Objectivist Esthetics, R.I.P.

[anthony]

2 hours ago, Jonathan said:

I've been using Rand's notion of "objectivity," which is the act of vlitionally adhering to reality by using logic and reason. She didn't follow that notion when doing her "Objective Esthetics."

 

 

1

No no. That's only half-way there (epistemology) and ignores the metaphysics. Law of identity, yes?

Objectivity

¶

Objectivity is both a metaphysical and an epistemological concept. It pertains to the relationship of consciousness to existence. Metaphysically, it is the recognition of the fact that reality exists independent of any perceiver’s consciousness. Epistemologically, it is the recognition of the fact that a perceiver’s (man’s) consciousness must acquire knowledge of reality by certain means (reason) in accordance with certain rules (logic). This means that although reality is immutable and, in any given context, only one answer is true, the truth is not automatically available to a human consciousness and can be obtained only by a certain mental process which is required of every man who seeks knowledge—that there is no substitute for this process, no escape from the responsibility for it, no shortcuts, no special revelations to privileged observers—and that there can be no such thing as a final “authority” in matters pertaining to human knowledge. Metaphysically, the only authority is reality; epistemologically—one’s own mind. The first is the ultimate arbiter of the second.

The concept of objectivity contains the reason why the question “Who decides what is right or wrong?” is wrong. Nobody “decides.” Nature does not decide—it merely is; man does not decide, in issues of knowledge, he merely observes that which is. When it comes to applying his knowledge, man decides what he chooses to do, according to what he has learned, remembering that the basic principle of rational action in allaspects of human existence, is: “Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed.” This means that man does not create reality and can achieve his values only by making his decisions consonant with the facts of reality.

“Who Is the Final Authority in Ethics?”
The Objectivist Newsletter, Feb. 1965, 7

¶

Objectivity begins with the realization that man (including his every attribute and faculty, including his consciousness) is an entity of a specific nature who must act accordingly; that there is no escape from the law of identity, neither in the universe with which he deals nor in the working of his own consciousness, and if he is to acquire knowledge of the first, he must discover the proper method of using the second; that there is no room for the arbitrary in any activity of man, least of all in his method of cognition—and just as he has learned to be guided by objective criteria in making his physical tools, so he must be guided by objective criteria in forming his tools of cognition: his concepts.

“Consciousness and Identity,”
Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology, 82

[Jonathan]

16 hours ago, anthony said:

You going to dine out on that one, I bet. ;)  This is so minor. The empirical mindset usually seems unable to rise above small things to take in the grand picture. Architecture-art is a stretch, imo, but not invalid in specific, selected contexts. It was  -eventually - a close one for me (but I have a greater appreciation now, of the reality of buildings sans-art). Oops, and who am I wasting this information on?

Oh, of course! Rand's glaring contradictions are "so minor." Nothin' to see here folks, move along. What's sauce for the goose is not sauce for the gander. When it comes to St. Ayn, A doesn't have to be A, at least not all of the time. Sometimes it can be non-A, and it's just "so minor."

J

 

[Jonathan]

15 hours ago, anthony said:

No no. That's only half-way there (epistemology) and ignores the metaphysics. Law of identity, yes?

Objectivity

¶

Objectivity is both a metaphysical and an epistemological concept. It pertains to the relationship of consciousness to existence. Metaphysically, it is the recognition of the fact that reality exists independent of any perceiver’s consciousness. Epistemologically, it is the recognition of the fact that a perceiver’s (man’s) consciousness must acquire knowledge of reality by certain means (reason) in accordance with certain rules (logic). This means that although reality is immutable and, in any given context, only one answer is true, the truth is not automatically available to a human consciousness and can be obtained only by a certain mental process which is required of every man who seeks knowledge—that there is no substitute for this process, no escape from the responsibility for it, no shortcuts, no special revelations to privileged observers—and that there can be no such thing as a final “authority” in matters pertaining to human knowledge. Metaphysically, the only authority is reality; epistemologically—one’s own mind. The first is the ultimate arbiter of the second.

The concept of objectivity contains the reason why the question “Who decides what is right or wrong?” is wrong. Nobody “decides.” Nature does not decide—it merely is; man does not decide, in issues of knowledge, he merely observes that which is. When it comes to applying his knowledge, man decides what he chooses to do, according to what he has learned, remembering that the basic principle of rational action in allaspects of human existence, is: “Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed.” This means that man does not create reality and can achieve his values only by making his decisions consonant with the facts of reality.

“Who Is the Final Authority in Ethics?”
The Objectivist Newsletter, Feb. 1965, 7

¶

Objectivity begins with the realization that man (including his every attribute and faculty, including his consciousness) is an entity of a specific nature who must act accordingly; that there is no escape from the law of identity, neither in the universe with which he deals nor in the working of his own consciousness, and if he is to acquire knowledge of the first, he must discover the proper method of using the second; that there is no room for the arbitrary in any activity of man, least of all in his method of cognition—and just as he has learned to be guided by objective criteria in making his physical tools, so he must be guided by objective criteria in forming his tools of cognition: his concepts.

“Consciousness and Identity,”
Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology, 82

Tony, if you want to refute someone's position, the idea would then be to provide info which refutes your opponent rather than that which supports him. Hahaha.

J

[Jonathan]

Oh, hey, check this out:

https://campus.aynrand.org/campus-courses/advanced-seminars-on-objectivism/objectivity-volitional-adherence-to-reality-by-the-method-of-logic

[KorbenDallas]

A is A?

[Jonathan]

10 hours ago, KorbenDallas said:

A is A?

Yeah, it stands for Architecture is Art.

J

[Brant Gaede]

What is missing? What is missing is what is missing. The unknown.  The uncreated. The future both in knowledge and in creativity. Objectivity is 100% backward looking. Here is an example: if you had purchased Appel computer stock when Steve Jobs came back in 1997 and held it until today you'd be up +9000%. This can be objectively validated today, but not back in 1997.

Professors don't create--or seldom do--but are great--if they are great and not dogmatic leftists moralistic smucks--at telling you what IS. As great as what is is that's only part of the story. No more.

"Objectivity" is reality validation, that's all. Make sure you're right then go ahead.

--Brant

 

[anthony]

On 11/20/2017 at 3:13 PM, Jonathan said:

Tony, if you want to refute someone's position, the idea would then be to provide info which refutes your opponent rather than that which supports him. Hahaha.

J

The law of identity, maybe? Where was it just recently you rubbished that? Needfully, because it clashes - abstract art - with your wish to create intelligibility (by a privileged/sophisticated elite, apparently) out of the (deliberately made)unintelligible, thereby flouting identification. Is that reminder fundamental enough to "refute" your position?

The consequences are visibly commonplace of trying to escape identity; then anything goes - subjectivism, a primacy of sensations and emotions, psychic powers, arbitrariness, authoritarianism, neo-mysticism -- oh, and in art especially.

I was saying the religious and the mystics have always seen "meaning" in nature (the metaphysical given) - since to them it's the *God-given*. Then, art, the man-made representation of anything from nature, is simply the continuity of that Godly purpose for his Creation, man. An artist purportedly taps into and produces the same "meaning", which millions have tried to unearth in pictorial art works. (In fact, for the religious, all existence is *evidence* of God's love of mankind. And why not? From their view point it is a persuasive argument - although causally-reversed, as it is). So the artists cash in on and derive their unquestioned, tacitly -perceived 'supernatural authority' from these old, superstitious notions .

Escape identity and identification, and, in ethics, a particular philosopher can assert the standard of value to be "beauty" and its recognition of, equating this with "moral goodness". How easy and effortless to be 'moral' ... gimme some of that.

Altogether, an attractive package and tough act to follow. Unless one prefers reality.

The neo-mystic fallacies, "meaning" and "purpose", within a Universe disregarding of man's existence, are obliterated by the Law of Identity - but try telling you art mystics this!

[Jonathan]

6 hours ago, anthony said:

The law of identity, maybe? Where was it just recently you rubbished that?

I did no such thing.

6 hours ago, anthony said:

Needfully, because it clashes - abstract art - with your wish to create intelligibility (by a privileged/sophisticated elite, apparently) out of the (deliberately made)unintelligible, thereby flouting identification. Is that reminder fundamental enough to "refute" your position?

I'm not the one whose views are driven by his needs. I haven't needed to "create intelligibility" in abstract art, but rather have observed people in reality (normal people -- not Rand-followers) identifying "artist's themes" in abstract art forms, including in abstract paintings and sculptures, as well as in in the abstract art forms of architecture, music and dance.

One thing that I haven't observed, however, is Rand-followers succeeding in identifying artists' themes in representational realist paintings.

 

6 hours ago, anthony said:

The consequences are visibly commonplace of trying to escape identity; then anything goes - subjectivism, a primacy of sensations and emotions, psychic powers, arbitrariness, authoritarianism, neo-mysticism -- oh, and in art especially.

So, what you're saying is that, in categorizing architecture as a valid art form when didn't fit Rand's definition and criteria (which you admit), Rand was trying to "escape identity; then anything goes - subjectivism, a primacy of sensations and emotions, psychic powers, arbitrariness, authoritarianism, neo-mysticism."

 

6 hours ago, anthony said:

I was saying the religious and the mystics have always seen "meaning" in nature (the metaphysical given) - since to them it's the *God-given*. Then, art, the man-made representation of anything from nature, is simply the continuity of that Godly purpose for his Creation, man. An artist purportedly taps into and produces the same "meaning", which millions have tried to unearth in pictorial art works. (In fact, for the religious, all existence is *evidence* of God's love of mankind. And why not? From their view point it is a persuasive argument - although causally-reversed, as it is). So the artists cash in on and derive their unquestioned, tacitly -perceived 'supernatural authority' from these old, superstitious notions .

Escape identity and identification, and, in ethics, a particular philosopher can assert the standard of value to be "beauty" and its recognition of, equating this with "moral goodness". How easy and effortless to be 'moral' ... gimme some of that.

Altogether, an attractive package and tough act to follow. Unless one prefers reality.

The neo-mystic fallacies, "meaning" and "purpose", within a Universe disregarding of man's existence, are obliterated by the Law of Identity - but try telling you art mystics this!

You're trying to escape identity and the identification of the fact of reality that Rand-followers can't apply her theories to reality and successfully identify artists' themes in any alleged works of art while being denied access to outside considerations.

Your posts read like someone who is panicking. Lots of blabbering nonsense accusations and distractions. Straw men and non sequiturs. Irrational assumptions and idiotic psychologizing.

J

[anthony]

2 hours ago, Jonathan said:

 ... psychologizing.

J

 

“Psychologizing”

¶

Just as reasoning, to an irrational person, becomes rationalizing, and moral judgment becomes moralizing, so psychological theories become psychologizing. The common denominator is the corruption of a cognitive process to serve an ulterior motive.

Psychologizing consists in condemning or excusing specific individuals on the grounds of their psychological problems, real or invented, in the absence of or contrary to factual evidence.

“The Psychology of ‘Psychologizing’,”
The Objectivist, March 1971, 2

¶

While the racket of the philosophizing mystics rested on the claim that man is unable to know the external world, the racket of the psychologizing mystics rests on the claim that man is unable to know his own motivation.

“The Psychology of ‘Psychologizing’,”
The Objectivist, March 1971, 4

¶

Armed with a smattering, not of knowledge, but of undigested slogans, they rush, unsolicited, to diagnose the problems of their friends and acquaintances. Pretentiousness and presumptuousness are the psychologizer’s invariable characteristics: he not merely invades the privacy of his victims’ minds, he claims to understand their minds better than they do, to know more than they do about their own motives. With reckless irresponsibility, which an old-fashioned mystic oracle would hesitate to match, he ascribes to his victims any motivation that suits his purpose, ignoring their denials. Since he is dealing with the great “unknowable”—which used to be life after death or extrasensory perception, but is now man’s subconscious—all rules of evidence, logic and proof are suspended, and anything goes (which is what attracts him to his racket).

 

“The Psychology of ‘Psychologizing’,”
The Objectivist, March 1971, 2

¶

A man’s moral character must be judged on the basis of his actions, his statements and his conscious convictions—not on the basis of inferences (usually, spurious) about his subconscious.

A man is not to be condemned or excused on the grounds of the state of his subconscious.

While the racket of the philosophizing mystics rested on the claim that man is unable to know the external world, the racket of the psychologizing mystics rests on the claim that man is unable to know his own motivation.

“The Psychology of ‘Psychologizing’,”
The Objectivist, March 1971, 5

[anthony]

2 hours ago, Jonathan said:

I did no such thing.

I'm not the one whose views are driven by his needs. I haven't needed to "create intelligibility" in abstract art, but rather have observed people in reality (normal people -- not Rand-followers) identifying "artist's themes" in abstract art forms, including in abstract paintings and sculptures, as well as in in the abstract art forms of architecture, music and dance.

 

 

J

 

 "...in abstract art forms, including in abstract paintings and sculptures, as well as in the abstract art forms of architecture, music and dance".

Name whatever you feel like "abstract", and as I said about denying the law of identity, anything goes. All art is "abstract", by you? Each individual art hasn't a specific concrete form - perceived by a specific sense? That explains a lot.

“Package-Dealing,” Fallacy of

¶

“Package-dealing” is the fallacy of failing to discriminate crucial differences. It consists of treating together, as parts of a single conceptual whole or “package,” elements which differ essentially in nature, truth-status, importance or value.

“The Metaphysical Versus the Man-Made,”
Philosophy: Who Needs It, 24

[Package-dealing employs] the shabby old gimmick of equating opposites by substituting nonessentials for their essential characteristics, obliterating differences.

 

[Jonathan]

12 hours ago, anthony said:

“Psychologizing”

¶

Just as reasoning, to an irrational person, becomes rationalizing, and moral judgment becomes moralizing, so psychological theories become psychologizing. The common denominator is the corruption of a cognitive process to serve an ulterior motive.

Psychologizing consists in condemning or excusing specific individuals on the grounds of their psychological problems, real or invented, in the absence of or contrary to factual evidence.

“The Psychology of ‘Psychologizing’,”
The Objectivist, March 1971, 2

¶

While the racket of the philosophizing mystics rested on the claim that man is unable to know the external world, the racket of the psychologizing mystics rests on the claim that man is unable to know his own motivation.

“The Psychology of ‘Psychologizing’,”
The Objectivist, March 1971, 4

¶

Armed with a smattering, not of knowledge, but of undigested slogans, they rush, unsolicited, to diagnose the problems of their friends and acquaintances. Pretentiousness and presumptuousness are the psychologizer’s invariable characteristics: he not merely invades the privacy of his victims’ minds, he claims to understand their minds better than they do, to know more than they do about their own motives. With reckless irresponsibility, which an old-fashioned mystic oracle would hesitate to match, he ascribes to his victims any motivation that suits his purpose, ignoring their denials. Since he is dealing with the great “unknowable”—which used to be life after death or extrasensory perception, but is now man’s subconscious—all rules of evidence, logic and proof are suspended, and anything goes (which is what attracts him to his racket).

 

“The Psychology of ‘Psychologizing’,”
The Objectivist, March 1971, 2

¶

A man’s moral character must be judged on the basis of his actions, his statements and his conscious convictions—not on the basis of inferences (usually, spurious) about his subconscious.

A man is not to be condemned or excused on the grounds of the state of his subconscious.

While the racket of the philosophizing mystics rested on the claim that man is unable to know the external world, the racket of the psychologizing mystics rests on the claim that man is unable to know his own motivation.

“The Psychology of ‘Psychologizing’,”
The Objectivist, March 1971, 5

Yup, that's what I said, and meant. Thanks for confirming it with the quotes.

[Jonathan]

12 hours ago, anthony said:

 

“Package-Dealing,” Fallacy of

¶

“Package-dealing” is the fallacy of failing to discriminate crucial differences. It consists of treating together, as parts of a single conceptual whole or “package,” elements which differ essentially in nature, truth-status, importance or value.

“The Metaphysical Versus the Man-Made,”
Philosophy: Who Needs It, 24

[Package-dealing employs] the shabby old gimmick of equating opposites by substituting nonessentials for their essential characteristics, obliterating differences.

 

So, you're saying that Rand.was a package-dealer when she claimed that architecture was art!

And you're right! She lumped it together with things while failing to distinguish crucial differences. Actually, she noticed and mentioned the differences, but decided to ignore them, which is worse.

Your earlier post about her mindset is apt:

"The consequences are visibly commonplace of trying to escape identity; then anything goes - subjectivism, a primacy of sensations and emotions, psychic powers, arbitrariness, authoritarianism, neo-mysticism -- oh, and in art especially."

J

 

[anthony]

4 hours ago, Jonathan said:

Yup, that's what I said, and meant. Thanks for confirming it with the quotes.

Nah. If I looked back on this thread, you commonly litter your comments with me "psychologizing" this, and "psychologizing" that. You haven't understood the concept and I have noticed it be misused generally in the past by others. It does not mean "don't analyse", it is exactly and literally about targeting a person's "psychology", conjectured and guessed at, or known. Rather - not at all have I invoked your "subconscious", nor "psychological problems" (despite that you have given me cause to retaliate to your insults). It is I suggest instead, you - who have psychologized me, with presumptions about "obeying Rand" - etc.etc. - ad nauseam.

"Psychologizing" accusations, wrongly used, I think are a tactic to evade, to block someone assessing what you (or anyone) does-says, the deductions to be drawn from it, and eventually after lengthy experience of someone's statements, from identifying - and challenging - their philosophical premises. All of which are legitimate - justly, objectively and selfishly.

"A man's moral character must be judged on the base of his actions, his statements and his conscious convictions"... not on his subconscious". Identical to doing justice to an art work; what it is in itself, and no outside considerations.

[anthony]

3 hours ago, Jonathan said:

So, you're saying that Rand.was a package-dealer when she claimed that architecture was art!

And you're right! She lumped it together with things while failing to distinguish crucial differences. Actually, she noticed and mentioned the differences, but decided to ignore them, which is worse.

Your earlier post about her mindset is apt:

"The consequences are visibly commonplace of trying to escape identity; then anything goes - subjectivism, a primacy of sensations and emotions, psychic powers, arbitrariness, authoritarianism, neo-mysticism -- oh, and in art especially."

J

 

Gosh! When you're hot, you are .. well... lukewarm. 

You've undone Rand and Objectivist aesthetics, all in one go, on a borderline case.

But no reply to my queries? 

Is all art a package deal, "abstract", to you?

[Jonathan]

2 hours ago, anthony said:

Gosh! When you're hot, you are .. well... lukewarm. 

You've undone Rand and Objectivist aesthetics, all in one go, on a borderline case.

Just can't bring yourself to judge St. Ayn by the same standards that you judge others, can you? Heh.

"Borderline case?" Hahaha!

To Rand, art must "re-create reality," and can't serve a utilitarian purpose, and yet she categorized architecture as art despite stating that it "does not re-create reality" and that it serves a utilitarian purpose. It's not on any borderlines. It's hundreds of miles away from the border!

What you're doing, silly Tony, in trying to minimize Rand's embracing and promoting of her glaring contradiction, is to "escape identity; then anything goes - subjectivism, a primacy of sensations and emotions, psychic powers, arbitrariness, authoritarianism, neo-mysticism."

You're a neo-mystic, and Rand is your god, your authority, your idol.

 

2 hours ago, anthony said:

But no reply to my queries? 

Is all art a package deal, "abstract", to you?

You haven't made any real queries. You've invented irrational nonsense that has nothing to do with anything I've said. You go off on loopy, non sequitur tangents. The only answers that I can give to your questions are, "WTF are you talking about?" "How do you come up with this idiocy?" "How is it that you're still alive despite being incapable of following a conversation, understanding words, and thinking clearly?" etc.  Sometimes I take the time to actually make such responses. Other times it just seems redundant. So, here's a general rule: If I don't answer one of your retarded, babbling, nonsense questions, just assume that my answer is "WTF? You're inventing positions that I don't hold, and you're basing your questions on irrational nonsense misinterpretations that do not in any way logically flow from anything I've said."

[Jonathan]

2 hours ago, anthony said:

You've undone Rand and Objectivist aesthetics, all in one go, on a borderline case.

Actually, I've undone the Objectivist Esthetics in regard to all cases. Nothing has ever been objectively shown to qualify as art by Rand's definition and criteria. Nothing. There doesn't even exist a proposed means of making "objective esthetic judgments." Rand neglected to identify the means, but instead just arbitrarily asserted that it would one day exist, that it HAD to exist. And you know what Objectivism has to say about arbitrary assertions.

We're coming up on 2018, and still no objective means have been identified.

All art, therefore, "must be treated as a subjective matter."

J

[william.scherk]

[Brant Gaede]

"All art is abstract" is my formulation on this thread. I'm not aware of anyone else endorsing it.

--Brant

[anthony]

19 hours ago, Jonathan said:

Actually, I've undone the Objectivist Esthetics in regard to all cases. Nothing has ever been objectively shown to qualify as art by Rand's definition and criteria. Nothing. There doesn't even exist a proposed means of making "objective esthetic judgments." Rand neglected to identify the means, but instead just arbitrarily asserted that it would one day exist, that it HAD to exist. And you know what Objectivism has to say about arbitrary assertions.

We're coming up on 2018, and still no objective means have been identified.

All art, therefore, "must be treated as a subjective matter."

J

Does art and all art forms have an identity? (Wherever one draws the precise boundary - at this stage - is NOT relevant, but it's inarguable that there ARE boundaries between art entities and non- art entities).

Does art, generally, have value to "man"? (And if one is willing to transpose the abstraction "man" - to the individual, it has value to each man according to his knowledge,purposes  and needs, what is important to him, and by the standard of value, man's life.

If "yes" to those, then by identity AND value, art is - inevitably and incontrovertibly - objective. And it follows that art can also be "subjective" - wishful and arbitrary - in identity and values, to one who's predominantly subjectivist.

"Nothing has been objectively shown to qualify as art by Rand's definition and criteria".

I know - tough - it is difficult for you to find empirical proof, which is what (you have consistently indicated) you mean by "shown". But that goes to prove the inability and shortcomings and failure of empiricism (as contrasted to conceptualism) when applied to the Objective theory of art.

[anthony]

17 hours ago, Jonathan said:

 

 

You haven't made any real queries. You've invented irrational nonsense that has nothing to do with anything I've said. You go off on loopy, non sequitur tangents. The only answers that I can give to your questions are, "WTF are you talking about?" "How do you come up with this idiocy?" "How is it that you're still alive despite being incapable of following a conversation, understanding words, and thinking clearly?" etc.  Sometimes I take the time to actually make such responses. Other times it just seems redundant. So, here's a general rule: If I don't answer one of your retarded, babbling, nonsense questions, just assume that my answer is "WTF? You're inventing positions that I don't hold, and you're basing your questions on irrational nonsense misinterpretations that do not in any way logically flow from anything I've said."

1

Your commercial break over, can you answer my question? I will remind you of your statement:

"...in abstract art forms, including in abstract paintings and sculptures, as well as in the abstract art forms of architecture, music and dance".

Question: is all art "abstract"?

[anthony]

Men have had thinkers, philosophers (and artists) pulling them in two directions. The one smaller bunch says that reality is fixed, a man's mind can comprehend it and he can reach certainty of mind (a necessity of individualism and happiness) - "I know that I know this".

The other has said "Don't be so sure." -- How do you know anything? -  You have been wrong before, haven't you? - Things are not what they seem - Your mind can be fooled - Anyway, others see things differently to you - You can't "know" without being an expert - Anyway, "values" such as happiness are subjective, arbitrary and temporal, you'll lose them one day".

I think that's the basic approach to Rand on art. Which way are you being 'pulled' by an artwork?

[Brant Gaede]

8 minutes ago, anthony said:

Your commercial break over, can you answer my question? I will remind you of your statement:

"...in abstract art forms, including in abstract paintings and sculptures, as well as in the abstract art forms of architecture, music and dance".

Question: is all art "abstract"?

Begs the question of "abstract(ion) from what?" in particular.

Once the art is concretized the abstract(ion) ends only to begin again in the mind of the contemplator and you have a mixture of real and abstract. Realer than real transcendence.

But this is not to talk about the difference between what is commonly thought of as abstract vrs representational painting.

And, still, the biggest begs the question that underlines it all is, "what is art?"

No one can objectify any of this; I sure can't. And you are asking Jonathan to do what he said he can't do out of the context of his using language in a way to adequately have a conversation with you. You are either asking him to objectify or join your context without you even winning the argument qua argument. 

--Brant

[Brant Gaede]

10 minutes ago, anthony said:

Men have had thinkers, philosophers (and some artists) pulling them in two directions. The one smaller bunch says that reality is fixed, a man's mind can comprehend it and he can reach certainty of mind (a necessity of individualism and happiness) - "I know that I know this".

The other has said "Don't be so sure." -- How do you know anything? -  You have been wrong before, haven't you? - Things are not what they seem - Your mind can be fooled - Anyway, others see things differently to you - You can't "know" without being an expert - Anyway, "values" such as happiness are subjective, arbitrary and temporal, you'll lose them one day".

I think that's the basic approach to Rand on art. Which way are you being 'pulled' by an artwork?

You can't win a cultural war for liberty through esthetics. Art comes from the culture, not culture from art. It follows, not leads. Art can say the culture (and the society) stinks. It can't go so far to say Hitler rules. Art neither made Hitler nor brought him down. The real question is whether society follows or leads a philosophy. Rand's view was philosophy rules ignoring everything else it is composed of. Geography, economics, war, hoi polloi mind set, sociology(?), natural disaster, psychology, etc. and the ratios of these to each other varying through time. The closest you'll get to philosophy precedes is the founding of this country, which is quite arguable.

--Brant

art doesn't "pull"--it activates something already there in your head

[anthony]

1 hour ago, Brant Gaede said:

You can't win a cultural war for liberty through esthetics. Art comes from the culture, not culture from art. It follows, not leads. Art can say the culture (and the society) stinks. It can't go so far to say Hitler rules. Art neither made Hitler nor brought him down. The real question is whether society follows or leads a philosophy. Rand's view was philosophy rules ignoring everything else it is composed of. Geography, economics, war, hoi polloi mind set, sociology(?), natural disaster, psychology, etc. and the ratios of these to each other varying through time. The closest you'll get to philosophy precedes is the founding of this country, which is quite arguable.

--Brant

art doesn't "pull"--it activates something already there in your head

Good point, liberty is exactly what's on my mind. After that, I differ. Art comes from individuals, who make up the art-culture which makes for the large culture, ultimately. It leads as well as reflects, on society. While I agree that much art "activates" what's in one's head, i.e., affirms, supports or opposes one's existing standards and views of life, we mustn't only think of one's own responses. I have a pretty tough "head", and can take in anything in art and resist being "pulled" every which way against my will. I doubt (I know) that that goes for everybody. Many if not most people are easily influenced by words and images alike, and if by representations of bad ideas (mind-undermining, anti-individualism for examples), then for certain down the line my freedoms and yours will be at risk.