Objectivist Esthetics, R.I.P.

[BaalChatzaf]

On 10/5/2016 at 5:06 AM, anthony said:

You have the gist of it. But what do you say to the guy who speaks in gibberish to you, no matter how musically-pleasant it sounds, but is apparently convinced it's real language? You eventually tell him he's faking reality and ignore him, presumably. Whatever is expressed from inside some artist's "head" doesn't automatically qualify as art, any more than garble from inside that man's head qualifies as language.. However, the artist is forgiven and applauded for faking reality or for assuring others he feels he knows what abstract art represents, if they can't. I don't take anyone's word for it, and can't abide reality-fakirs. "Worthy" of my "sanction" is any single thing I can recognise in reality. Not just me, vision and mind is the one "universal", common to all.

You've often shown an interesting, if ambivalent outlook on what "abstract" is, which I've inferred from other people too. But the artist's act of 're-constituting' reality by accentuating his work with a special treatment, is what many do mistake as abstraction, I think. Rather, it's due to his eye, his consciousness, his personal view of existence, and learned and tirelessly practised technical skills that add the 'glow' to a subject he isolates, and which he considers a highly important aspect of existence. In a sense, a representational artist plays God, and improves on the original - of course - why not?. He can even add further things from his memory and imagination. I assume all that's the root of the almost mystical reverence he's traditionally paid. "Abstract" concepts only exist in one's mind and cannot be re-created in concrete form on canvas. They need a vehicle.

Setting a 'mood' is what we have decoration for.

Qua argument, argue with that. ;)

The Greeks called people who did not speak Greek  barbarians,  because this foreign talking folks made sound that sounded to Greeks like bar-bar-bar.  Now if a group of people making bar-bar sounds  can produce co-ordinate and coherent activities among themselves,  you know for a fact that bar-bar-bar is  a language.   Language evolved among humans primarily as a way of getting everyone to co-operate,  particularly in the hunt which was a vital source of nourishment.   Humans turned from being prey  into top predators   and ace-hunters precisely because they had language. Without language the ace-hunters of the tribe could not tell the techno-geek  spear and arrowhead  maker of the clan how many pointy nasty things and what kind to make. 

[Jonathan]

5 hours ago, anthony said:

You have the gist of it. But what do you say to the guy who speaks in gibberish to you, no matter how musically-pleasant it sounds, but is apparently convinced it's real language? You eventually tell him he's faking reality and ignore him, presumably.

That is indeed what YOU would probably do.

A rational, intelligent person, on the other hand, would recognize that his own inability to understand someone else's sounds would not be sufficient evidence to conclude that he is not actually speaking a language.

A rational, intelligent person would contemplate and then employ methods of testing whether or not anyone could understand the sounds as a language.

The same is true of art. We don't just go by Tony's feelings, or lack thereof. Nor by Ayn Rand's nor Michelle Kamhi's. If you feel that some works are gibberish and some are not, your feelings and beliefs are not sufficient evidence. After all anyone can arbitrarily declare that they see, experience, and understand something about a work of art. They can make stuff up and read into it what they want to. What's required is proof that they've actually succeeded in identifying "artist's meanings" or whatever else their criteria requires in art.

No Rand-follower has ever done so in regard to any work of art, ever. They haven't done so in regard to the abstract art forms that Objectivism accepts as valid (despite the fact that they don't re-create reality). They haven't done so in regard to any work of visual representational realism. And they even haven't done so in regard to any romantic realit novel!

Nothing has ever been objectively demonstrated to qualify as art by the Objectivist Esthetics.

J

[Thorn]

On 2 October 2016 at 5:08 AM, anthony said:

You'd have to define how you mean "abstract". Abstract as in 'abstract art', is accepted to mean there are no real subjects ~at all~ to see, isn't as you apparently use it, which seems to me roughly "a subtle suggestion of something less well-defined and reduced to essentials". The minimalist styles in the drawings do suggest emotion or activity to the viewers, I agree. I quite like the one of the girl and its suggestion of the her vivacity and movement. As you say yourself, the abstract quality is what YOU make of the pictures in your eyes and mind - only human minds can abstract anything. iow "abstract" can't be inherent to a picture, here they are simply the artists' deliberate stylizing choices. So these aren't at all "abstract art" which is only incoherent lines and shapes etc. - but representational, as you say.

And if you think that the subject matter is ~ever~ "secondary", just try to visualize these images totally without real, intelligible subjects and you might see that the results can't be anything but a confused mess!

I did describe what I meant by 'abstract', referring to the qualities of line, proportion, weight, rhythm etc.

I have no problem imagining these qualities without intelligible subjects. Not confusing or incoherent at all.

[BaalChatzaf]

20 hours ago, Thorn said:

I did describe what I meant by 'abstract', referring to the qualities of line, proportion, weight, rhythm etc.

I have no problem imagining these qualities without intelligible subjects. Not confusing or incoherent at all.

Mathematics does that perfectly. 

[Jonathan]

The initial questions/challenges still remain unaddressed/unanswered:

1. If your argument does not boil down to your basing your claims of others’ “depth of meaningful response” on nothing but your own personal lack of response, then please identify the objective method that you’ve used to scientifically measure others’ depth-of-meaning responses to the art forms in which you personally experience little or no depth-of-meaning.

2. Please post the data and results of such objective testing methods and experiments so that we may analyze and review the research, weight its merits, and criticize any potential errors.

3. Please reveal experiments in which you’ve tested people’s ability to identify "artists’ meanings” in works of art which you have accepted as validly qualifying as art by your own criteria. Please objectively demonstrate that any work of alleged art has been objectively shown to comply with your criteria. As I mentioned in an earlier post, I’ve tested many Objectivists with representational paintings, and none, so far, has succeeded in identifying “artist’s meanings.” Have your tests yielded better results?

4. You suggest that, since some viewers “misread" Rothko’s intentions with his art, then it therefore surely indicates that there was something wanting in his approach. In the deleted post of mine, I identified ways in which people have interpreted Rand’s The Fountainhead much differently than she intended, and they did so based on the objectively identifiably content in the novel (Roark’s violating his own morality by working on a project to which he is morally opposed, his conspiring to commit the fraud of passing off his work as someone else’s in order to subvert the rights of the owners to not hire him, his presenting the false and irrational argument in court that a contract that he did not have with the owners was violated by them when the reality was that he actively hid his involvement in the project from them, etc.).  Applying your own method that you just used on Rothko, shouldn’t we conclude that people’s “misreading” of Rand’s intentions also “surely indicate that there was something wanting in [her] approach [to literary/aesthetic theory]”? 

---

Where is such empirical testing of people's ability to identify artist's meanings in the images in the left hand column???

Why is it that none of you Objectivish aesthetic geniuses, and none elsewhere, has been able to identify any artists' meanings in any realistic, representational paintings?

One of the points of my posting the two columns of images, long ago, was to apply Objectivist criteria to various works and begin to test them in reality. I did so because O'vishes had demanded proof from others that abstract visual art could actually meet their criteria. In other words, they weren't content to take people at their word when describing the depth and meaning that they claimed to experience in abstract art. Well, I decided to call the O'vishes' bluff by applying their own standards to them: I'm not content to take you at your word -- I don't accept your empty assertions that the works which you declare are valid art have actually been shown to meet your criteria. I require proof, the same proof that you demand of fans of abstract art! So, as part of my investigation and testing, I have challenged, and continue to challenge, you and all other O'vishes to identify the artists' meanings in the representational images in the left column (as well as other tests involving other representational images beyond still lifes). So far, only a few people have even attempted to identify only a couple of the artists' meanings, and none have succeeded. Actually, they failed miserably.

Nothing, ever, has yet been demonstrated to qualify as art by Objectivism's criteria!

---

Additional unanswered questions from past threads:

From post 769:

Quote

I was asking about the music itself, not the inclusion of the notes. Do you make any distinction between absolute music and program music if the program notes are removed from the equation?

In other words, if a composer intended to create a piece of program music based on a specific narrative, and listeners were denied access to the explanation of the narrative, shouldn't they still be able to identify what the composer intended to "represent"? If you're going to categorize tonal music as being "representational" in the same category as representational visual art, and you require representational visual art to present immediately identifiable entities that the artist intended to represent, then shouldn't the same standard apply to tonal music, and therefore shouldn't all listeners be able to instantly identify the specific narrative that the composer intended to "represent"?

Additionally, if a composer created a piece of tonal absolute music which was not intended to be "about" anything -- it wasn't based on a narrative, and it wasn't intended to "represent" anything -- then shouldn't listeners who claim to experience "virtual entities" in the music, and "virtual activities" or "virtual narratives," be accused of "just making stuff up" and "reading into" the music what is not there? Shouldn't they be identified as doing the aural equivalent of inventing their own constellations when looking at clusters of stars? Shouldn't it be "Give me a break!" time?

If the composer of a tonal piece of absolute music didn't intend to "represent" anything, are you saying that his work is "representational" anyway?!!! If so, shouldn't the same be true of a visual artist who didn't intend to represent anything -- if some viewers were to say, "Hey, this smear of paint looks kind of like a butterfly," would you categorize the painting as "representational" despite the fact that it wasn't intended to be?

Why do you think that tonal music has needed "training wheels"? Doesn't that tell you something about your classifying it as "representational," and as being in the same category as representational visual art?

Why do you think that program music which tried to be as "representational" as possible ended up actually mimicking/imitating the sounds of things in reality? Do you think that maybe it was because that's what the term "representation" actually means?

Why is the idea of program music -- music with external program notes -- perfectly acceptable to Objectivish-types, but the idea of external gallery notes accompanying abstract visual art is extremely upsetting and something to be fiercely ridiculed as being overwhelmingly conclusive evidence that abstract visual art has absolutely no effect whatsoever on its own?

Do you think that it is reasonable to consider the idea that it might be possible that the reason that Objectivish-types get so uptight and upset about others' responses to abstract paintings and sculptures is that maybe the O-types are resentful of people who don't need "training wheels" when it comes to visual art?

In post 781 I reminded you of some revious issues that you haven't addressed:

Quote

As I've said many times in many Objectivish fora, art is like a transmitter, and viewers are like receivers. The Objectivist Esthetics instructs the receivers that they are to judge the quality of the transmitter and its transmissions. In doing so, it doesn't address the possibility that the receivers might malfunction or be limited in some way -- that all receivers might not have the equal ability to receive transmissions clearly. The Objectivist Esthetics only addresses the issue of the transmitter's functioning or malfunctioning, and how it is to be judged. But if we are to be truly objective about it, don't we have to test and judge the levels at which both the transmitter and the receivers are functioning? If a receiver doesn't receive a message -- or even if several receivers don't -- is it rational to conclude that the transmitter failed to transmit?

What I find interesting are three things:

1) The "receivers" who are the most passionate about asserting that the limited range of frequencies that they are capable of receiving are the only valid frequencies in existence, and that all other receivers are lying or "rationalizing" when they claim to receive information on other frequencies, tend to associate or congregate only with similarly limited receivers, and, when discussing transmission/reception theory, they actively limit themselves to "learning" only from teachers who share their limitations and their belief that there are no receivable frequencies outside of those that they personally receive.

2) These limited "receivers" tend to act as if their congregating is somehow proof that there are no receivable frequencies outside of those that they receive. They seem to feel that their gathering en masse somehow constitutes objective proof that no receiver has abilities beyond their own. When congregated, they like to laugh at other receivers who claim to receive more frequencies.

3) The "receivers" who are limited in range of frequencies often show themselves to be incapable of receiving transmissions even well within the limited range that they accept as valid. When tested in that range, they reveal that they haven't received the transmissions as clearly as those who can receive more frequencies. They miss obvious things that were transmitted. They imagine receiving things that weren't transmitted. They garble meanings. Yet they insist that they're accurately receiving the transmissions within that range, and that anyone who says otherwise is lying, delusional, rationalizing, etc.

You, Roger, are that type of receiver -- the type that believes that no receiver could possibly function at a higher level, and that it is insulting and disgusting for anyone to even suggest that you are anything but the perfect, ultimate, top-of-the-line receiver.

Quote

The Objectivist notion of objective judgment is that it is the process of volitionally adhering to reality by following logic and reason using a clearly identified objective standard. If you're claiming that judgments of beauty are objective, could you please prove it by clearly identifying the objective standards that you use in judging beauty, and explain the process of employing logic and reason that you follow when making judgments of beauty.

A new unanswered question comes from post 890:

Quote

"Which works of visual art do you, with your superior and purely objective tastes, rate as being worthy of being purchased for prices higher than any other art works? Identify your top five, please."

And here's a bonus oldie-but-goodie post that remains unanswered:

Quote

  Quote 

In the first quote of Linda Mann above, note that she says she expresses her theme by "choosing beautiful objects to paint" (and doing so with a careful, precise style). The ones I saw all contain either well-proportioned man-made objects or healthy specimens of fruits and vegetables.

So, if Linda Mann were to choose colorful, well-proportioned, man-made stone tiles as the "beautiful objects" that she wanted to paint in a still life, and if she were to selectively cut them and arrange them in a manner which pleased her, like this...

...and if she were to then create a painting of them like this...

...the painting would qualify as art according to your criteria, right?

If she were to explain that the theme of the painting is that the world is real, orderly and fascinating and that man is capable of understanding and enjoying it, and that she expressed this theme by choosing beautiful objects to paint, and by creating a composition that is purposeful and intriguing, and that she carefully rendered the objects and romantically enhanced their colors and textures, you'd agree that she succeeded, right?

Anyway, "Roger," when are you going to stop evading, and answer the question that I've asked many times now? The question is not going to go away. When each viewer of a work of visual art has a different opinion of what it means, why is it that your interpretation represents the artwork's "real" or "actual" meaning and anyone who disagrees with you must be "rationalizing"? Why is it that when you can see no meaning where others do, they must be "rationalizing"? By what objective means have you tested and determined that your visual aesthetic capacities and sensitivities are not insufficient compared to those who you claim are "rationalizing"?

Is it even a possibility in your mind that I and others might have visual/spatial abilities that you lack, and which allow us to see and experience things in ways which you'll never comprehend? Is it really so upsetting to consider the possibility that you might be lacking in some areas compared to others, that you might have a visual "tin ear"?

Why do you avoid addressing the issue of a viewer's fitness to judge a work of art, and the relevance that such fitness has in qualifying or disqualifying him to opine on which things other humans can or cannot experience as art?

I'm especially interested in hearing answers to the questions about tonal music's needing "training wheels," and about why an artist who collects round stones, arranges them, and then paints of picture of them is creating art, but another artist who collects stone tiles, arranges them, and then paints a picture of them is not creating art.

Oh, and one more issue that I've raised to many people multiple times, but which still hasn't been addressed by anyone:

Quote

Anyway, it really is astounding that there are people here who hold the position that the abstract compositions of architecture and music can express enough emotion and meaning to qualify as art, but the abstract compositions of abstract paintings cannot. Heh. If I were to show you an abstract composition of forms, and tell you that it's an elevation drawing of a work of architecture, you'd exclaim that it presents great emotional depth and meaning, but if I were to show you the exact same drawing and tell you that it's an abstract painting, you'd say that it's meaningless nonsense and a vicious attack on "man's mind." [Are you seriously incapable of recognizing what a silly position it is assert that you can get deep emotion and meaning out of the proportions of slabs when they're called "architecture," but that other people are being ridiculous when claiming to get the same depth of emotion and meaning out of the same proportions of the same slabs when they're called "abstract sculpture"?]

---

Come on, kids. Think for yourselves. Rand didn't address these issues, and isn't around to tell you what to think. Put on your grownup philosopher panties and try to address the substance of the challenges. Evading, blanking out, and pouting isn't working.

J

[BaalChatzaf]

Jonathan.  You are asking for objectivity in the land of subjectivity.  I suspect you know  you will not get the response you are pretending to elicit.  

[Jonathan]

3 minutes ago, BaalChatzaf said:

Jonathan.  You are asking for objectivity in the land of subjectivity.  I suspect you know  you will not get the response you are pretending to elicit.  

Indeed. The questions will not be answered. They're fundamental questions that hadn't even occurred to Objectivism's posing and preening "scholars" and pretend experts/authorities, and they're all too deeply invested in their beliefs now to admit to having overlooked such obvious and rudimentary issues.

I don't expect answers from Rand's followers, but I would at least respect their acknowledgement of the significance of the issues I've raised. I have zero respect for the evasions, the censoring and the pouting. Those tactics are, frankly, despicable.

J

[anthony]

https://www.facebook.com/fantasticworld/?hc_ref=NEWSFEED

[anthony]

"...the abstract compositions of architecture and music..." (J)

"Abstract"?!! Sez who? You?

Is music sound? Does one's hearing perceive sound? Can one's hearing and mind perceive a ~different and varying~ arrangement of sounds-- melody, notes, chords, etc. etc.? Can one distinguish distinct musical instruments? and so on ... without requiring any expertise in music.

"Abstract"--because music is not a 'solid' existent ...ha! talk about anti-conceptual mindsets.

So. Music has identity, and each musical piece its own identity, which can be identified by consciousness. i.e. it is NOT "abstract". Emotional value-judgements and our concepts are 'affirmed' by our percepts of music. i.e. music has objective value(or, at times, little or none).

Go read the Manifesto again. Rather don't. You have often, and clearly evade understanding much in it. Your underhand and second-hand misrepresentations of the book only persuade those few who can't be bothered to thoroughly study it themselves. For many years this has been your one weapon.

Rand spent about 25 pages on music, and its notable differences from other arts, particularly man's absorption of it.You have been deliberately and deceitfully treating the visual and auditory arts the same, and slipping in your prefered "abstract" to try to validate unrecognizable ('abstract') 'art'.

To say nothing of the mystique/mysticism allocated to the word "abstract". Some guy or other had to first dub unintelligible paintings by that term. A smart PR man, maybe, and after that it penetrated to the credulous public. The word is man made, yes? like art is. It didn't come down from a Heavenly Authority. Believing in 'The Word' over senses and reason is actually simple intrinsicism, and intrinsicism-empiricism go well together, specially in your case.

[Jonathan]

1 hour ago, anthony said:

"...the abstract compositions of architecture and music..." (J)

"Abstract"?!! Sez who? You?

Sez reality. Also, sez Rand. Remember, dippy, that she said that architecture "does not re-create reality.” That means it’s not representational. Art which is not representational must be abstract. She also said that music cannot convey specific entities, ideas or states. That means it is not representational. Art which is not representational is abstract.
 

1 hour ago, anthony said:

Is music sound? Does one's hearing perceive sound? Can one's hearing and mind perceive a ~different and varying~ arrangement of sounds-- melody, notes, chords, etc. etc.? Can one distinguish distinct musical instruments? and so on ... without requiring any expertise in music.

Let’s apply the exact same method to visuals:

Is abstract visual art visual? Does one's sight perceive visuals? Can one's eyes and mind perceive a ~different and varying~ arrangements of forms -- colors, textures, shapes, etc. etc.? Can one distinguish distinct colors and shapes? and so on ... without requiring any expertise in visuals.

 

1 hour ago, anthony said:

"Abstract"--because music is not a 'solid' existent ...ha! talk about anti-conceptual mindsets.

No, dopey, not because it’s “not a ‘solid existent.’” Music is abstract because it does not present readily identifiable aural likenesses of things in reality, just as abstract visual art does not present readily identifiable visual likenesses of things in reality.

 

1 hour ago, anthony said:

So. Music has identity, and each musical piece its own identity, which can be identified by consciousness. i.e. it is NOT "abstract".

Everything has identity, tard, including abstract visual art. Abstract visual art can be identified as abstract visual art by the consciousness, therefore, by your illogical method above, abstract visual art is NOT “abstract.” Nothing is!

Moron.

 

1 hour ago, anthony said:

Emotional value-judgements and our concepts are 'affirmed' by our percepts of music. i.e. music has objective value(or, at times, little or none).

The above has no relevance to whether or not something qualifies as art. The same can be said of abstract visual art, as well as many things which are not art. Besides, the idea of "emotional value-judgments" being "affirmed" by "our percepts of music" would be what is known as "subjectivity."

 

1 hour ago, anthony said:

Go read the Manifesto again. Rather don't. You have often, and clearly evade understanding much in it. Your underhand and second-hand misrepresentations of the book only persuade those few who can't be bothered to thoroughly study it themselves. For many years this has been your one weapon.

My “weapon” is a pretty damned good one, since none of you Rand-followers can answer it!

 

1 hour ago, anthony said:

Rand spent about 25 pages on music, and its notable differences from other arts, particularly man's absorption of it.

She should have spent that time actually studying music, rather than just bloviating without having studied it. She should have learned, for example, how to play musical instruments, compose, etc., before posing on an expert. She knew very little about the subject.

 

1 hour ago, anthony said:

You have been deliberately and deceitfully treating the visual and auditory arts the same, and slipping in your prefered "abstract" to try to validate unrecognizable ('abstract') 'art'.

I haven't been deceitful at all. You only see me as deceitful because all of your opinions come from believing Rand, instead of from actually having learned real knowledge.

Stop bluffing and evading. Prove that music meets Rand’s criteria. I don’t accept your assertions about it, just as you don’t accept the assertions of fans of abstract visual art. I’m simply applying your own criteria to you.
 

1 hour ago, anthony said:

To say nothing of the mystique/mysticism allocated to the word "abstract". Some guy or other had to first dub unintelligible paintings by that term. A smart PR man, maybe, and after that it penetrated to the credulous public. The word is man made, yes? like art is. It didn't come down from a Heavenly Authority. Believing in 'The Word' over senses and reason is actually simple intrinsicism, and intrinsicism-empiricism go well together, specially in your case.

There’s no "mystique/mysticism” involved. Other people simply don’t share your personal limitations.

J

[BaalChatzaf]

1 hour ago, Jonathan said:

Sez reality. Also, sez Rand. Remember, dippy, that she said that architecture "does not re-create reality.” That means it’s not representational. Art which is not representational must be abstract. She also said that music cannot convey specific entities, ideas or states. That means it is not representational. Art which is not representational is abstract.

I wouldn't say that.  The opening music of "An American in Paris" by George Gershwin  paints a sound portrait  of  busy, busy traffic in the circle about the Arc de Triomphe.   The music is very suggestive and there is really only one way to "visualize" it. 

[Brant Gaede]

8 minutes ago, BaalChatzaf said:

I wouldn't say that.  The opening music of "An American in Paris" by George Gershwin  paints a sound portrait  of  busy, busy traffic in the circle about the Arc de Triomphe.   The music is very suggestive and there is really only one way to "visualize" it. 

You had your eyes closed the first time you "watched" the opening?

--Brant

[anthony]

All equivocations, false equivalences and rationalizations. Same old empirical rap posing as intellectualisms. In your anti-intellectual take on it, I believe you think the music must "re-create reality" -physically - in your living room! But of course Rand didn't think of that and "contradicted herself"...! Wow, you do take her very lightly. I have ~a little~ more respect than that, for your mentor, Kant, and I think he was a dreamy fantasist about art, beauty, the sublime.

Um - visual art is the medium of images, musical art is the medium of harmonic, melodic sound.

And to make a real ~musical~ comparison with 'abstract art'?

Completely unharmonic sound. (And easy to make, as well).

Neither makes sense to the eye or the ear - and the mind - whatever a mystical art psychic tells us. Perhaps that's what you call "music", too? 'Abstract music'... why not.

The puzzle is getting clearer to me: 'Abstract art' appeals to those who won't or don't make abstractions for themselves. Unintelligibility on canvas transposes to non-conceptual content in a mind. You have done me a service.

Architecture is another topic, again treated differently. 

[BaalChatzaf]

8 hours ago, Brant Gaede said:

You had your eyes closed the first time you "watched" the opening?

--Brant

Yes, but the music connected to scenes I had visualize at a prior time.  BTW the musical show indicates that I had the same thing in mind as did Gerschwin. So Gerschwin produced in me the same sort of scene he was thinking.  The music conveyed a definite scene so it had a referent.

[Brant Gaede]

1 hour ago, BaalChatzaf said:

Yes, but the music connected to scenes I had visualize at a prior time.  BTW the musical show indicates that I had the same thing in mind as did Gerschwin. So Gerschwin produced in me the same sort of scene he was thinking.  The music conveyed a definite scene so it had a referent.

Okay. And the generalization is respecting music generally and how people can figure out the composer's meaning? And is "meaning" a necessary component of this?

Someone else might not have gone coincidental on what the composer had in mind.

Listening to classical music I visualize all kinds of things--mostly dynamic things--are you saying I'd visualize what you did about this particular piece of music?

--Brant

[Brant Gaede]

9 hours ago, anthony said:

All equivocations, false equivalences and rationalizations. Same old empirical rap posing as intellectualisms. In your anti-intellectual take on it, I believe you think the music must "re-create reality" -physically - in your living room! But of course Rand didn't think of that and "contradicted herself"...! Wow, you do take her very lightly. I have ~a little~ more respect than that, for your mentor, Kant, and I think he was a dreamy fantasist about art, beauty, the sublime.

Um - visual art is the medium of images, musical art is the medium of harmonic, melodic sound.

And to make a real ~musical~ comparison with 'abstract art'?

Completely unharmonic sound. (And easy to make, as well).

Neither makes sense to the eye or the ear - and the mind - whatever a mystical art psychic tells us. Perhaps that's what you call "music", too? 'Abstract music'... why not.

The puzzle is getting clearer to me: 'Abstract art' appeals to those who won't or don't make abstractions for themselves. Unintelligibility on canvas transposes to non-conceptual content in a mind. You have done me a service.

Architecture is another topic, again treated differently. 

You must be addressing J. I think you aren't talking about "art" so much as about your own words. And if it's not "conceptual" in one's mind it's not desirable qua art or anything else? Your arguments seem to appertain to the brain first and the "art" second. Let's jump from art to meditation. It's anti-conceptual, no? Go to a quiet seaside quay. I for one find it very relaxing. Boats coming and going, seagulls, etc. Nothing at all conceptual. I'm out of my common busy, busy (conceptual?) place*. Might not art do the same--an altered state of consciousness? Not that that has to be relaxing or non-conceptual but it might be. As a consumer of art how do we extrapolate from that to what the artist was all about when the art was being made? Maybe the artist was crazy psycho or drunk.

--Brant

*all of which might be a way of switching conceptual gears with an art or other such consequent experience representing "neutral" (sometimes one needs to let go to get new stuff going)

[BaalChatzaf]

1 hour ago, Brant Gaede said:

Okay. And the generalization is respecting music generally and how people can figure out the composer's meaning? And is "meaning" a necessary component of this?

Someone else might not have gone coincidental on what the composer had in mind.

Listening to classical music I visualize all kinds of things--mostly dynamic things--are you saying I'd visualize what you did about this particular piece of music?

--Brant

Classical music is much more abstract.  The Gerschin music was deliberately concrete to match the scene in the performance.  I suspect classical music is much more attuned to "mood" than to scenes which can be visualized.  However  the are portions of Beethoven's Eroica  which clearly "picture"  battle scenes. After all the symphony was inspired by and a response to Napoleon's  doings. 

[anthony]

16 hours ago, BaalChatzaf said:

I wouldn't say that.  The opening music of "An American in Paris" by George Gershwin  paints a sound portrait  of  busy, busy traffic in the circle about the Arc de Triomphe.   The music is very suggestive and there is really only one way to "visualize" it. 

Is it not a particular emotion which is evoked by some music on which one can pin one's thinking? (abstractions). A friend was just telling me how he'd once played a piece for his son and asked him to imagine an Army marching home after a battle. The question he asked was did they lose or win? The boy instantly replied "they won of course!" - he was an untrained seven y.o. and recognised the triumphal music (of 'Aida'), and could already abstract an image and a thought.  I think theres an almost unlimited musical 'vocabulary' (the large array of instrumentation and the manner specific instruments are played, is alone a huge variable) by which composers (inc. rock and ballads, etc.) are able to suggest any emotions, but the piece has to have a minimum basic structure and its development listened to over a progressive time frame to have a "suggestive" effect. Unlike 'abstract' art. Totally different perceptual processes. Abstractions from 'abstractions' (visual), don't work. A consciousness has limits.

[Jonathan]

15 hours ago, BaalChatzaf said:

I wouldn't say that.  The opening music of "An American in Paris" by George Gershwin  paints a sound portrait  of  busy, busy traffic in the circle about the Arc de Triomphe.   The music is very suggestive and there is really only one way to "visualize" it. 

You may believe that, but we'd need more than your belief. We'd need proof. Actual scientific proof. We'd need scientific testing of people who had never heard the music, and who were not exposed to any of what Rand called "outside considerations," such as the music's title, the composer's statements, the musical and film that the music inspired, or cultural discussions about the music or film, etc.

For what it's worth, I'm not saying music can't approach representation. Composers sometimes include readily identifiable likenesses of things in reality, such as birdsong, hoofbeats, etc. But most composers consider such things to be gimmicks which they see as "extramusical" elements -- aspects that are outside of the true nature of music.

People can easily be led to believe that they heard something in a piece of music without relying on "outside considerations," but in reality, they were actually exposed to quite a lot of detailed knowledge prior to hearing the piece.

"Why, yes, I read the title of the piece, as well as the program notes just prior to listening, and I had heard others discussing the piece and its intended meaning, and their views about how well it works with the images in the film that it inspired, but, no, I didn't allow any of that to influence me. Trust me, all of that information had no bearing whatsoever on how I interpreted the piece! There is only one way to visualize the music, and I would have visualized in that way even without having been exposed to all of the explanations of how I was supposed to visualize it. I just know I would have!"

Sorry, but your anecdotal opinions and beliefs aren't enough.

J

[Thorn]

14 hours ago, anthony said:

All equivocations, false equivalences and rationalizations. Same old empirical rap posing as intellectualisms. In your anti-intellectual take on it, I believe you think the music must "re-create reality" -physically - in your living room! But of course Rand didn't think of that and "contradicted herself"...! Wow, you do take her very lightly. I have ~a little~ more respect than that, for your mentor, Kant, and I think he was a dreamy fantasist about art, beauty, the sublime

Calling it so won't make it so.

[anthony]

6 hours ago, Brant Gaede said:

You must be addressing J. I think you aren't talking about "art" so much as about your own words. And if it's not "conceptual" in one's mind it's not desirable qua art or anything else? Your arguments seem to appertain to the brain first and the "art" second. Let's jump from art to meditation. It's anti-conceptual, no? Go to a quiet seaside quay. I for one find it very relaxing. Boats coming and going, seagulls, etc. Nothing at all conceptual. I'm out of my common busy, busy (conceptual?) place*. Might not art do the same--an altered state of consciousness? Not that that has to be relaxing or non-conceptual but it might be. As a consumer of art how do we extrapolate from that to what the artist was all about when the art was being made? Maybe the artist was crazy psycho or drunk.

--Brant

*all of which might be a way of switching conceptual gears with an art or other such consequent experience representing "neutral" (sometimes one needs to let go to get new stuff going)

Yes, it was J I was addressing. That's a good question about meditation vis a vis the desirability of (lets say) "soothing" imagery. A juxtaposition or blend of colours can have an effect which will be efficacious and relaxing. (As I see it, one's mind can take a break every so often from all the "focusing"). At times, simply 'looking' at natural things (without analysing anything) is similar although better, I believe. But do such mood images have to be called "art"? There's quite a few alternative names. Especially considering that there are countless realist paintings which can 'soothe' too, cleverly employing the same colours, lines, et al - the stylistic technique ... plus content. Content and beauty/technical beauty are co-existents, but the subject is the base.

Yes for sure. Consciousness precedes art - as with anything man-made - creating or viewing. Art is not a metaphysical given.

And ~how~ one thinks ( how one regards reality and uses reason), is exposed in art debates even more than 'normal' topics (e.g. politics) so that's why such contrasting philosophies are coming out of the woodwork here.

[Jonathan]

14 hours ago, anthony said:

All equivocations, false equivalences and rationalizations. Same old empirical rap posing as intellectualisms. In your anti-intellectual take on it, I believe you think the music must "re-create reality" -physically - in your living room!

Um, I've already told you that that is not my position. I know that you wish that it is my position so that you can argue against it, but it's not my position. Wishing won't make it so. Address my argument rather than the ones that you've assigned to me but which I don't hold.

Answer the questions that I've put to you and all other Rand-followers, rather than arguing against straw men.

 

14 hours ago, anthony said:

I have ~a little~ more respect than that, for your mentor, Kant, and I think he was a dreamy fantasist about art, beauty, the sublime.

Heh. Kant is not my mentor. If he was anyone's mentor in the field of aesthetics, he was Rand's. She adopted his concept of the Sublime as her signature artistic style. (As an artist, I have not adopted it as mine -- I'm not attracted to painting the Sublime).

 

14 hours ago, anthony said:

Um - visual art is the medium of images, musical art is the medium of harmonic, melodic sound.

And to make a real ~musical~ comparison with 'abstract art'?

Completely unharmonic sound. (And easy to make, as well).

So, you're saying that harmony is enough to make music non-abstract?

Well, then, by the same standard, visual harmony is enough to make abstract visual art non-abstract!

 

14 hours ago, anthony said:

Neither makes sense to the eye or the ear - and the mind - whatever a mystical art psychic tells us.

Neither makes sense to whom? To you? Where is your proof that it makes no sense to anyone? And, more importantly, where is your proof that any work of alleged art has ever made any sense to you or to any other Rand-follower?

You have no such proof. All that you have is arbitrary assertions that the art forms that you like have met your shifting criteria, and that the art forms that you don't like (the ones that Rand told you not to like) don't meet your criteria. You have no proof that anything has ever met your criteria.

 

14 hours ago, anthony said:

Architecture is another topic, again treated differently. 

Yes, it's "another topic," in that Rand accepted it as something which "re-creates reality" while explicitly saying that it "does not re-create reality."

Hahahaha!

J

[anthony]

54 minutes ago, Thorn said:

Calling it so won't make it so.

Correct. And calling it not-so won't make it not-so. I think you must have gathered there are broadly two different philosophies pertaining to art here. But I'm always happy to hear what the Kantian side has to say.

[Jonathan]

19 minutes ago, anthony said:

Correct. And calling it not-so won't make it not-so. I think you must have gathered there are broadly two different philosophies pertaining to art here. But I'm always happy to hear what the Kantian side has to say.

Wow, what a devastating zinger! The Kantians are attacking!

Heh.

And yet the fact still remains that my challenges remain unanswered, both by Rand's dumbest followers and her brightest. Nothing has ever been shown to qualify as art by the Objectivist Esthetics, nor by any of Rand's followers' personal variations on the Objectivist Esthetics.

We're six pages into this thread, and my challenges remain unmet. All that Rand's followers have to offer is evasion, bluff, distraction and pouting.

J

[BaalChatzaf]

4 hours ago, Jonathan said:

 

 

Yes, it's "another topic," in that Rand accepted it as something which "re-creates reality" while explicitly saying that it "does not re-create reality."

Hahahaha!

J

Making a tea-cup  recreates a bagel.  At least topologists think so..