Objectivist Esthetics, R.I.P.

[Jonathan]

22 hours ago, anthony said:

The element of human utility removes the building from the area of pure contemplation too.

 

Is that rule about art's not serving a utilitarian function rational? No, it's not. The notion that an object can't serve two functions at the same time is false. Two separate functions may conflict with one another in certain circumstances, but it doesn't follow that any and all functions therefore must conflict with each other. That something serves a utilitarian purpose does not mean that any contemplative purpose that it also serves must be in any way impeded by the utilitarian purpose, and visa versa.

This is very, very simple logic that Rand got wrong. And she got it wrong because she had come to predetermined conclusions about which things she did not want to qualify as art, and then "reasoned" backward from there.

J

 

[Jonathan]

17 hours ago, Brant Gaede said:

Architecture: the selective re-creation of a cave.

Music: the selective re-creation of sounds and noise.

Dance: the selective re-creation of movement.

--Brant: the selective re-creation of a man--oops! I went too far (inertia)

so there!

So, that would make literature a selective re-creation of cuneiform, and painting a selective re-creation of stretched animal skins. Sculpture would be a selective re-creation of rock.

And that opens the door to everything qualifying as art: An ashtray is a selective re-creation of clay, a car is a selective re-creation of steel, glass and rubber, a hamburger is a selective re-creation of a cow, etc.

Kind of misses the meaning of "selective re-creation."

J

[ThatGuy]

2 hours ago, Jonathan said:

Is that rule about art's not serving a utilitarian function rational? No, it's not. The notion that an object can't serve two functions at the same time is false. Two separate functions may conflict with one another in certain circumstances, but it doesn't follow that any and all functions therefore must conflict with each other. That something serves a utilitarian purpose does not mean that any contemplative purpose that it also serves must be in any way impeded by the utilitarian purpose, and visa versa.

 

J

 

I've thought the same thing, specifically in regards to her comment in THE ROMANTIC MANIFESTO regarding horror stories being more akin to psychopathology than art? "Strictly speaking, this is not a metaphysical, but a purely psychological projection; such writers are not presenting their view of life; they are not looking at life; what they are saying is that they FEEL as if life consisted of werewolves, Draculas, and Frankenstein monsters. In its basic motivation, this school belongs to psychopathology more than to esthetics." 


My reaction was "why not both?" Did she not say something similar, in THE ART OF FICTION, while defending fantasy writers for the same kind of metaphorical usage of unicorns and enchanted forests? Yes, she did...commenting on a passage from SEVEN GOTHIC TALES by Isak Dinesen: "This is one of the most beautiful descriptions I have read in the Romantic styel..Isak Dinesen is hard to classify, but she is certainly nearer to being a Romanticsts than a Naturalist."

And:

"That an old gardener at a convent tells something to a child has in itself a fantastic quality; and when he tells him that he has seen unicorns, this impossible fantasy projects the exact eerie quality of the afternoon. 'A herd of hourse' would not have produced the same effect, because the purpose is to suggest something supernatural, odd, almost decadently frightening, but very attractive. "


(I can anticipate the counter-argument that Rand distinguished fantasy as metaphor for real life as from the "escapist" fantasy-for-fantasy's-sake, without realistic counterparts  (like her "giant ant" stories example in RM. But then, was not FRANKENSTEIN a stylistic, fantastical take on real-life concerns? Some even put it in the science-fiction category...)

What about art therapy? Someone like Jordan Peterson may even  invoke Jung's use of drawings not as art, but as a means of psycho-analysis*...  What about Rand's own claim/accusation that "An artist reveals his naked soul in his work-and so, gentle reader, do you when you respond to it"? And did she not say that architecture was both art and utilitarian?

Why can't art serve two functions at the same time?

*(Relatedly, there's a quote an album by the rock band Living Colour, that goes "In Africa, music is not so much an art form as it is a means of communication..." It always comes into my mind when I read TRM...)

[anthony]

10 hours ago, Jonathan said:

Is that rule about art's not serving a utilitarian function rational? No, it's not. The notion that an object can't serve two functions at the same time is false. Two separate functions may conflict with one another in certain circumstances, but it doesn't follow that any and all functions therefore must conflict with each other. That something serves a utilitarian purpose does not mean that any contemplative purpose that it also serves must be in any way impeded by the utilitarian purpose, and visa versa.

This is very, very simple logic that Rand got wrong. And she got it wrong because she had come to predetermined conclusions about which things she did not want to qualify as art, and then "reasoned" backward from there.

J

 

Actually, no. The "reasoning' is forwards - if you begin with the consciousness of artist and viewer, which - in reality - it can only be.

For instance, I believe a specific car or a camera or a kettle are good to look at, ergonomically great to use or hold - and - they serve a utilitarian purpose.

Voila, two-functioned art!

If your standard is design/beauty, any rationalization goes.

[anthony]

9 hours ago, ThatGuy said:

I've thought the same thing, specifically in regards to her comment in THE ROMANTIC MANIFESTO regarding horror stories being more akin to psychopathology than art? "Strictly speaking, this is not a metaphysical, but a purely psychological projection; such writers are not presenting their view of life; they are not looking at life; what they are saying is that they FEEL as if life consisted of werewolves, Draculas, and Frankenstein monsters. In its basic motivation, this school belongs to psychopathology more than to esthetics." 


My reaction was "why not both?" Did she not say something similar, in THE ART OF FICTION, while defending fantasy writers for the same kind of metaphorical usage of unicorns and enchanted forests? Yes, she did...commenting on a passage from SEVEN GOTHIC TALES by Isak Dinesen: "This is one of the most beautiful descriptions I have read in the Romantic styel..Isak Dinesen is hard to classify, but she is certainly nearer to being a Romanticsts than a Naturalist."

And:

"That an old gardener at a convent tells something to a child has in itself a fantastic quality; and when he tells him that he has seen unicorns, this impossible fantasy projects the exact eerie quality of the afternoon. 'A herd of hourse' would not have produced the same effect, because the purpose is to suggest something supernatural, odd, almost decadently frightening, but very attractive. "


(I can anticipate the counter-argument that Rand distinguished fantasy as metaphor for real life as from the "escapist" fantasy-for-fantasy's-sake, without realistic counterparts  (like her "giant ant" stories example in RM. But then, was not FRANKENSTEIN a stylistic, fantastical take on real-life concerns? Some even put it in the science-fiction category...)

What about art therapy? Someone like Jordan Peterson may even  invoke Jung's use of drawings not as art, but as a means of psycho-analysis*...  What about Rand's own claim/accusation that "An artist reveals his naked soul in his work-and so, gentle reader, do you when you respond to it"? And did she not say that architecture was both art and utilitarian?

Why can't art serve two functions at the same time?

*(Relatedly, there's a quote an album by the rock band Living Colour, that goes "In Africa, music is not so much an art form as it is a means of communication..." It always comes into my mind when I read TRM...)

Reading fiction can be light entertainment and be relaxing/therapeutic, and is always informative (facts about places, human activities, technical matters and historical times, and so on). Probably, I have learned more from novels than from nonfiction. What you indicate isn't any kind of twin function, it comes with the territory of an author setting a fictional (and psychological) context.

[anthony]

9 hours ago, ThatGuy said:

 

 

 

9 hours ago, ThatGuy said:

  What about Rand's own claim/accusation that "An artist reveals his naked soul in his work-and so, gentle reader, do you when you respond to it"? And did she not say that architecture was both art and utilitarian?

Why can't art serve two functions at the same time?
 

1

One of her best lines, I've thought. The good artist deeply wants his work to be 'visible', exposing his mind and highest values clearly in the process - and you the viewer and your values are revealed to yourself by the art. One can't hide from the truth one's confronted with. For me, that inescapable truthfulness sets the level for what any great art (Naturalist or Romanticist) should be, so I'm interested why you find it an "accusation" (or a "claim")?

"Architecture is in a class by itself, because it combines art with a utilitarian purpose and does not re-create reality, but creates a structure for man's habitation or use, expressing man's values". (Art and Cognition)

"Combines art with a utilitarian purpose...", is not quite the same as "both art and utilitarian" - don't you think? Maybe I'm over-nuancing.

Still, one can imagine how Rand's analysis of architecture could be removed by some from her special context ("a class by itself") and applied erroneously or dishonestly to whatever other "utility" in art some feel like.

 

[Jonathan]

13 hours ago, anthony said:

Actually, no. The "reasoning' is forwards - if you begin with the consciousness of artist and viewer, which - in reality - it can only be.

For instance, I believe a specific car or a camera or a kettle are good to look at, ergonomically great to use or hold - and - they serve a utilitarian purpose.

Voila, two-functioned art!

If your standard is design/beauty, any rationalization goes.

Instead of addressing the actual substance of my comments, you're arguing with the imaginary people in your head again after you've invented positions for them to take.

J

[Jonathan]

12 hours ago, anthony said:

One of her best lines, I've thought.

It is a good line. There's some truth in it. But it's also an instance of Rand salivating at the idea of using "art as morals exam" (which is an even better line from our OL friend Ellen), and as a springboard for psychologizing as a weapon.

12 hours ago, anthony said:

.

[Jonathan]

12 hours ago, anthony said:

Still, one can imagine how Rand's analysis of architecture could be removed by some from her special context ("a class by itself") and applied erroneously or dishonestly to whatever other "utility" in art some feel like.

 

"Special context"? Hahaha. Her attempt to allow a blatant, glaring contradiction to her definition of art wasn't a "special context," but irrational absurdity. Heh. It was a "blankout," and "whim-worship." It kills me how sweet and delicate you are in dealing with Rand's pushing of a ridiculous contradiction in comparison to your treatment of others for much lesser crimes. If it were anyone else, you'd be accusing them of being destroyers of mankind's proper cognition, and of being aborted drooling embryo monster beast fetuses. Especially if they had written a famous novel on the subject of architecture as art, and cited it as the book to refer to about the nature and power of architecture as an art form. 

Well, on the brighter side, I guess it's good that you latched on to Rand rather than someone like Jim Jones. At least with Rand you've only metaphorically drank the Kool-Aid.

[Jonathan]

On 11/15/2017 at 2:02 PM, ThatGuy said:

I've thought the same thing, specifically in regards to her comment in THE ROMANTIC MANIFESTO regarding horror stories being more akin to psychopathology than art? "Strictly speaking, this is not a metaphysical, but a purely psychological projection; such writers are not presenting their view of life; they are not looking at life; what they are saying is that they FEEL as if life consisted of werewolves, Draculas, and Frankenstein monsters. In its basic motivation, this school belongs to psychopathology more than to esthetics." 


My reaction was "why not both?" Did she not say something similar, in THE ART OF FICTION, while defending fantasy writers for the same kind of metaphorical usage of unicorns and enchanted forests? Yes, she did...commenting on a passage from SEVEN GOTHIC TALES by Isak Dinesen: "This is one of the most beautiful descriptions I have read in the Romantic styel..Isak Dinesen is hard to classify, but she is certainly nearer to being a Romanticsts than a Naturalist."

And:

"That an old gardener at a convent tells something to a child has in itself a fantastic quality; and when he tells him that he has seen unicorns, this impossible fantasy projects the exact eerie quality of the afternoon. 'A herd of hourse' would not have produced the same effect, because the purpose is to suggest something supernatural, odd, almost decadently frightening, but very attractive. "


(I can anticipate the counter-argument that Rand distinguished fantasy as metaphor for real life as from the "escapist" fantasy-for-fantasy's-sake, without realistic counterparts  (like her "giant ant" stories example in RM. But then, was not FRANKENSTEIN a stylistic, fantastical take on real-life concerns? Some even put it in the science-fiction category...)

What about art therapy? Someone like Jordan Peterson may even  invoke Jung's use of drawings not as art, but as a means of psycho-analysis*...  What about Rand's own claim/accusation that "An artist reveals his naked soul in his work-and so, gentle reader, do you when you respond to it"? And did she not say that architecture was both art and utilitarian?

Why can't art serve two functions at the same time?

*(Relatedly, there's a quote an album by the rock band Living Colour, that goes "In Africa, music is not so much an art form as it is a means of communication..." It always comes into my mind when I read TRM...)

The rumor is that Rand told Binswanker that she was having doubts or had actually changed her mind on architecture, which is why the topic is not in the Lexicon. But there has been no announcement on the subject from the estate, which is weird. Well, it would be weird if openness and honesty were the standard.

Going public would stir up new problems, and they don't really have anyone with the requisite knowledge and experience, or originality, to deal with the mess that it would cause.

Continuing to "blank out" is their best option. Of course it's not what John Galt would do...

[anthony]

6 hours ago, Jonathan said:

Instead of addressing the actual substance of my comments, you're arguing with the imaginary people in your head again after you've invented positions for them to take.

J

Since you are normally reticent to take any outright stand, I am entitled to take your words at face value and invent/project examples of dual functioned art. "The notion that an object can't serve two functions at the same time is false". Claiming falsehood isn't enough to claim validity, and your explanation was vague. Explain, with regard to art "objects",  and give instances of what you envisage. 

[william.scherk]

"Since you are normally reticent to take any outright stand [...] Explain, with regard to art "objects",  and give instances of what you envisage." 

[anthony]

8 hours ago, Jonathan said:

It is a good line. There's some truth in it. But it's also an instance of Rand salivating at the idea of using "art as morals exam" (which is an even better line from our OL friend Ellen), and as a springboard for psychologizing as a weapon.

"An artist reveals his naked soul in his work..." - an honesty, therefore, which must not be betrayed by "moralizing" about his work? 

Is that it? Is that the objection you have (and, you say, Ellen had)? I consider your remarks a cynical appraisal of Rand's well-meaning words.

I assume you know ~which~ morality is involved, and it's not this moralistic, new witch hunt, and outraged, village square judgmentality that's a sign of these Leftist, secular-collectivist times. The rational-selfish morality places man's life as the standard of value, and one's own as one's highest value -- and that means that one has the moral right to repudiate whatever and whomever undermines that standard, man's life, in spoken, published or artistic form. While defending the individual rights of a person to publish any rubbish he feels like.

Amazing, an artist gets a free pass and ultimate moral tolerance, because (I can only imagine) what he portrays mustn't be taken literally! It's only an image! Anyway, he doesn't mean it! Except that artists can't have it both ways: 1. they want their art to be influential and taken seriously. 2. They desire their works to be above moral criticism - and therefore, not taken seriously.

Where existing, he/she deserves full credit for their naked honesty, but equally cannot avoid criticism for pictures deriding/slating man's existence, any less than a college professor, say, can't be challenged for promoting Marxism, altruism, nihilism.

 

 

[anthony]

Now, I say, the beautiful is the symbol of the morally good, and only in this light (a point of view natural to every one, and one which every one exacts from others as a duty) does it give us pleasure with an attendant claim to the agreement of every one else, whereupon the mind becomes conscious of a certain ennoblement and elevation above mere sensibility to pleasure from impressions of sense, and also appraises the worth of others on the score of a like maxim of their judgment (CJ 353)

Critique Of Judgment, Immanuel Kant

[Jonathan]

1 hour ago, anthony said:

Since you are normally reticent to take any outright stand, I am entitled to take your words at face value and invent/project examples of dual functioned art. "The notion that an object can't serve two functions at the same time is false". Claiming falsehood isn't enough to claim validity, and your explanation was vague. Explain, with regard to art "objects",  and give instances of what you envisage. 

I've given examples in the past, such as a sculpture/lamp. A bronze figure holding a frosted glass globe. Bada bing, it's a work of art that doubles as a reading lamp. Art plus utility, without any conflict between the two. Or a novel where each page has a small section which includes a daily calendar date. Art plus utility.

[Jonathan]

54 minutes ago, anthony said:

"An artist reveals his naked soul in his work..." - an honesty, therefore, which must not be betrayed by "moralizing" about his work? 

Is that it? Is that the objection you have (and, you say, Ellen had)? I consider your remarks a cynical appraisal of Rand's well-meaning words.

No. No one has suggested such a thing. You're making shit up.

 

55 minutes ago, anthony said:

I assume you know ~which~ morality is involved, and it's not this moralistic, new witch hunt, and outraged, village square judgmentality that's a sign of these Leftist, secular-collectivist times. The rational-selfish morality places man's life as the standard of value, and one's own as one's highest value -- and that means that one has the moral right to repudiate whatever and whomever undermines that standard, man's life, in spoken, published or artistic form. While defending the individual rights of a person to publish any rubbish he feels like.

WTF?

 

55 minutes ago, anthony said:

Amazing, an artist gets a free pass and ultimate moral tolerance, because (I can only imagine) what he portrays mustn't be taken literally! It's only an image! Anyway, he doesn't mean it! Except that artists can't have it both ways: 1. they want their art to be influential and taken seriously. 2. They desire their works to be above moral criticism - and therefore, not taken seriously.

That's not my position, asshole.

 

55 minutes ago, anthony said:

Where existing, he/she deserves full credit for their naked honesty, but equally cannot avoid criticism for pictures deriding/slating man's existence, any less than a college professor, say, can't be challenged for promoting Marxism, altruism, nihilism.

Nope. The point is not that an artist's ideas shouldn't be judged morally, but that artists should be judged for their actual ideas, and not ones that Rand subjectively imagined that they held based on her loopy interpretations of their work. Just like you, she assigned people moral beliefs that they didn't hold, and then condemned them for those beliefs. You're doing it in this thread. 

J

[Jonathan]

1 hour ago, anthony said:

Since you are normally reticent to take any outright stand... 

I'm never reticent to take an outright stand, you lying asshole.

J

[Jonathan]

15 minutes ago, anthony said:

Now, I say, the beautiful is the symbol of the morally good, and only in this light (a point of view natural to every one, and one which every one exacts from others as a duty) does it give us pleasure with an attendant claim to the agreement of every one else, whereupon the mind becomes conscious of a certain ennoblement and elevation above mere sensibility to pleasure from impressions of sense, and also appraises the worth of others on the score of a like maxim of their judgment (CJ 353)

Critique Of Judgment, Immanuel Kant

And? Are you agreeing with Kant or disagreeing?

J

[ThatGuy]

"An artist reveals his naked soul in his work-and so, gentle reader, do you when you respond to it"? And did she not say that architecture was both art and utilitarian?

“Is that it? Is that the objection you have (and, you say, Ellen had)? I consider your remarks a cynical appraisal of Rand's well-meaning words. “

To be fair, that appraisal is not unique to Jonathan or Ellen...

“In March 1966, she wrote an article for The Objectivist title ‘Art and Sense of Life’…which she concluded with these ominous words: ‘When one learns to translate the meaning of an art work into objective terms, one discovers that nothing is as potent as art in exposing the essence of a man’s character. An artist reveals his naked should in his work—and so, gentle reader, do you when you respond to it.’ The use of worlds like expose, naked, and gentle reader could have no other purpose than to intimidate—to scare the hell out of her audience.”

Nathaniel Branden, My Years With Ayn Rand

But the purpose of the quote, to brick it all back around to the point, which wasn't whether or not Rand meant this to be helpful or harmful, but to link it to the idea of a duel purpose of a creation as both art and utilitarian...(in this case, a creation as both artist and psychology, which see seems to both affirm in this quote, and her defense of fantasy literature, and frowns upon, in the case of her comment about horror being less about art than psychopathology...)

[regi]

4 hours ago, Jonathan said:

A bronze figure holding a frosted glass globe. Bada bing, it's a work of art that doubles as a reading lamp.

The utility is obvious. What makes it art?

[anthony]

13 hours ago, ThatGuy said:

"An artist reveals his naked soul in his work-and so, gentle reader, do you when you respond to it"? And did she not say that architecture was both art and utilitarian?

“Is that it? Is that the objection you have (and, you say, Ellen had)? I consider your remarks a cynical appraisal of Rand's well-meaning words. “

To be fair, that appraisal is not unique to Jonathan or Ellen...

“In March 1966, she wrote an article for The Objectivist title ‘Art and Sense of Life’…which she concluded with these ominous words: ‘When one learns to translate the meaning of an art work into objective terms, one discovers that nothing is as potent as art in exposing the essence of a man’s character. An artist reveals his naked should in his work—and so, gentle reader, do you when you respond to it.’ The use of worlds like expose, naked, and gentle reader could have no other purpose than to intimidate—to scare the hell out of her audience.”

Nathaniel Branden, My Years With Ayn Rand

But the purpose of the quote, to brick it all back around to the point, which wasn't whether or not Rand meant this to be helpful or harmful, but to link it to the idea of a duel purpose of a creation as both art and utilitarian...(in this case, a creation as both artist and psychology, which see seems to both affirm in this quote, and her defense of fantasy literature, and frowns upon, in the case of her comment about horror being less about art than psychopathology...)

 

Rare and unique for Branden to be wrong. I think the proponent of psychological "visibility" was strangely wrong, here. And that saying didn't in the least "scare the hell out of'" me. I recall I recognized the context of truthfulness, courage and "visibility" that was on Rand's mind**-- which I have regularly experienced from art and in attempting to make it. Art and artists (often) give us their plain honesty and reality, directly - "in your face" - without possibility of evasion or misunderstanding, and we respond in kind. Does art "test" one's concepts, values and emotional responses? True, and that's the value of artworks which shouldn't terrify anyone. 

**An artist herself, after all.

[anthony]

13 hours ago, ThatGuy said:

"An artist reveals his naked soul in his work-and so, gentle reader, do you when you respond to it"? And did she not say that architecture was both art and utilitarian?

But the purpose of the quote, to brick it all back around to the point, which wasn't whether or not Rand meant this to be helpful or harmful, but to link it to the idea of a duel purpose of a creation as both art and utilitarian...(in this case, a creation as both artist and psychology, which see seems to both affirm in this quote, and her defense of fantasy literature, and frowns upon, in the case of her comment about horror being less about art than psychopathology...)

2

I fail to see any link from the quotation ... to art as being also utilitarian. Please explain?

(And certainly I believe, notwithstanding your argument about the possible dual role of literature - which is hardly "utilitarian", rather, hierarchically, layered concepts beneath the overall category, "literature" - Rand would have been scathing about statues in lamps, etc.. Architecture is the one and only departure she explicitly accepted, far as I know).

[anthony]

16 hours ago, anthony said:

Now, I say, the beautiful is the symbol of the morally good, and only in this light (a point of view natural to every one, and one which every one exacts from others as a duty) does it give us pleasure with an attendant claim to the agreement of every one else, whereupon the mind becomes conscious of a certain ennoblement and elevation above mere sensibility to pleasure from impressions of sense, and also appraises the worth of others on the score of a like maxim of their judgment (CJ 353)

Critique Of Judgment, Immanuel Kant

Beauty = morally good? Such determinist, mystical nonsense, symbolic or not. If one merely is cognizant of the sensations of beauty (and who is not, some/much of the time, for some thing?) somehow, one is automatically ennobled with goodness - in harmony with Nature, ultimately with all other men...

Kant's influence upon art, art teachers and generations of artists, has been apparent. 

Not to mention Kant's influence upon his own ethics. He tried (somewhat in innocent ignorance, I guess) to "universalize", collectivize or 'combine' men under the commonality of the noble sensibility, "beauty", all the better to bring man to common obedience of his duty-Imperatives.

On both counts, his aesthetics and his ethics, he clearly is at odds with "man is a being of volitional consciousness".

But with little criticism of Kant's beauty->morality, there is opposition to Rand's solid, metaphysical and epistemological and ethical (the rationally-selfish one ...) incorporation into art.

[anthony]

13 hours ago, Jonathan said:

 

 

Nope. The point is not that an artist's ideas shouldn't be judged morally, but that artists should be judged for their actual ideas, and not ones that Rand subjectively imagined that they held based on her loopy interpretations of their work. Just like you, she assigned people moral beliefs that they didn't hold, and then condemned them for those beliefs. You're doing it in this thread. 

J

1

College professor and artist, everyone can only be assessed objectively and individually on what they say and do. Must the artist be held not responsible for his art? Is he morally detached from it?

 

[anthony]

13 hours ago, Jonathan said:

I've given examples in the past, such as a sculpture/lamp. A bronze figure holding a frosted glass globe. Bada bing, it's a work of art that doubles as a reading lamp. Art plus utility, without any conflict between the two. Or a novel where each page has a small section which includes a daily calendar date. Art plus utility.

Yes, the ubiquitous bottle opener which every bachelor had on his bar counter, the handle a form of a female nude. Coy and banal.