Newbsie

[Brant Gaede]

Dominique spent hours touring Gail's private art gallery filled with "incredible items of beauty."

Thus we have art as beautiful.

The statue she modelled for the "sacrilegious" church Roark designed and erected was in a state of "exaltation."

Then Ayn went on attempting to objectify art. She said she could prove it.

Even if she could prove what she didn't prove objectifying art wouldn't make it part and parcel of Objectivism only of her personal philosophy and no proof was necessary for that, merely asseveration. She did that.

--Brant

[Peter]

2 hours ago, Brant Gaede said:

Dominique spent hours touring Gail's private art gallery filled with "incredible items of beauty."

Thus we have art as beautiful.

The statue she modelled for the "sacrilegious" church Roark designed and erected was in a state of "exaltation."

Then Ayn went on attempting to objectify art. She said she could prove it.

Even if she could prove what she didn't prove objectifying art wouldn't make it part and parcel of Objectivism only of her personal philosophy and no proof was necessary for that, merely asseveration. She did that.

--Brant

Now what would be truly beautiful . . .  would be if everybody had their own money printing press. if you elect us, we will make that happen. Bernie, Poca-haunt-us, Joe, and Beto.  

[anthony]

Objectivity in art:

No.1 - can you see what it is?

No.2 - did the artist know what he made?

No.3 - was what he made important (for him)?

No. 4- is it important to you?

[Jon Letendre]

We bring our unique selves, our values, experiences, dreams and aspirations. It is not just the object. The object does not impact upon a generic line of identical observers, but on one unique observer after another. Why would the impact be the same or even similar? It wouldn’t. It won’t. Because art is not objective, but mostly subjective.

[Jon Letendre]

A metal part is sent to machine shops around the world for hardness testing by very similar Rockwell hardness testing machines. Tokyo gets back to you saying they found the part to have hardness RC45. Your colleagues in Hamamatsu tell you the part exhibits RC45 hardness. Bologna texts a week later: “RC 45.”

Art is the metal part and we are the testing machines. The art is the same for every observer, like the metal part is the same for every testing machine. The testing machines are as similar to one another as modern industry allows.

But is art like hardness testing? No, it isn’t. If I sent my part to the people on this thread and asked about hardness I would hear “I etched my initials onto your part with my diamond ring, so no, it is not very hard,” and “I dropped an Atlas Shrugged on it from eight feet. Damn, Jon, that part is hard!” And “I figured out how you made it and it seems easy to me, not hard at all.”

So the tests will never come in similarly. Understand?

[anthony]

1 hour ago, Jon Letendre said:

We bring our unique selves, our values, experiences, dreams and aspirations. It is not just the object. The object does not impact upon a generic line of identical observers, but on one unique observer after another. Why would the impact be the same or even similar? It wouldn’t. It won’t. Because art is not objective, but mostly subjective.

Nicely said. I agree all the way, until the last. Were all those "values, experiences, dreams", etc. a property of you? (Of "one"?) 

Were they real, have a particular nature and value-disvalue, which "you" were conscious of, to which you responded with emotions?

Then they are as objective an existent as you and your mind is. If one subscribes to objectivity, anything without identity is non-objective. Everything with is objective. Art, made for others' eyes, minds and emotions, especially.

[Jon Letendre]

True of cuisine, too, Tony. My tastes are objective facts, as you say about my experiences and values.

Therefore, cuisine is objective: This or that dish is objectively delicious and that other is objectively disgusting.

Do I apply your logic accurately to cuisine?

[Jon Letendre]

31 minutes ago, anthony said:

 anything without identity is non-objective.

Can I have an example?

[anthony]

2 hours ago, Jon Letendre said:

A metal part is sent to machine shops around the world for hardness testing by very similar Rockwell hardness testing machines. Tokyo gets back to you saying they found the part to have hardness RC45. Your colleagues in Hamamatsu tell you the part exhibits RC45 hardness. Bologna texts a week later: “RC 45.”

Art is the metal part and we are the testing machines. The art is the same for every observer, like the metal part is the same for every testing machine. The testing machines are as similar to one another as modern industry allows.

But is art like hardness testing? No, it isn’t. If I sent my part to the people on this thread and asked about hardness I would hear “I etched my initials onto your part with my diamond ring, so no, it is not very hard,” and “I dropped an Atlas Shrugged on it from eight feet. Damn, Jon, that part is hard!” And “I figured out how you made it and it seems easy to me, not hard at all.”

So the tests will never come in similarly. Understand?

You're seeking uniformity. Validated by scientific testing. Comes up sometimes, 'testing' artworks by consensus of opinions. None of those are "objective" in this sense. Obviously, as you've said, we all bring our own past experiences, thought and values to liking/disliking/neutral, about artworks. Because they involve a "subject" (oneself) doesn't make one's judgments subjective. Depends on how consistently objective one is in all areas. Nor necessarily, and often, are they to be taken as "perfect" evaluations.

Before that. No.1. First Question: do you know what IT IS (which is being represented?) At least then you know what you think/feel about it. Identification precedes evaluation. (And this is not the artistic quality of a work, I'm talking about - that requires some better knowledge of art techniques to judge).

Evaluation here, means: does what I see this image presents, elevate or diminish? Does this artist's view of existence enhance - or, oppose -  man's life, mind and happiness? It may also be pretty humdrum and compromising. Yep, it's all *moral*, for the selfish good of the individual. Underneath it all, *everybody* privately knows this moral element, and that's why they follow the arts.

[Jon Letendre]

12 minutes ago, Jon Letendre said:

Can I have an example?

 

[anthony]

to be continued. Party time. Happy New Year all.

[Jon Letendre]

 

[Jonathan]

Newbsie is still beating the dead horse. The boy never learns. He's now doing "research" into the concept of the Sublime by asking people who have never heard of it, except perhaps in vague layman's terms, to give their feelings and free-associations about it. Which actually does makes some convoluted sense, since that's exactly the method that Newbsie himself used to arrive at his ahistorical, willful misunderstandings of the concept.

 

[Jon Letendre]

bjektivisum