're born, you live and you die. We all share that one.

So different people bring different frames with them when looking at an art work. Yet they can share certain emotions like reverence, heroism and so on. They just bring a different perspective to it.

Here's an example that has caused a lot of controversy in O-Land, the sculpture Alison Lapper Pregnant by Marc Quinn:

If your internal core story includes overcoming an enormous handicap, if you have had to deal with stuttering, being abused as a child, being an outcast as you grew up, or any number of shortcomings that were imposed on you from the outside, you will probably focus on the face of this sculpture as an example of an unconquered heroic human spirit despite anything life throws at her.

If your internal core story is borrowed from Rand, where proper sculpture has to present the human body as perfect and even enhanced, where a fly or a cold sore on a painting of a beautiful woman is an unspeakable aesthetic outrage, you will see this sculpture as a new threshold in the depths of evil and attribute all kinds of nasty motives to anyone who sees it from the first frame.

Here's the thing. Both frames are from people with a heroic "sense of life" (I'm using the phrase as common ground even though I have restrictions on the concept), but the different frames result in totally opposite reactions: inspiration in one and repugnance in the other. What's more, when a person seeing life from one frame looks at the utterances of the other about this sculpture, he wonders what in hell is wrong with that person.

I submit you can hold a heroic view of life and see this sculpture from both frames if you have the capacity to see life through the eyes of another. This is one very good reason (among many) to try to develop this ability.

Now, just to end like a smartass because I can't help myself , here is another sculpture of Lapper by Quinn a little later than the one above. It's after her pregnancy. Regardless of which frame you use, see of this doesn't mess with your head.

Fuel or core story?

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

Don't like them, would never have them. The essence of human being is not over-coming physical handicaps or telling the handicapped the handicaps they fight are important per se as opposed to fighting them. I'm not capable of killing Goliath with a sling. In that sense I'm handicapped. But still The David as art is encouraging me to overcome that handicap. So I go get a gun and shoot Goliath. I don't need or want a statue of a balding naked 71yo man with glasses holding an M-16, much less a sling, even if the pose is right.

--Brant

the idiot who would rather do business with those 1,000 shitheads instead of me won't live very long even though he's his own kind of shithead

[anthony]

Strange, my first take was on the face, it is clean, strong and proud - a memorable scukpture. I didn't think "handicap" and still don't. We are accustomed to limb-less Graecian and Roman busts, so that might be part of it. It is the face that draws me, even then. In my view, if Objectivists conflate that sculpture with the (written) anecdote of cold sores on a beautiful woman, they could be in error. This is different, in kinds and degrees. Here is no "evil". (And if it represents rising above or ignoring handicap with a clear gaze for the true metaphysical values in life, all the better).

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Don't like them, would never have them. The essence of human being is not over-coming physical handicaps or telling the handicapped the handicaps they fight are important per se as opposed to fighting them. I'm not capable of killing Goliath with a sling. In that sense I'm handicapped. But still The David as art is encouraging me to overcome that handicap. So I go get a gun and shoot Goliath. I don't need or want a statue of a balding naked 71yo man with glasses holding an M-16, much less a sling, even if the pose is right.

--Brant

the idiot who would rather do business with those 1,000 shitheads instead of me won't live very long even though he's his own kind of shithead

LOL...

I get the impression someone didn't read my text and only looked at the pictures.

Reminds me of the way I used to read Playboy magazine.

Michael