Art and Subobjectivity

[Roger Bissell]

So, from where I'm sitting, for something to be art it has to be based in reality but cannot replicate it exactly. Visual arts such as painting and other such arts can do so through showing actual physical things witch changes made to them. Literature can do this through creating a microcosm. Music also creates a microcosm (see Victor's thread) which is its route to recreating reality. So there we have covered visual and auditory arts.

Any more new arguments?

Not really, Jeff, just the same old ones I've been making, but which seem to have been overlooked in this thread. If anyone is wondering what entities are re-created in this art form or that art form, they are not looking on the fundamental level. When Rand talks about re-creating reality, she means the creation of an imaginary world in which the content in that world (entities, melodies, etc.) embody certain general ideas about the world and life. I.e., the "reality" re-created in art is not (basically) a THING from reality, but a WORLD. When we contemplate an artwork -- whether literary, musical, or visual -- we are entering into an alternate universe, as it were. Peikoff discusses this in OPAR. Susanne Langer (Feeling and Form) also argued that art was, across the board, the creation of a semblance that presented a world. I delve into her thought, very complementary to Rand's, in my 2005 JARS essay, which you can read here:

Langer and Camus: Unexpected Post-Kantian Affinities with Rand's Aesthetics

In regard to music, I'll just offer this one excerpt from my Langer/Camus/Rand essay that is pretty representative of Langer's overall view:

Langer describes music as “a UNIVERSE of pure sound, an

audible WORLD” (104). The primary illusion in music is virtual time

(109), and secondary illusions are virtual space (117) and virtual

motion (108). In music, “the REALM of experience, so radically

changed [from the plastic arts], is entirely full. There are forms in it,

great and small, forms in motion, sometimes converging to make an

impression of complete accomplishment and rest out of their very

motions . . .” (104).

Now, Jeff, before closing, I must say that I'm mildly curious about this music-as-microcosm view in Victor's thread that you mentioned. Could you provide a link in a reply post, so I can look it up?

In the meantime, I strongly recommend my own ART as microcosm viewpoint, which I have held since the early 1970s, and which is presented in my 2004 JARS essay and posted on OL at this location:

Art as Microcosm

Some people seem to be finding this essay a bit more than they want to bite off and chew on. I suggest as an alternative the Langer/Camus/Rand essay linked above.

I may have some comments on Ellen Stuttle's posts, but my time is a bit limited. I would really hope that people would avail themselves of the works that are published and freely provided, rather than trying to re-invent the wheel. Nothing wrong with independent thought, but we all got here -- I presume -- because we found certain PUBLISHED ideas interesting. And some of us are trying our best to continue developing ideas for publication, partly for the purpose of guiding further thought and discussion. Why not take advantage of those efforts?

And Michael, I'm sorry to sound like a broken record, but if you really value my microcosm essay, but find it too difficult for most readers here on OL, please tell me what I can do to make it more accessible. For that matter, I'm still waiting for your review of the essay -- critical and laudatory comments are all welcome!

REB

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Roger,

Shortly. (I know I am behind.)

For the record, I recommended this essay a few times recently. The last was recently on this thread here. Below is what I said:

Roger Bissell makes a compelling case for melodies and harmonic progressions being entities in Art as Microcosm: The Real Meaning of the Objectivist Concept of Art, but this is because he admits the existence of something he calls "virtual entities" and "virtual gestures" and even a "virtual plot." What this means is that the attributes of some entities can be organized in such a manner that they imitate other entities and their attributes and actions. (btw - Roger's idea is that each artwork creates a self-contained parallel reality—a microcosm—where entities exist and/or act, all for our contemplative needs. It is an extremely interesting idea to examine.)

The obvious question is, if you can do that with sound (and that falls under "selective recreation of reality" with both Rand and Bissell), why not with colors and shapes? There is no reason on earth to exclude them other than "I said so." Well, "I said so" is a very poor standard for a definition if it is to correspond to reality. It is a proper standard for a subjective concept, though (as per my classification of categories of concepts, i.e., cognitive, normative and subjective).

You see, I haven't forgotten. Things are Just really topsy-turvy right now. I am only doing things that can be done quickly or off the top of my head, not anything that requires deep thinking (as your essay deserves). The dust is finally settling with my new life with Kat, though, so you can expect my comments soon.

Michael

[Ellen Stuttle]

When Rand talks about re-creating reality, she means the creation of an imaginary world in which the content in that world (entities, melodies, etc.) embody certain general ideas about the world and life. I.e., the "reality" re-created in art is not (basically) a THING from reality, but a WORLD.

A world which is directly perceived? That the artwork offers abstractions for our direct perception is what the lady said, in passages which I've quoted (and which I picked up from one of your posts). I think that you fill in to what Rand wrote more than she herself in fact put there. I don't recall her ever even discussing what the nature of an art symbol is.

When we contemplate an artwork -- whether literary, musical, or visual -- we are entering into an alternate universe, as it were. Peikoff discusses this in OPAR. Susanne Langer (Feeling and Form) also argued that art was, across the board, the creation of a semblance that presented a world.

Langer, as I've said, I think was much the better esthetician than Rand.

Ellen

Edit: REB, see also my post #282.

___

Edited January 13, 2007 by Ellen Stuttle

[Victor Pross]

Langer, as I've said, I think was much the better esthetician than Rand.

Why?

[Dragonfly]

The obvious question is, if you can do that with sound (and that falls under "selective recreation of reality" with both Rand and Bissell), why not with colors and shapes? There is no reason on earth to exclude them other than "I said so." Well, "I said so" is a very poor standard for a definition if it is to correspond to reality. It is a proper standard for a subjective concept, though (as per my classification of categories of concepts, i.e., cognitive, normative and subjective).

Exactly. I think this defense of Rand's definition is stretching the meaning of words beyond breaking-point. But if you accept such stretching, you cannot avoid swinging the door wide open for abstract painting to fall under Rand's definition. You cannot have your cake and eat it too.

[Victor Pross]

Dragonfly,

This point that MSK brought up has been dealt with in the 'music as art' thread.

You know, after a hundred years, the modernist and postmodernist tradition is no longer fresh. All the aerial tricks have been tried: Blank canvases, silent piano solos, random smearing of paint, random drippings of paint, random swirling of paint, selection of fecal matter as the medium... you name it, it has been tried. Now what? Oddly enough, the only novelty left is to create art using skilled techniques -- such as Jonathan has.

-Victor

Edited January 13, 2007 by Victor Pross

[Ellen Stuttle]

Btw, Roger, I'm not trying to "re-invent the wheel." I learned a great deal from Langer. But I don't think that Rand's esthetics IS a "wheel." I think it's more on the order of a square item attempting to roll like a wheel. From my standpoint, expending much attention on Rand's esthetics would be a waste of my time, since I consider those esthetics more an interference with my understanding of art than an assist. I'm aware that you view the merit of her writings on esthetics differently than I do.

Ellen

___

[Victor Pross]

For those silent readers of this thread, I suggest Torres and Kamhi’s book What Art Is. This book offers a coherent analysis of Rand's esthetic theory. They conclude that her views are compelling, and are corroborated by evidence from anthropology, neurology, cognitive science, and psychology. If you have been following my points about art and agree, you'll like this book. Don't let the cynics bring you down.

Edited January 13, 2007 by Victor Pross

[Dragonfly]

This point that MSK brought up has been dealt with in the 'music as art' thread.

No, it hasn't, as you can't answer the question why sound as a function of time can be a "microcosm" and color and form as function of space not. You can repeat that it is so until you're blue in the face, but that doesn't constitute proof. Hint: there is no proof possible, so you're wasting your time.

You know, after a hundred years, the modernist and postmodernist tradition is no longer fresh. All the aerial tricks have been tried: Blank canvases, silent piano solos, random smearing of paint, random drippings of paint, random swirling of paint, selection of fecal matter as the medium... you name it, it has been tried. Now what? Oddly enough, the only novelty left is to create art using skilled techniques -- such as Jonathan has.

It has been said many times already: no matter how many examples of bad art you come up with, these don't imply that there can't exist abstract art using skilled techniques. Neither do muddled theories about art prove anything; any art work is a microcosm that should be jugded on its own terms.

[Victor Pross]

Dragonfly,

You said:

"No, it hasn't, as you can't answer the question why sound as a function of time can be a "microcosm" and color and form as function of space not. You can repeat that it is so until you're blue in the face, but that doesn't constitute proof. Hint: there is no proof possible, so you're wasting your time."

I'm not sure of that yet.

"It has been said many times already: no matter how many examples of bad art you come up with, these don't imply that there can't exist abstract art using skilled techniques. Neither do muddled theories about art prove anything; any art work is a microcosm that should be jugded on its own terms."

The examples I was using are not "bad art"--they are non-art purported to be art. Don't forget my position on this matter.

One more thing: Would you link us to "good abstract art" using "skilled techniques"? Let's see it.

-Victor

Edited January 13, 2007 by Victor Pross

[Dragonfly]

The examples I was using are not "bad art"--they are non-art purported to be art. Don't forget my position on this matter.

That doesn't matter, the point is that presenting examples of "bad art", or "non-art" or "anti-art" (whatever you want to call it) does not prove that abstract art is not art, only that there is a lot of bad abstract art (or whatever you want to call it) around. I can present a lot of numbers that are not prime, but that doesn't prove that prime numbers can't exist.

One more thing: Would you link us to "good abstract art" using "skilled techniques"? Let's see it.

The point was not what good abstract art is, don't try to smuggle in extra conditions, but whether abstract art can use skilled techniques. Someone like James Siena certainly uses skilled techniques that the chimp next door doesn't possess :

[Roger Bissell]

Btw, Roger, I'm not trying to "re-invent the wheel." I learned a great deal from Langer. But I don't think that Rand's esthetics IS a "wheel." I think it's more on the order of a square item attempting to roll like a wheel. From my standpoint, expending much attention on Rand's esthetics would be a waste of my time, since I consider those esthetics more an interference with my understanding of art than an assist. I'm aware that you view the merit of her writings on esthetics differently than I do.

Ellen

___

Yes, Ellen. For one thing, I do not slavishly follow her in using the archaic spelling "esthetics." :-)

More importantly, however, I don't think I view the merits of her writings on philosophy of art ~that~ differently from you. So I would hope, anyway. In general, for instance, I also view her philosophy of art as a very "mixed bag," some parts of which get in the way of my appreciation and understanding of art. More specifically?

For one thing, I have ~always~ thought that her attempt to explain music was completely screwy. I have spelled much ink (or many photons) arguing that music functions a whole lot more like the other arts, especially literature, than she seemed to think it does.

I also cringe (and often curse) when I read about how she tried to intimidate or bully people out of their artistic preferences, especially their musical ones. Even highly educated and trained people like Alan Blumenthal.

I also (thanks to insights from my wife) have argued that Rand's talking about "identification" as the mechanism of our response to characters in literature as being far too cerebral. It ~is~ a form of identification, but it is identification based not on ~conceptual~ comparison, but on ~empathy~. (This, to me, is a good example of Rand trying to make a square roll like a wheel -- trying to recast everything in terms of reason, rather than identifying, by use of reason, how emotions/empathy work in experiencing art.)

I also cringe (and often curse) when I read her "Art and Cognition" essay and see her blatant contradiction about architecture being a form of art, but one that does not re-create reality, though art by her definition ~does~ re-create reality. (Torres and Kamhi have written about how Binswanger decided to leave "art" out of the Ayn Rand Lexicon, apparently at Rand's urging shortly before she died. Talk about "airbrushing" embarrassing details out of the philosophy!!)

But yes, I do think she has some good basic insights, in among the other clunky, misleading or mistaken stuff.

I think her comparing art to language is spot on. Henry B. Veatch in Intentional Logic gives a good distinction between the two kinds of symbols ("signs") involved, including the different kinds of cognitive relationships we have to them, and the symbolic relationship they have to reality. Rand is much more cryptic and/or terse about this difference. Perhaps she didn't want to wade into "sign theory" (theory of symbols, I think of it as), but instead just lay claim to it all falling under "psycho-epistemology." (My essays on "The Essence of Art" (1997, Objectivity) and "Art as Microcosm (2004, JARS) delve into this.)

I also think her definition of art is spot on. Torres and Kamhi, because they are fixated on the "mimesis" theory of art as re-creating ~things~ from reality, rather than (primarily) an imaginary world, have decided that Rand's definition needs tweaking, and they go off on their own tangents. (They each have a revised definition to offer!) Ron Merrill also thought that Rand's definition was faulty, because music supposedly can't re-create reality. Ironically, non-Objectivists like Susanne Langer and Roger Scruton understand the re-creation of reality (creation of an imaginary world) in music better than most Objectivists!! (See my "Art as Microcosm.")

I also think her extension of Romanticism to the other arts is legitimate. (Unlike Torres and Kamhi, who claim that she was over-generalizing her philosophy of literature to the other arts.) The Blumenthals in their 1974 lectures on music give a good foundation for this. (See also my "Kamhi and Torres on Meaning in Rand's Esthetics," Reason Papers, 1998 and the updated discussion in "Art as Microcosm.") After writing about volition/goal-directedness in music (in the 1998 essay), I wrote:

Another aspect (and I suspect there are still others) that shows great potential for classifying art is the fact that the contents of our consciousness are hierarchical, i.e., structured in interconnected layers, following the principle of unit-economy. And there can be relatively deep (many-layered) or relative flat (few-layered) hierarchies -- not to mention hierarchies on which a great deal too much has been heaped! Both literature and music -- as well as architecture, sometimes included in the fine arts -- exemplify this attribute to one degree or another. Setting aside the question of whether music exemplifies volitionality and goal-directedness, there is thus another highly important question as to the hierarchical structuring of the temporal arts (and architecture). In contrast, just consider the styles of 20th century music in which perceiving organized pattern is deliberately eschewed: no goal-directedness, no hierarchy -- just chaos shading gradually into boredom (or irritation!).

The common thread running through both ways of looking at art works and genres is their being based on one of the main features of human consciousness. This ties in well with Rand’s and Peikoff’s point about art being concerned with teaching "a technique of directing one’s awareness," about the fact that art "conditions or stylizes man’s consciousness by conveying to him a certain way of looking at existence (OPAR, p. 423). A well-structured story or musical piece -- apart from (or in addition to) whatever it may convey about human volitional mental functioning -- certainly does draw the reader or listener into a process that conveys an important point about human hierarchical mental functioning.

There is a strong presumption, in other words, that Rand has laid the groundwork for a Grand Unified Theory of Esthetics. Someday, I suggest, a methodology derived from her work will allow theorists to legitimately classify artworks and connoiseurs to legitimately evaluate artworks as to how and/or whether they enhance one’s experience of the volitionality, hierarchical nature, etc., of one’s consciousness. Far from Rand's well-argued personal preference for Romantic literature being merely an idiosyncratic intrusion into philosophy of art, I think it's reasonable to see it as the preface to a much deeper analysis and understanding of the nature and value of art.

So, there are some of the ways in which I differ -- and agree -- with Rand's aesthetic views. Perhaps you did not intend to suggest that I am 100% lock-step with her, while you are independently-minded and questioning. But that's what it sounded like. I think it's more accurate to say that you and I both have our differences with Rand, some of which we share (apparently), but that we also differ in how much of her ideas we are willing to reject. And that's fine. I'm not interested in trying to browbeat you or anyone into agreement with me. It's a whole lot more fun having an uncensored free-for-all, in which we put Rand's and others' (including my) claims under a microscope and pick them apart for truth and usefulness.

I only hope that we take care to identify what she and others were actually saying (or trying, however awkwardly, to say), rather than taking the standard, naive interpretations (e.g., art as re-creating "things from reality") as our point of departure. And that is why I referred to "re-inventing the wheel." I didn't just mean we should pore over Rand's writings. I was trying, again awkwardly, to suggest that we ought to honor the efforts of others (such as Torres and Kamhi and myself) to bring clarity to Rand's aesthetics ideas, as well as their efforts to expose the shortcomings of those ideas.

We are a community of mutual interest and support, after all, right? That's why I keep appealing for some kind of focused study and/or commentary on my "Art as Microcosm" essay, rather than (or at least in addition to) the on-going tendency to engage in meandering, hit-and-run bull sessions about art. Perhaps what I'm hoping for is just too much like school. Maybe I need to invest some elbow grease in setting up a cyberseminar about my writings and stop bugging you folks...

REB

[reason.on]

. Don't let the cynics bring you down.

There are no "cynics" on this thread, Victor; just several people who are skeptical of the veracity and verity of Ayn Rand's theory of aesthetics...there is certainly much more to be skeptical about in this series of threads, but that's a completely different story.

RCR

Edited January 13, 2007 by R. Christian Ross

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

This point that MSK brought up has been dealt with in the 'music as art' thread.

"Dealt with" as in "discussed," or "dealt with" as in "fully explained and refuted"?

Interesting rhetorical problem.

Hmmmmmmmmm...

Michael

[Victor Pross]

This point that MSK brought up has been dealt with in the 'music as art' thread.

"Dealt with" as in "discussed," or "dealt with" as in "fully explained and refuted"?

Interesting rhetorical problem.

Hmmmmmmmmm...

Michael

Michael,

Touched on to be discussed--further. [i'm just a rhetorical master!]

Victor

Edited January 13, 2007 by Victor Pross

[Kevin Haggerty]

I know what Victor says to be right. It seems like it goes to extremes. Same thing if you are in college because you wish to be a writer. Same old drills.

I agree that instructors allow artistic fashion/self-proclaimed iconoclasm to blind them to what's really going on in front of their faces, but I don't see that so-called "figurative art" deserves primacy. Just as Victor rails against the generation that came before him for it's arbitrary restrictions and dogmatism, so the modernists were railing against 19th century styles of denial and superstition. It's all very freudian to my mind--they're all just cutting off their spiritual fathers' balls.

As I've said before, the artist is the last person I go to find out what his art is about. Modernist rhetoric is pretty meaningless outside its proper context of 19th century logical positivism and religious conservatism. As Ellen said, and I agree, abstract art often speaks to me about the nature of perception itself. Our minds produce "abstract forms" all the time, how cannot abstract form be a subject of art? I used to have nightmares about a white field hovering above me. It wasn't entirely white and it seemed to be alternately cloud-like and hard as marble. It terrified me more than any dream I can recall. It sat there floating, shifting, menacing me. I've painted it on several occasions. I've seen echoes of my menacing white field in several works of art, not the least of which is Pollock's Lavender Mist.

-Kevin

[reason.on]

I used to have nightmares about a white field hovering above me. It wasn't entirely white and it seemed to be alternately cloud-like and hard as marble. It terrified me more than any dream I can recall. It sat there floating, shifting, menacing me. I've painted it on several occasions. I've seen echoes of my menacing white field in several works of art, not the least of which is Pollock's Lavender Mist.

Hmm. That is very interesting to me. As a young child I also used to occasionally have abstract-nightmares. I can only discribe the one I used to have as being "inside" a three-dimentional Pollack painting (with sound, taste, and texture)...strings and strands of chaos across all sensory inputs, perceiving was itself the nightmare, the sound like white-noise mixed with Philip Glass, mixed with the janglisest, most nonsensical trumpet-based jazz ever made. The "feeling" inside the dream was pure frustration at the endlessness of pure and utter chaos. As such, I admit that I've never been much of a fan of Pollack's "art".

RCR

[Ellen Stuttle]

Langer, as I've said, I think was much the better esthetician than Rand.

Why?

I've already given my basic answer: I think that Langer well understood the phenomenon she was writing about whereas Rand did not. I think that Rand was trying to fit art into her ethical framework, and that the fit is a poor one. I'll add that Langer discusses thoroughly and in depth the nature of the art symbol, a subject on which I can't recall Rand's having said anything which I found enlightening.

I've also said that I haven't time now for providing more than the sketchy indication of my own views -- which follow from Langer's -- I've already provided, since I haven't the time for the enormity of the subject in general and for re-reading Langer in particular. (Re-reading Langer is something I very much want to do as soon as I can, but there are other projects needing my attention first.)

I've also said that I sympathize with your problems getting your work noticed in the current art scene. All the same, there's significant difference between your and my views on especially the esthetics of the visual arts (though the differences go deeper than the specifics pertaining to that branch of esthetics). And I don't expect that either of us would ever convince the other.

So there we are.

Ellen

___

[Victor Pross]

Dragonfly,

Did James Siena ever do upholstery or flooring in his professional career?

Victor

[Ellen Stuttle]

Perhaps you [ES] did not intend to suggest that I am 100% lock-step with her, while you are independently-minded and questioning. But that's what it sounded like. I think it's more accurate to say that you and I both have our differences with Rand, some of which we share (apparently), but that we also differ in how much of her ideas we are willing to reject. And that's fine. I'm not interested in trying to browbeat you or anyone into agreement with me. It's a whole lot more fun having an uncensored free-for-all, in which we put Rand's and others' (including my) claims under a microscope and pick them apart for truth and usefulness.

Ack, Roger, come on; no, I wasn't suggesting that you're 100% lock-step with her, while I'm independently-minded, and I really don't think it sounded like I was suggesting that. On the other hand, I read your comment about "re-inventing the wheel" as a gentle prod in the direction of my (along with others) paying attention to your essays.

I'm sorry, Roger, but the fact is that I've never read any of your essays on art all the way through. I soon find as I try to read one of them that the details of my not quite agreeing start to add up and it gets to seem more effort than I'm really in the market for expending to sort out the details. You've a number of times expressed frustration at not being able to generate lengthy perusal and discussion of your work in this area. I'm sorry that you don't get the sort of feedback you'd like to receive. But I'm afraid that I'm not desirous of providing such feedback. Life is limited. If this were twenty years ago, when I had a feeling of much more life ahead than I have now, it would be different. But it's now, and I'm stingy with my time.

Ellen

PS: aesthetic is the "archaic" -- or at least the increasingly less-often used -- spelling, not esthetic. The ae is being shortened to e in lots of words derived from the Greek. E.g.: orthopedics, anesthesia.

___

[Danneskjold]

I would suggest anyone read his "Art as Microcosm" thread. It took me an hour and a half, but I was distracted quite a few times during that, and it was well worth reading. It probably was a prod for you to read his thread. It very much relates to this thread in its entirety, and it's not easy to summarize or give a synapsis of in a way that can be used as making a point.

[Dragonfly]

Did James Siena ever do upholstery or flooring in his professional career?

Was Escher ever a tiler in his professional career?

[Roger Bissell]

Perhaps you [ES] did not intend to suggest that I am 100% lock-step with her, while you are independently-minded and questioning. But that's what it sounded like. I think it's more accurate to say that you and I both have our differences with Rand, some of which we share (apparently), but that we also differ in how much of her ideas we are willing to reject. And that's fine. I'm not interested in trying to browbeat you or anyone into agreement with me. It's a whole lot more fun having an uncensored free-for-all, in which we put Rand's and others' (including my) claims under a microscope and pick them apart for truth and usefulness.

Ack, Roger, come on; no, I wasn't suggesting that you're 100% lock-step with her, while I'm independently-minded, and I really don't think it sounded like I was suggesting that. On the other hand, I read your comment about "re-inventing the wheel" as a gentle prod in the direction of my (along with others) paying attention to your essays.

OK, good, I'm glad you don't see me as a hide-bound Randian Loyalist. I may be stubborn about certain points, but I don't think I'm dogmatic about them. I have pretty vigorously questioned everything that hasn't seemed fully tied down by facts and the Law of Identity! As for my "re-inventing the wheel" comment, you are correct. One of Michael's (to me) big selling points of this website is that it is a haven for people to explore and discuss non-orthodox Objectivist points of view, and I really thought that I would benefit more from it than I have. And when I see people struggling and rough-housing "by ear" in topics that I have worked hard to develop rigorously, and which are posted on this website or linked to from this website, it is frustrating to find myself having to repeatedly ask for feedback.

I'm sorry, Roger, but the fact is that I've never read any of your essays on art all the way through. I soon find as I try to read one of them that the details of my not quite agreeing start to add up and it gets to seem more effort than I'm really in the market for expending to sort out the details. You've a number of times expressed frustration at not being able to generate lengthy perusal and discussion of your work in this area. I'm sorry that you don't get the sort of feedback you'd like to receive. But I'm afraid that I'm not desirous of providing such feedback. Life is limited. If this were twenty years ago, when I had a feeling of much more life ahead than I have now, it would be different. But it's now, and I'm stingy with my time.

I hear you. That's a very good reason for not bothering with my essays -- or, at least, with not finishing them. I don't expect that anyone who substantially disagrees with me is going to waste their valuable time refuting me -- or even asking me to clarify -- unless my views reached a point of influence that they became threatening. So, take what you like and leave the rest. Surely, though, there are some people on this list who think I'm on the right track and that I have something to contribute to the Objectivist worldview. If not, I'd like to find out sooner, rather than later! And your comments are certainly a step in that direction.

PS: aesthetic is the "archaic" -- or at least the increasingly less-often used -- spelling, not esthetic. The ae is being shortened to e in lots of words derived from the Greek. E.g.: orthopedics, anesthesia.

Well, that's news to me. I googled both spellings -- "aesthetics" and "esthetics" -- and while they are cited as alternate spellings by dictionaries, there is a clear division of labor in who uses them and for what. In nearly all the google "hits," "aesthetics" was used to refer to the branch of philosophy, i.e., to the philosophical study of art, while "esthetics" was used to refer to the study of skin care, massage, cosmetology, hair styling, etc. The ~only~ exceptions I was able to find were a number of hits for Randian websites that used the "esthetics" spelling for philosophy of art.

I also note that "orthopaedics" and "anaesthesia" and "encyclopaedia" are ~British~ variant spellings, while the preferred American spellings shorten the "ae" to "e." However, "aesthetics" is still the preferred American spelling.

I also note that the (to my knowledge) last book on philosophy of art that used the "esthetics" spelling was Gilbert and Kuhns' 1939 volume, A History of Esthetics. Numerous more recently published books in my library use the "aesthetics" spelling, some published in the past 5 years. This is all contrary to the jettisoning of the British spelling influence of the other terms noted. The contemporary use of the "esthetics" spelling to refer to philosophy of art seems to be (almost?) exclusively a Randian idiosyncrisy.

REB

[Victor Pross]

It is a very curious thing that I am more on the same page with Mr. Bissell, than most others, when it comes to the subject of art. His views are more spot on to the facts.

[Ellen Stuttle]

I hear you [re my current time-stinginess]. That's a very good reason for not bothering with my essays -- or, at least, with not finishing them. I don't expect that anyone who substantially disagrees with me is going to waste their valuable time refuting me -- or even asking me to clarify -- unless my views reached a point of influence that they became threatening. So, take what you like and leave the rest. Surely, though, there are some people on this list who think I'm on the right track and that I have something to contribute to the Objectivist worldview. If not, I'd like to find out sooner, rather than later! And your comments are certainly a step in that direction.

Roger, a possible misunderstanding you might have in regard to where I'm coming from lies in overlooking that I never have felt that my own "worldview" was that of Objectivism. Yes, I'm interested by Rand. If I weren't interested by her work, I wouldn't have participated on Atlantis (which is where you and I "met"). But I've always considered my own approach to life to have proceeded along a similar vein to hers but in many respects to have been divergent from hers. I have no doubt whatsoever that you have "something to contribute to the Objectivist worldview." I think you're one of the most significant people writing within that general "worldview." My lack of desire to become involved in detailed discussion of your work on...(um) esthetics(?)...isn't because of any belief that you aren't contributing importantly to Objectivist discourse but because Objectivism isn't my own frame of reference. I hope you understand the distinction. I am NOT in any respect minimizing the importance of your work to "the Objectivist worldview."

Ellen

___