Architecture -- art or not?? (2006)

[Brant Gaede]

There is no such thing as a "science of esthetics" nor can there be. Esthetics belongs to the liberal arts where all and sundry can romp and roam to their hearts' content.

--Brant the Stomper

even call it "science"

[Jonathan]

Safe Space = somewhere that Jonathan is not allowed to shriek condemnations and insults and hurl verbal feces at those who disagree with him.

I didn't hurl verbal feces at you in the post that you deleted. Rather, I hurled substantive criticism which you can't answer. Criticisms that you can't handle are not allowed in your Safe Space.

Sure, I spend time there. But I do it there constructively, as I will consider doing here, once the insanity stops gushing from the angry, pouty little princess in Minnesota, who seems trapped in an endless loop of PMS. Demands and bashing do not work, Princess Jonathan. Take a deep breath, and let your hormones simmer down to a mild roar. You're only diminishing yourself by your behavior.

Still no answers to my questions. Still no substance. You're not up to the task. Bluff, bluster, evasions, whining and distractions. Intellectual feces. Poseur. Pretender.

J

[Jonathan]

AR: "The esthetic principles which apply to all art, regardless of an individual artist's philosophy, and which must guide an objective evaluation ... are defined by the science of esthetics--a task at which modern philosophers have failed dismally" [TRM]

Hahahaha! Thanks, Tony. That's the statement from Rand that I mentioned earlier. It's the one where she posed as being supperior to other thinkers on the issue of the aesthetic principles that apply to all art, and then immediately passed on identifying those principles herself, while stating that they were "outside of the scope" of the discussion. Hahahaha!!! Agree with them or not, the other philosophers at least addressed the issue. They made the attempt. They stepped up to the plate. Rand didn't. She didn't even rise to the level of "failing dismally." All that she delivered on the issue was smugness.

J

[anthony]

There is no such thing as a "science of esthetics" nor can there be. Esthetics belongs to the liberal arts where all and sundry can romp and roam to their hearts' content.

--Brant the Stomper

even call it "science"

Sorry to break it to you. That's what artists go to art school for. It's the techniques of art, the "science" of aesthetics, they study. Those elements of painting I mentioned now, have to be learned, by theory and by examining loads of past Masters' works. Ask our local artist, he could provide reams of theory on color, perspective, 'vanishing-points' - and all of it. There are 'conventions' of beauty in art, which have consistently stood the test of time, which viewers respond well to and which are long-practised. After knowing them, an artist can use or modify or discard the conventions or standards as he sees fit - to his heart's content, quite -and run them through his creative processes to be integrated into his unique, final image.

What we do need more info on, is why and how man reacts to beauty, and I gather there are new empirical studies, on-going. For a long time, it is likely AR's "failed dismally" was about right. Philosophically, the *objective value* of beauty to man also may need work.

[Brant Gaede]

There is no such thing as a "science of esthetics" nor can there be. Esthetics belongs to the liberal arts where all and sundry can romp and roam to their hearts' content.

--Brant the Stomper

even call it "science"

Sorry to break it to you. That's what artists go to art school for. It's the techniques of art, the "science" of aesthetics, they study. Those elements of painting I mentioned now, have to be learned, by theory and by examining loads of past masters' works. Ask our local artist, he could provide reams of theory on color, perspective, 'vanishing-points' and the rest. There are 'conventions' of beauty in art, which have consistently stood the test of time, which viewers respond well to and which are well known. After knowing them, an artist can use or modify the standards as he sees fit -to his heart's content, quite -and run them through his creative processes to be integrated into his unique, final image.

What we do need more info on, is why and how man reacts to beauty, but I've noticed there are new empirical studies on-going.

That's what Rand was about? How to apply white so it won't crack?

--Brant

and that was the end of art school for me (Capuletti)

[Roger Bissell]

A good, objective definition of "beauty"? Read the discussion of the good as "agent-relative" in Norms of Liberty by Douglas Rasmussen and Douglas Den Uyl, and then apply that to the nature of beauty. That is my view. Buy the book, read it, think about it, do what you will with the information. But I will not discuss it with you here.

[Jonathan]

That's a typical goose chase tactic of chickenshit Objectivish-types who can't answer the challenges in front of them: "Go read a source I've cited, and find my argument for me. It's in there somewhere. The onus isn't on me to prove my assertions, but, rather, you have the onus of hunting down my alleged proof."

Of course, the cited source never ends up addressing the specific challenges that the chickenshit Objectivish poseur is facing.

Heh. But anyway, so your position is that judgments of beauty are "agent-relative"? Hahaha! In other words, they are subjective!

"Agent-relativity" (subjectivity) in aesthetic tastes and interpretations would preclude your desire to impose normativity on aesthetic responses. One cannot prescribe what others "should" or "ought to" find to be beautiful if beauty is "agent-relative." Do you seriously not grasp that?!!!

Good lord, frickin' amateur hour!

J

Heh. I should tally up the number of times in the past year that you've huffily puffily snootily declared that you wouldn't be continuing to discuss anything with me, and then you came right back to whine and squeal some more about what poor little victim you were. My favorite example was when you stupidly dragged your wife's idiotic emotional ejaculation of personal incredulity into the discussion, then realized that you didn't want to discuss that idiocy, and then made the hilarious "nonnegotiable" threat that you would never discuss anything with me ever again if I mentioned her and her opinion. You would deprive me of the pleasure and awe of you participation! I've mentioned her and her idiotic comment multiple times since then, and yet you keep coming back. So much for the "nonnegotiable" threat. Heh.

[Wolf DeVoon]

"Agent-relativity" (subjectivity) in aesthetic tastes and interpretations would preclude your desire to impose normativity on aesthetic responses. One cannot prescribe what others "should" or "ought to" find to be beautiful if beauty is "agent-relative." Do you seriously not grasp that?!!!

Good lord, frickin' amateur hour!

Worse: he thinks that an agent viewing a work of art interacts with it and modifies it, like a car crash.

[Roger Bissell]

Agent-relative does not mean "subjective." If you had read Norms of Liberty by Rasmussen and Den Uyl, you would know that. But you are not interested in knowing that. You are interested in me trying to explain it here, so you can warp, distort, ridicule, trash me and the web site. You are already doing a good enough job of that...

Life is full of interesting things to do. Trying to engage in substantive discussion with a psychotic princess from Minnesota is not one of them.

[Selene]

St. John's boy...

http://www.libertarianism.org/people/douglas-rasmussen

[anthony]

Reverting to the common error that "objective" = empirical, or universalizable.

"Subjective" (like, "objective") will depend on oneself. To the degree one is, will one find and consider things as "subjective" - variably, by varying standards. Not what it is, but as one wishes it to be, at any time. Agent relative sounds spot on, if I have it right.

[anthony]

An irony I've sensed: apparently, it is Rand who limited one's appreciation of art and beauty by her constricting, 'judgmental' theory. Obversely, it's considered that beauty and the sublime permit full freedom of expression and emotional licence.

A false dichotomy and untrue.

Changing ('secularizing') one's view of art is a lot like deciding to become an atheist, where one renounces what isn't real, for what is. One determines that within the wide bounds of reality and one's consciousness is an almost unlimited scope for the real enjoyment of living, unhampered by mystical, supernatural concerns- which is liberating, never confining.

And could anyone believe that that emotion of sublime/glory felt (amongst many others) as a response to art will ... disappear? The effects of beauty, too? By all that 'identifying' and 'moralizing' about the content of art? An emotion is an emotion, a proper human response to a real thing ("what is it?") and to one's life-view ("which values?"). Emotion hasn't any relation to mysticism, which it might seem to resemble . With the Objective option, like turning atheist, nothing in reality changes - those selfsame emotions remain and likely intensify. But one's range expands: of art understanding, art's conceptual benefits and a personal upliftment (right- selfish!). You can have your sublime cake, and eat it too.

So who explicitly gives the greater worth to art and artists, Kant or Rand? The not-realist or the realist?

[Jonathan]

Agent-relative does not mean "subjective."

Semantic games? Let me guess. As is quite common in Objectivish circles, you have your own special little personal definition of what "subjective" means (or "should" or "ought to mean"), which allows you to label your subjective judgments as something other than subjectivity, just like you have your own special little personal definition of "representational" which allows you to categorize non-representation art that you like as qualifying as art.

If you had read either my December 2015 JARS essay or Norms of Liberty by Rasmussen and Den Uyl, you would know that.

Ok my God! You've been published in JARS? Holy shnikie! Thanks for telling us that rather than providing an actual argument!

Um, have you ever been published in any journals other than JARS (or similar publications which are owned and managed by like-minded folks who are your personal friends)?

But you are not interested in knowing that. You are interested in me trying to explain it here, so you can warp, distort, ridicule, trash me and the web site. You are already doing a good enough job of it, without me giving you more red meat.

Oh, I'm doing a fabulous job of substantively criticizing your ideas. I've issued many challenges that you can't answer, and, in the very rare instances when you've had the courage to attempt to face a challenge or two, you've failed miserably. Your aesthetic theories don't hold up in reality.

There *is* red meat over in my Corner...

On some subjects other than aesthetics, I don't doubt that you have some "red meat."

...in which you are not allowed to carry on your standard feces-slinging. Perhaps I will write up my ideas on the non-subjective agent-relativity of beauty there - or maybe I'll write them up for a forthcoming JARS article. Or both. Or neither. Life is full of interesting things to do..

You do that. Let me know when you think you've delivered some "red meat" on the subjects of beauty and other aesthetic judgments being objective, and how you imagine that "agent-relativity" somehow allows you to impose normativity on aesthetic judgments so that you can tell others what they "should" or "ought to" find to be beautiful, or delicious, or campy, or charming, etc.

I won't be holding my breath while waiting.

Trying to engage in substantive discussion with a psychotic princess from Minnesota is not one of them.

Oh, I know that you're not used to substantive criticism. You're used to soft pitches from friends from within the Objectivist cloisters. So when you're faced with real world criticism, you can't handle it. Why, someone is actually successfully refuting you positions! We can't have that! Heh.

J

[Ellen Stuttle]

[Rand] bitched that modern philosophy was dismally inept when it came to the subject of evaluating artistry, but then just passed on the subject claiming that it was "outside the scope of this discussion." Heh. It is the single most important issue of aesthetics as it pertains to art, but she just skipped it, while pissing on others who had the courage not to skip it.

The subject of evaluating artistry was outside the scope of the discussion wherein she issued a parenthetical warning against confusing "sense of life" response with judgment of artistic competence.

And it wasn't incumbent on her to tackle the general subject of evaluating artistry in some other essay. She had plenty else to write about. Her writings on art focused primarily on her theory of the nature, the source, and the need for art. She wasn't writing on art from the standpoint of an aesthetician, though she did briefly address some aesthetic issues pertaining to literature in her essay "The Basic Principles of Literature" (and I suppose in her fiction-writing workshop).

Ellen

[Ellen Stuttle]

[Roger's] wife's idiotic emotional ejaculation of personal incredulity [...] I've mentioned her and her idiotic comment multiple times since then[.]

You indeed have mentioned the comment multiple times. If what Becky was being incredulous about was your attribution of discursive-assertions meanings to a couple "abstract" paintings, then I see nothing "idiotic" in her reaction.

Ellen

[anthony]

[Rand] bitched that modern philosophy was dismally inept when it came to the subject of evaluating artistry, but then just passed on the subject claiming that it was "outside the scope of this discussion." Heh. It is the single most important issue of aesthetics as it pertains to art, but she just skipped it, while pissing on others who had the courage not to skip it.

The subject of evaluating artistry was outside the scope of the discussion wherein she issued a parenthetical warning against confusing "sense of life" response with judgment of artistic competence.

And it wasn't incumbent on her to tackle the general subject of evaluating artistry in some other essay. She had plenty else to write about. Her writings on art focused primarily on her theory of the nature, the source, and the need for art. She wasn't writing on art from the standpoint of an aesthetician, though she did briefly address some aesthetic issues pertaining to literature in her essay "The Basic Principles of Literature" (and I suppose in her fiction-writing workshop).

Ellen

Ellen: Thanks, this is necessarily and accurately pointed out. "[A]esthetics" has been the cause of confusion and diversions right through these discussions. One party presumes it's this, the other assumes it means that. Attempts at explaining the distinction have fallen flat.

The notion has been gathering steam for me that a few philosophers introduced their adapted brand of the concept of "aesthetics" -- central and foundational to Kant's philosophy, in particular.

With Rand, it was clearly "art" -as a whole- she integrated into hers.

I consider her "esthetics" the classical kind (as I broadly see it, the study of the nature of beauty and of the methodology and technique of the artistic reproduction-creation of beauty) and as you write she indicated, not central to her composite theory although badly requiring much separate study.

I'm thinking it could be said that Kant, etc. brought in an idiosynchratic, 'modern' aesthetics-meaning, incorporating a package deal of art plus philosophy which has persisted since.

[Brant Gaede]

I don't see how "beauty" can be basic to esthetics per se, but only an aspect thereof--and hard to pin down regardless. The nature of the beast, however, is you can have it your way (supply words) and others can have it their ways (supply words), but no one gets a monopoly on truth. Making sense should be helpful and interesting, although saying esthetics, for instance, is generally amendable to science is good luck at the border with that!

--Brant

(there's a wall)

[anthony]

Succinctly put. The esthetic question all boils down to: is beauty comprehensible, or is it not?

Evidently, the human brain responds well to beauty. So then, why? how?

It is also clearly re-creatable/reproducible by the artists, but by what means?

That beauty has objective value to man, is clear. That it can be 'measured' empirically, unclear.

Only queries this far, and one can guess some of it, but eventual answers will have to come from any number of disciplines combined.

(I have a naive theory for beauty in art. Maybe, not that fanciful. I've watched and photographed bees in our flowers, and of course - with prior knowledge and observation - one grasps the sense of the vivid colours and the scent as the draw for them - but their *purpose* goes much further than only attraction. One knows that it's the pollen they seek and need, to immerse their bodies in. Here is causality, 'beauty' as the bait, and 'content' as the pay-off.

Beauty + content -- inseparable )

[Brant Gaede]

Succinctly put. The esthetic question all boils down to: is beauty comprehensible, or is it not?

Evidently, the human brain responds well to beauty. So then, why? how?

It is also clearly re-creatable/reproducible by the artists, but by what means?

That beauty has objective value to man, is clear. That it can be 'measured' empirically, unclear.

Only queries this far, and one can guess some of it, but eventual answers will have to come from any number of disciplines combined.

(I have a naive theory for beauty in art. Maybe, not that improbable. I've watched and photographed bees in our flowers, and of course - with prior knowledge and observation - one grasps the sense of the vivid colours and the scent as the draw for them - but their *purpose* goes much further than only attraction. One knows that it's the pollen they seek and need, to immerse their bodies in. Here is causality, beauty as the hook, and "content" as the pay-off.

Beauty + content -- inseparable )

Just as you can define "beauty" into existence, you can define it out. "Objective value to man" is not objective value to a man. A man values, "man" does not. "Man" is just a concept; there is no empirical way to find man valuing anything. For that you need men (and women and children). Then you'll find out all actual valuing is subjective. The objective values for man require pure abstraction to a fixed idea. "A value" to a man does not answer the question of value experienced and desired. If a man is starving but has lots of water he'll thank God for the pizza delivery. If he has no water and is passing out from dehydration, what value is the pizza? The objectification is man needs food and water (and clothes [usually] and air and shelter and companionship, etc.) Air? A man always needs air? Not if he's hanging himself. The real question is how much? He may not experience any valuing for air whatsoever--until he starts to drown. Then--above everything.

BTW, where is the "beauty" in "Guernica"?

--Brant

[Jonathan]

[Roger's] wife's idiotic emotional ejaculation of personal incredulity [...] I've mentioned her and her idiotic comment multiple times since then[.]

You indeed have mentioned the comment multiple times. If what Becky was being incredulous about was your attribution of discursive-assertions meanings to a couple "abstract" paintings, then I see nothing "idiotic" in her reaction.

Ellen

As I've observed in the past, the personally incredulous tend to congregate, and to belive their amassing of their fallacious "arguments from personal incredulity" somehow magically adds up to something that is not fallacious. The fallacy of the "argument from personal incredulity" times 7 equals a non-fallacy? Heh.

J

[Jonathan]

And it wasn't incumbent on her to tackle the general subject of evaluating artistry in some other essay.

When an arts theorist publicly snarls and sneers that all others are dismally inept and horribly ickily stankily inferior on a given subject, it IS incumbent on her to tackle the subject, and to do better than those nasty poopy others. She passed on the essential issue of aesthetics. It is THE make-or-break issue. It is the requisite yet absent foundation for any claim of objectivity in aesthetic judgment. It is the required evidence and proof. And she passed on providing it.

J

[Jonathan]

I wanted to mention that Roger is not the first Objectivish-type I've encountered who wanted to believe that his emotional responses were not subjective. Pigero and Marcus did the same on SOLO back in 2009 on the Music of the Gods thread. They believed that they were exempt from Rand's explicit statement that one's "sense of life" and all other emotions are not valid criteria of objective aesthetic judgment. They believed that their own emotions were not subjective, but were instead "objective but personal."

Their little theory was that they could program their emotions by having the proper, objective values. If they diligently and objectively chose their values, the values would be integrated into their subconscious, and their emotions would then become "objective" (because their emotions would become based on their objectively chosen values).

They could then skip the Objectivist process of objectivity, which is to volitionally adhere to reality by applying the rules logic and reason to any given individual situation. They believed that they had pre-established/certified their objectivity, and therefore didn't need to deal with the hassle of thinking about issues on a case by case basis, but could just disregard the requirement of gathering evidence and weighing arguments, and instead just whip out their objectivity pre-certification card and rely on their ignorant feelings as being "objective" and reliable. And their feelings should be the "objective" basis for normative judgments in aesthetics. Others "should" or "ought to" conform to their tastes.

It didn't occur to these dunces that anyone could do the same. I'll do it right now. I hereby certify that I have volitionally focused with great diligence, and have objectively chosen life-affirming values. I've lived these values for decades and have absorbed and integrated them. Therefore my aesthetic, emotional tastes, responses and interpretations are objective, and anyone who wishes to be considered rational and objective "should" or "ought to" conform to my "objective but personal" emotions, or, as Roger wants to call them, my objectively "agent-relative" emotions. I have pre-certified my emotions as being more objective than anyone else's, so submit to my aesthetic superiority and authority.

J

[Brant Gaede]

Esthetics is without the moral, philosophical normative. It's okay to add it on but then you are out of esthetics, primarily, into philosophy. Philosophy itself can be described the same way except when the normative is applied you are still in philosophy as in use of, not philosophy as a discipline per se. (Yes, you can say you're still in esthetics, too, but there's no need for that level of the arcane.)

Philosophy is, basically, the is, the ought and the should be, the operating software of the human, cognitive, free-willed mind. If it's good and correct it is either already part of Objectivism or should be added to it removing any thing contradictory. This is not happening because that's not the way of Objectivism by its significant adherents, starting with Ayn Rand. It's only lip service. That's why Objectivism is dead in the water instead of growing and evolving for the last 50 years, so lacking in humanity for lacking humans.

--Brant

[Jonathan]

The problem with Roger and similar Objectivish intellectual poseurs is that almost all of their "knowledge" comes from Rand and similar thinkers who share the same Objectivish limitations and biases. They're not actually educated. They're not familiar with the arguments that have been made, the ideas that have been covered, or even the terms that have been used throughout history. They flounder and flail, and founder and fail, when challenged with freshman-level Real-World Aesthetics 101 issues which they reveal themselves to have never heard of or imagined or contemplated.

Then they squeal and whine, pose and preen, and dodge and evade. OPSOP: Objectivish Poseur's Standard Operating Procedure.

J

[Jonathan]

She had plenty else to write about. Her writings on art focused primarily on her theory of the nature, the source, and the need for art. She wasn't writing on art from the standpoint of an aesthetician, though she did briefly address some aesthetic issues pertaining to literature in her essay "The Basic Principles of Literature" (and I suppose in her fiction-writing workshop).

Ellen

Right, she did address "some aesthetic issues pertaining to literature," but not the issue of how one might go about making objective aesthetic judgments of literature. Instead, she offered only her subjective preferences in literary style -- what she liked -- and she griped about what she didn't like. No objectivity involved.

J