Art as Microcosm (2004)

[James Shay]

The Mondrian, however, is sublimely beautiful. It conveys bravery, grace, resolution, adventure, and a degree of ruthlessness. It's a wonderful work of art. The sense of rational intelligence it conveys makes it a good candidate for the art sales link that this forum has. By the way, it pays to ignore Mondrian's writings. Like the great Kandinsky, Wright and many other artists, he did a poor job of explaining in words what he did. But, what a painter.

Jim:

I'm not questioning whether the Mondrian is pretty or not. I am only saying that it is not art. Personally, I would classify these works as studies in certain attributes of art such as balance, proportion, etc., and I would be willing to classify them as decoration, very much like Wright's abstract patterns for stained glass in his buildings. But I am at a loss to see how they are a recreation of reality with some value-based message to convey. Which of course brings us full circle to where this thread started! :-) I'm willing to be educated to see something new, so can you explain a bit more how you read the attributes of bravery, grace, resolution, adventure, and ruthlessness in the painting above? Thanks.

Jeff, I'll have to think about that. I'm not sure I have the words for it. It's a little like trying to explain why a piece of music moves me in a particular way. As you know there are debates going on within this webiste about the value of abstract art. As deeply moved as I am by Kandinsky, Mondrian, and Gorky and many others, there is no question to me that it's art.

Jim

Regards,

--

Jeff

[Dragonfly]

But I am at a loss to see how they are a recreation of reality with some value-based message to convey. Which of course brings us full circle to where this thread started! :-) I'm willing to be educated to see something new, so can you explain a bit more how you read the attributes of bravery, grace, resolution, adventure, and ruthlessness in the painting above?

Why should art be a recreation of reality and why should it have some value-based message? I'm not particularly interested in messages in art, and I'm not especially looking for bravery, grace, resolution, adventure and ruthlessness in art. I can enjoy art without looking for some message, and even if I could describe it in terms of a message that I perceive, it's far from sure that it is the message intended by the artist, if he has a message at all. Art is for me not some kind of metaphysical propaganda or some exercise in psychologizing.

[cjsmall]

Why should art be a recreation of reality and why should it have some value-based message? I'm not particularly interested in messages in art, and I'm not especially looking for bravery, grace, resolution, adventure and ruthlessness in art. I can enjoy art without looking for some message, and even if I could describe it in terms of a message that I perceive, it's far from sure that it is the message intended by the artist, if he has a message at all. Art is for me not some kind of metaphysical propaganda or some exercise in psychologizing.

Dragonfly:

Then what is your definition of art? If it doesn't have a message (is not a form of communication), then what purpose, if any, does art serve? How do you distinguish "art' from other things that are "non-art" and what is your source of enjoyment?

This isn't just blowing a lot of hot air. As Ayn Rand said, "The purpose of defining one's terms is to afford oneself the inestimable benefit of knowing what one is talking about." Now, I realize that there are a number of different definitions or art floating around, but I always thought that Rand's definition, "a selective re-creation of reality according to an artist's metaphysical value-judgments", was an interesting one and very helpful in grasping a deeper understanding of painting, sculpture and literature, despite the problems in such areas as music and architecture. If we don't have a common language where the word "art" is understood to mean the same thing by all parties, then there is no point in having a conversation since there will be no actual exchange of ideas - and that does just leave hot air.

I believe another common problem that occurs in these discussions is that some people have an implicit belief that if you define something outside of a given category, that is an act of diminishing that thing. This is a mistake. If we define art to mean something specific, and if it then means that the Mondrian painting or even the entire field of architecture is then excluded, this does nothing to diminish either the painting or the profession. It simply means that we are categorizing aspects of reality in an effort to get a better understanding of them. I know what the value of architecture is and its value to me, and whether we classify it as art or not has no bearing on either. Similarly, if, upon investigation, the Mondrian painting is classified as not being a work of art, this doesn't imply that either you, Jim or anyone else couldn't or shouldn't be able to derive pleasure from it.

I enjoy a great deal of the abstract graphic design work of Wright and would rather view that than the great majority of painting or sculpture in the world. However, I still see his graphic design, not as an end in itself, but in service of something else. It is highly skilled craftsmanship in the form of decoration rather than art, but understanding that does not diminish it in my eyes. I sense that there is some defensiveness at the idea of defining art in such a way that it excludes things that you like. Well, we can like many things other than art.

If I have misunderstood your position, don't hesitate to help me see it more clearly.

Regards,

--

Jeff

[Victor Pross]

Why should art be a recreation of reality and why should it have some value-based message? I'm not particularly interested in messages in art, and I'm not especially looking for bravery, grace, resolution, adventure and ruthlessness in art. I can enjoy art without looking for some message, and even if I could describe it in terms of a message that I perceive, it's far from sure that it is the message intended by the artist, if he has a message at all. Art is for me not some kind of metaphysical propaganda or some exercise in psychologizing.

Dragonfly:

Then what is your definition of art? If it doesn't have a message (is not a form of communication), then what purpose, if any, does art serve? How do you distinguish "art' from other things that are "non-art" and what is your source of enjoyment?

This isn't just blowing a lot of hot air. As Ayn Rand said, "The purpose of defining one's terms is to afford oneself the inestimable benefit of knowing what one is talking about." Now, I realize that there are a number of different definitions or art floating around, but I always thought that Rand's definition, "a selective re-creation of reality according to an artist's metaphysical value-judgments", was an interesting one and very helpful in grasping a deeper understanding of painting, sculpture and literature, despite the problems in such areas as music and architecture. If we don't have a common language where the word "art" is understood to mean the same thing by all parties, then there is no point in having a conversation since there will be no actual exchange of ideas - and that does just leave hot air.

I believe another common problem that occurs in these discussions is that some people have an implicit belief that if you define something outside of a given category, that is an act of diminishing that thing. This is a mistake. If we define art to mean something specific, and if it then means that the Mondrian painting or even the entire field of architecture is then excluded, this does nothing to diminish either the painting or the profession. It simply means that we are categorizing aspects of reality in an effort to get a better understanding of them. I know what the value of architecture is and its value to me, and whether we classify it as art or not has no bearing on either. Similarly, if, upon investigation, the Mondrian painting is classified as not being a work of art, this doesn't imply that either you, Jim or anyone else couldn't or shouldn't be able to derive pleasure from it.

I enjoy a great deal of the abstract graphic design work of Wright and would rather view that than the great majority of painting or sculpture in the world. However, I still see his graphic design, not as an end in itself, but in service of something else. It is highly skilled craftsmanship in the form of decoration rather than art, but understanding that does not diminish it in my eyes. I sense that there is some defensiveness at the idea of defining art in such a way that it excludes things that you like. Well, we can like many things other than art.

If I have misunderstood your position, don't hesitate to help me see it more clearly.

Regards,

--

Jeff

Jeff,

Well, it would seem we have a common language here. I have been arguing pretty much what you say in your post above on other threads --and very vigorously. You must have missed those threads because you speak in such a way as if the subject was brand-spanking new. Not here though. Still, I want to touch on a few things in your post: while I agree that 'art is communication'--I don't think that this is the same thing that it must contain a "message."

Dragonfly wrote: "Art is for me not some kind of metaphysical propaganda or some exercise in psychologizing." I agree with this. But it is where my agreement ends.

According to Objectivism, the incomparable and central function of art is to present, in concrete form, what is essentially an abstraction. That's it. But abstractions do not have the propinquity, the reality, and the sheer presence of the world as we perceive and react to it emotionally. Art performs this function for the most fundamental abstractions: the elements of a world-view. A person’s world-view, his deepest values, his philosophy, are experienced most clearly when represented in concrete form, a work of art can touch the deepest places in us, feelings we often have trouble defining and making explicit. This is where the “communication” comes into play.

The purpose of art is the objectification of values. This is not a “Randian perspective”—as others would denigrate. This is what men and women have been doing since the dawn of time—from the cave on up. The fundamental motive of an artist---by the implication of the activity, whether he knows it consciously or not---is to objectify, to concretize his values, his view of what is important in life. But that does not mean that he performs the function of a teacher or an instructor. To objectify values is to make them real by presenting them in concrete form. That is what an artist does…and if you should learn something from that art form, it is merely a bonus. That is not, however, the function of art.

-Victor

Edited February 17, 2007 by Victor Pross

[Brant Gaede]

The purpose of art is the objectification of values. The fundamental motive of an artist---by the implication of the activity, whether he knows it consciously or not---is to objectify, to concretize his values, his view of what is important in life. But that does not mean that he performs the function of a teacher or an instructor. To objectify values is to make them real by presenting them in concrete form. That is what an artist does…and if you should learn something from that art form, it is merely a bonus. That is not, however, the function of art.

-Victor

This statement may be true or false, completely or in part. Why is it necessarily true?

--Brant

[Victor Pross]

The purpose of art is the objectification of values. The fundamental motive of an artist---by the implication of the activity, whether he knows it consciously or not---is to objectify, to concretize his values, his view of what is important in life. But that does not mean that he performs the function of a teacher or an instructor. To objectify values is to make them real by presenting them in concrete form. That is what an artist does…and if you should learn something from that art form, it is merely a bonus. That is not, however, the function of art.

-Victor

This statement may be true or false, completely or in part. Why is it necessarily true?

--Brant

Brant,

It is true--as historical fact. It would seem that our posts have crossed. I did expect this question, and lo and behold you have asked it. So in an edit, I included the following:

This is not a “Randian perspective”—as others would denigrate. This is what men and women have been doing since the dawn of time—from the cave on up.

Human kind’s need of art lies in the fact that our cognitive faculty is conceptual. We are aware of the world directly and immediately through sense perception, but we do much of our thinking at the conceptual level, using abstractions, language, and logic. Our concepts and theories have meaning only insofar as they are grounded in reality.

-Victor

Edited February 17, 2007 by Victor Pross

[Brant Gaede]

deleted

Edited February 17, 2007 by Brant Gaede

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

If we don't have a common language where the word "art" is understood to mean the same thing by all parties, then there is no point in having a conversation since there will be no actual exchange of ideas - and that does just leave hot air.

I believe another common problem that occurs in these discussions is that some people have an implicit belief that if you define something outside of a given category, that is an act of diminishing that thing. This is a mistake.

Jeff,

I could not agree with you more, but I am seeing this probably from the opposite end. You did the absolutely correct thing by asking what definition Dragonfly was using. A good part of this whole controversy has happened because Victor never asks that question wanting to establish mutual understanding. He asks it as a dare and a call to engage in some kind of competition where he wants to defeat the person. He wishes to impose one meaning only on the word "art" and prohibit it from being used for any other definitions.

His reason is precisely the one you mentioned (at least in part). He thinks defining a precise meaning for a concept and including it as a specific category under a broader concept somehow diminishes the value of it, so he wishes to impose the restricted meaning on all others. Note the quote below:

The purpose of art is the objectification of values. This is not a “Randian perspective”—as others would denigrate.

I see nothing at all denigrating in defining a “Randian perspective” of art. Frankly, it defines a category of art that I enjoy immensely and, of course, it completely excludes many artworks and styles of art. I have no problem with that.

I think you would call Gehry's work "architecture," regardless of what you think of it value-wise. If you didn't call it "architecture," you would not be able to call it "bad architecture" or "nihilistic architecture." If you tried to deny that the man was an architect, you would be engaging in nothing but "hot air," as you said, since you would have completely stepped outside of reality.

However, there are contexts where you would say that. If you were with a client who wanted to build something in the style of one of the gorgeous buildings I have seen on this thread and a person suggested a work like that crazy house I saw, I could understand if the client said, "No! I want an architect, goddammit!" He would be making a normative statement if looked at from the big picture of all of mankind, but he could be seen as making a cognitive one within the confines of his own personal values and requirements (i.e., within that context). So in the first perspective (the big picture), he would be using the word "architect" to mean "architect who builds within my value structure"—with the implied understanding that other architects of poorer quality according to his values exist—and in the second perspective (his personal world) he could be saying "architect" as a professional category because he would never let anyone else outside of his value structure inside his world to design and oversee buildings.

What defining a term like "art" for a discussion does not do is wipe out the rest of the art world from existence, nor does it wipe out your right of choice to appreciate other art styles. All it does is set a definition for that context. By the very act of asking, "What is your definition?" you automatically presume that there is more than one definition for the term (and certainly more than one context to use them). If only one definition existed, there would be no need to ask.

I disagree with the attempt to hijack the word, "art," for all contexts, impose only one meaning on it and prohibit the rest of mankind from using the other meanings that have developed over the centuries. I sense not a quest for understanding and fighting for a specific aesthetic vision, but a quest for controlling other people and this makes me very uncomfortable.

Michael

[Dragonfly]

Then what is your definition of art? If it doesn't have a message (is not a form of communication), then what purpose, if any, does art serve? How do you distinguish "art' from other things that are "non-art" and what is your source of enjoyment?

To avoid a lot of repetition: see my posts #68 and #72 in the "Modernist and Postmodernists [sic] con-artists" and in this thread Ellen's posts #80, #84, #152 and Jonathan's post #142.

[Victor Pross]

Michael,

Oy. Must you begin your post mischaracterizing my position and blaming me for some “controversy”?

(Heavy sigh)

To state it for the record: I am aware that words can have more than one definition, but what I am against is the subjectivity of concepts and the categorizing of works that are not art as art—and this is what you find happening in the modern art world: ("That cat is a rock!")

I think Jeff is able to read my own words and come to a conclusion without your aid.

You say that I think “defining a precise meaning for a concept and including it as a specific category under a broader concept somehow diminishes the value of it” and that I wish to “impose the restricted meaning on all others.”

Yes, back to the esthetic dictator argument. Again, I am against the “anything can be art” school of subjectivism.

Let me simply speak for myself, and I’ll use the art of painting as my case in point.

One common notion [typical of 20th century Modernism] is the curious idea that art cannot be defined—that it should not be "limited" by definitions, and that anything that "expands the definition of art" is good. With this approach, toilet installations got tossed into the pot—along with the pot! Everything can be art! It is all subjective!

My standpoint is directly opposing to this view, and here I agree with Rand when she stated that “definitions are the guardians of rationality.”

THIS is the problem we face: the hosility to definitions---to rationality. That is the modernist and postmodernist movement.

From the beginning, the defining characteristic of modernism in painting was to acquire a polar-opposite, the very antithesis of what “academic art” embodies—such as skill and technique and then, subsequently, the rejection of all parameters of fine painting. Thus all subject-matter was abolished (substituted was the dribbling of paint on canvas) that has graduated to the post-modern "art for art’s sake” where excrement has become a medium.

So take everything that a representational painting encompasses, strip away all of the defining components... and you will have modernism in painting.

The proponents of abstract painting purpose was to strip away twenty-five thousand years of rational principles--of intelligibility and objectivity for raw emotion. For them, the material world of perceptible objects in three-dimensional space had no connection to the world of “pure spirit” and must therefore be eliminated.

An art work—in this case, painting, has a specific nature like anything else in the universe (metaphysical or man-made). It is a mistake to simply take the materials, the art supplies of painting, (namely the canvas and paints, etc) and slap it down where you would be unable to distinguish it from Bessie the ape’s work or a child’s play. Presenting such a thing as art and labeling it as art, shouting out “this is art!” …does not make it art. This is subjectivism. And I don’t mean one’s response to the work, but rather—it is the subjectivity of concepts.

This is what I am arguing against.

-Victor

Edited February 18, 2007 by Victor Pross

[Victor Pross]

Michael,

A little story:

At one of my art showings, a postmodernist type ideologue engaged me in a conversation about art. He insisted that my work is really postmodernist-- given that I am taking the art academics to task when it comes to human anatomy and physiognomy. I objected and explained my “caricature philosophy”--that I have explained here at OL. He dropped the subject of caricature, and went on with the original point he wished to make:

“But, Victor, take Tracy Emin’s unmade bed for example. If you understand that these 'art pieces' are rather a statement attacking what has become an 'Institution of Art' controlled by the elite upper class, the capitalists, then you'll have a better appreciation of it. Tracy Emin put her unmade bed into the Tate Britain, yes it is a joke. It is a joke, and if you can't decipher it….that is the joke. She said, 'I made this in my sleep'. The joke, really, is on the rich who decide to buy these works. Emin is a real artist, an intelligent one, she can draw and paint, but like many artists the bitterness comes from the struggle against an institution (the biggest joke) which subscribes to increasingly commercial aspirations.”

So there you have it. “Art” is being created that is—admittedly--inscrutable and being done so as a ruse (and punch-line) to sucker in the “capitalist ruling class”.

What I found interesting is that this guy spoke of Tracy Emin’s ‘unmade bed art’ as crap---and YET he insisted that we shouldn’t have definitions of art! I challenged him on this: “By what standard do you judge anything as art or crap? You also chastise the foolish rich who buy these works---but what do you have to say about the proletarian starving artists who create this junk---and who do it sincerely? Is that art?”

He didn’t answer.

Would you call works—that are created from this type of cynicism—as art? Keep in mind: They were created as a sneering joke, a purposeful anti-art creation to suck some cash from the rich.

-Victor-

Edited February 18, 2007 by Victor Pross

[Jonathan]

Jeff, thanks for posting more images of your work. I like it and I'm enjoying getting to know your styles.

Jeff wrote,

If it doesn't have a message (is not a form of communication), then what purpose, if any, does art serve?

Doesn't that depend on what you mean by "communication" and "message"? I used to play with a couple of awesome improvisational guitarists. Their art "communicated" a variety of feelings whose "messages" were what it felt like to be alive and to feel what the music felt like. Would that count as communicating a message? If so, abstract art does the same thing for a lot of people.

If your notion of art is that it must communicate something more than that -- that it must accurately convey the precise meaning that the artist intended, and that the artist must have chosen to communicate his deepest values and his overall view of man's place in the universe -- then there is probably very little in the world that would qualify as art.

To whom must a work of art "communicate" its "message"? To the average man? To someone who isn't very interested in art or is mostly annoyed by it? To those who are the most passionate and sensitive to a particular art form? If one single person successfully identifies what an artist had in mind when creating a work of art, would that mean that it's art since it has communicated its meaning, even though others get nothing from it? Wouldn't those others have to recognize the possibility that they may not be any good at "reading" works of art? How would they determine if the art failed to convey meaning or if they were inept at grasping meaning?

If the purpose of art is to communicate, what consequences does that have on the power of nuance or ambiguity in art? Wouldn't it mean that a true artist should artlessly spell out everything nice and clearly so that even the dopiest people get it? If an artist wanted to avoid any possibility that his work might be labeled "non-art" by the Official Objectivist Art Definition Committee, wouldn't he have to alter his expressions by taking into account others' tastes, perspectives, levels of emotional response, and their conceptual, visual, spatial or aural capacities and limitations rather than relying on his own?

How would you decide whose interpretation of a work of art is correct, and, therefore, whether or not it has communicated its message? If the artist isn't around to answer our questions, and we disagree on what we think is his work's meaning, does that mean it's bad art or non-art?

Should parody be banished from the realm of art? If the majority of people are blind to a form of sarcasm or satire, should their opinions be factored in when we decide which message has been communicated? (Speaking of parody, are some means, such as parody, acceptable when used in one art form but not in others? For example, is parody acceptable in literature but not architecture? If I build a building which includes, say, chain-link fencing because I want to use it, at least in part, as something akin to a fictional character -- perhaps a James Taggart or Lillian Rearden -- which mocks a certain type of person or attitude, shouldn't that meet the approval of those who demand "rational order" and "values proper to mankind" in art and architecture?)

Jeff wrote,

This isn't just blowing a lot of hot air. As Ayn Rand said, "The purpose of defining one's terms is to afford oneself the inestimable benefit of knowing what one is talking about." Now, I realize that there are a number of different definitions or art floating around, but I always thought that Rand's definition, "a selective re-creation of reality according to an artist's metaphysical value-judgments", was an interesting one and very helpful in grasping a deeper understanding of painting, sculpture and literature, despite the problems in such areas as music and architecture.

"Problems"? A good definition of art wouldn't have "problems" which eliminate most art forms except for some works of literature. Music and architecture are not art by Rand's definition and her further elaborations on issues such as intelligibility, even though she wanted to believe that they were. Dance too. And a hell of a lot of visual art doesn't communicate meaning by the standards implied, and most of it that could be said to communicate through strong narrative also requires knowledge of "outside considerations" in order to understand the "messages." The same applies to a lot of literature. In fact, the only art that seems to qualify as art according to all of Rand's definitions and standards is ~her~ work.

Jeff wrote,

If we don't have a common language where the word "art" is understood to mean the same thing by all parties, then there is no point in having a conversation since there will be no actual exchange of ideas - and that does just leave hot air.

I'll take such "hot air" any day over the disqualification of most art forms. There are complex concepts that can be difficult to define, and art is one of them.

Victor wrote,

One common notion [typical of 20th century Modernism] is the curious idea that art cannot be defined—that it should not be "limited" by definitions, and that anything that "expands the definition of art" is good. With this approach, toilet installations got tossed into the pot—along with the pot! Everything can be art! It is all subjective!

My standpoint is directly opposing to this view, and here I agree with Rand when she stated that “definitions are the guardians of rationality.”

Have you defined art yet? I don't remember seeing you do so. All I remember is that, during the past few months, you've apparently changed your mind about what is art and what is not, and your crusade to save the definition of art (Rand's, perhaps?) from charlatans has yet to be waged against charlatans such as composers, architects and dancers with the same passion that you employ against abstract modernists and postmodernists. Your selective passion/nonchalance seems to imply that the issue is purely personal, and not one of principle.

J

Edited February 18, 2007 by Jonathan

[Ellen Stuttle]

In fact, the only art that seems to qualify as art according to all of Rand's definitions and standards is ~her~ work.

LOL. I wouldn't go so far as to include her work either. (See my post #152.)

E-

___

[Victor Pross]

Have you defined art yet? I don't remember seeing you do so. All I remember is that, during the past few months, you've apparently changed your mind about what is art and what is not, and your crusade to save the definition of art (Rand's, perhaps?) from charlatans has yet to be waged against charlatans such as composers, architects and dancers with the same passion that you employ against abstract modernists and postmodernists. Your selective passion/nonchalance seems to imply that the issue is purely personal, and not one of principle.

Jonathan,

Seriously, you are like a little persistent puppy barking at my heels. Alright, I will deal with your demands as best I can soon—but not in this post.

But I would like to say just a few things now: without a definition of what constitutes a work of art nor a clear idea of the function and purpose of art of art, (a definition alone is not enough) virtually anything from a naked, barking neurotic tied to a poll in some postmodernist gallery, to a tin can filled with excrement, is regarded by the establishment as an art work. And despite the estimable fact that the common-sense public has begun to see through this fraud and to demand in art representations of reality, the skills and techniques for creating such works have been all but lost.

Ayn Rand’s own revolutionary works in aesthetics will provide an explicit philosophy in place of what has only been a vague, uneasy feeling in public estimates.

-Victor

[Jonathan]

In fact, the only art that seems to qualify as art according to all of Rand's definitions and standards is ~her~ work.

LOL. I wouldn't go so far as to include her work either. (See my post #152.)

E-

___

Thanks, E. Somehow I missed some of that post. I must have zipped through it, thinking that it was just clarifying your and Christian's old conversation.

You wrote,

I agree with the spirit of it but not with the letter of it, since I think what she's requiring isn't necessarily possible even in regard to literature let alone non-verbal art forms.

I have serious reservations about the idea that one necessarily can identify "a theme" even in regard to literature, and with the idea that going about trying to identify "a theme" -- especially going about trying to do that as a base line -- is a good way to approach "aesthetic judgment" (meaning judgment of how well done an artwork is).

I think it depends on what one means by "a theme." I'd use the term to mean something like "the meaning or feeling that I get out of a work of art as a unit, whole, or sum of the parts." I think it's reasonable to expect that a work of art should be evaluated as a whole. If there's a better term than "a theme" to state that the whole should be evaluated, I'm fine with that.

(Some of my past gripes with Objectivists' interpretations of art have been based on the fact that those Objectivists haven't considered the whole in making their appraisals and moral condemnations. Joe Rowlands, for example, looks at Marc Quinn's sculpture of Alison Lapper, sees something that he doesn't like, ignores the rest, and judges it as if the thing he doesn't like is the whole. Pompy Pigero poops his diapers and storms out of a movie theater after three minutes of watching a film and proudly announces to his online toadies that his heroic integrity and character won't allow him to tolerate such evil art, or the ass-wipe doesn't even go to the theater because he's already "objectively" judged the film based on a 15-second TV commercial.)

J

Edited February 18, 2007 by Jonathan

[Victor Pross]

I think it's reasonable to expect that a work of art should be evaluated as a whole.

I agree with you, Jonathan. As in any intellectual endeavor, there is the danger of accepting ideas in a rationalistic way—which permeates Ellen’s posts on the topic of art. Possibly because of the abstract nature of aesthetic, Objectivists and detractors alike err by adopting isolated statements of Ayn Rand’s aesthetics uncritically and failing to examine the ideas thoroughly, in terms of essentials.

It is a common error, for example, to latch onto specific artists whose work Ayn Rand praised in The Romantic Manifesto—such as Vermeer or Victor Hugo—and to accept arbitrarily the artists or their works as values, without understanding what attributes of the work Rand was praising, or why.

It is not rationalistic to opt for a simple approach in deciding which works of art one prefers—but to evaluate the work esthetically, to understand its philosophic importance, and to judge the competence of the artist requires both a solid understanding of aesthetics and specific knowledge of the basic principles of the particular artistic medium (e.g., composition and color harmony in painting, or plot construction and characterization in literature). Evaluating art requires at least some limited study of the means by which a given artform achieves its concretization.

Uncritically adopting pieces of the Objectivist aesthetics or specific examples that Ayn Rand used represents rationalism, just like the classicists in the Renaissance who twisted Aristotle’s principles into concrete-bound dogmatic rules.

-Victor

Edited February 19, 2007 by Victor Pross

[Victor Pross]

Jonathan,

You said:

“…your crusade to save the definition of art (Rand's, perhaps?) from charlatans has yet to be waged against charlatans such as composers, architects and dancers with the same passion that you employ against abstract modernists and postmodernists. Your selective passion/nonchalance seems to imply that the issue is purely personal, and not one of principle."

The methodological principles for creating art are not entirely lost. They exist in fragmentary form and can be found in the works of those brave artists who have struggled to seek out classical training (artists who have never read Rand) in a time of predominantly non-representational, methodless anti-art. The matter for them—and me—is personal. It became that way because it is principled-orientated.

-Victor

Edited February 19, 2007 by Victor Pross

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Victor,

The moment I start deciding again to engage you on this subject, you make a series of post so full of personal opinions put forth as principles and mischaracterizations so blatant that I simply lose the urge.

Regardless of how many posts you make, I sincerely doubt you have convinced anyone of much anything, except the fact that you have opinions.

btw - I personally agree with some of your opinions and disagree with others. The rest is hot air. From what I have read so far, this appears to be the position of most of the posters.

Michael

[Ellen Stuttle]

You [ES] wrote [in post #152],

I agree with the spirit of it but not with the letter of it, since I think what she's requiring isn't necessarily possible even in regard to literature let alone non-verbal art forms.

I have serious reservations about the idea that one necessarily can identify "a theme" even in regard to literature, and with the idea that going about trying to identify "a theme" -- especially going about trying to do that as a base line -- is a good way to approach "aesthetic judgment" (meaning judgment of how well done an artwork is).

I think it depends on what one means by "a theme." I'd use the term to mean something like "the meaning or feeling that I get out of a work of art as a unit, whole, or sum of the parts." I think it's reasonable to expect that a work of art should be evaluated as a whole. If there's a better term than "a theme" to state that the whole should be evaluated, I'm fine with that.

As a "better term," how about: "the whole should be evaluated"? I think that if what one means by "theme" is what you say, then it isn't what she meant. Instead, you're stretching her meaning to cover your knowledge and thereby losing what the lady herself was saying.

Consider a couple examples from literature. Do you think "the role of the mind in human life" (which I believe is what she said the "theme" was) does the job as a basis for judging the whole which is Atlas Shrugged? Does having that sentence in your mind help you in judging Atlas as a work of art?

And here's an example which you might be the only other person on this list besides me who's read, but I think it's an example which will well convey my point to you: What of Dhalgren? Can you even think of a one-sentence "theme" by which to judge the whole of that work? (And, quick, you only get a few minutes to "name that theme.")

Ellen

___

Edited February 19, 2007 by Ellen Stuttle

[Victor Pross]

Jeff wrote:

Then what is your definition of art? If it doesn't have a message (is not a form of communication), then what purpose, if any, does art serve? How do you distinguish "art' from other things that are "non-art" and what is your source of enjoyment?

Jeff,

It is true, I dare say, that art is fundamentally emotional. This is obvious to anyone who has felt that intensely personal, possessive feeling towards the art works that move them. However, there are those who have mistaken Rand’s esthetic theories and her writings regarding “emotions”. This confusion led some people to the conclusion that art must be didactic.

Didacticism is the view that art must teach us something or reveal to use some hidden aspect of the world. It is as if some sensed that art’s appeal to man’s emotions was too weak to be its only function and purpose, and they felt that they had to paste on the additional task of didacticism, the function of teaching, in order to lend credibility and stature to art, beyond its emotional effects. I am an artist and Objectivist—and I personally revel in my emotional responses to art. THIS does not mean that I thereby regard “emotions as tools of cognition.” :turned:

-Victor

Edited February 19, 2007 by Victor Pross

[Victor Pross]

Victor,

The moment I start deciding again to engage you on this subject, you make a series of post so full of personal opinions put forth as principles and mischaracterizations so blatant that I simply lose the urge.

Regardless of how many posts you make, I sincerely doubt you have convinced anyone of much anything, except the fact that you have opinions.

btw - I personally agree with some of your opinions and disagree with others. The rest is hot air. From what I have read so far, this appears to be the position of most of the posters.

Michael

Michael,

Assertions that aren’t backed up is not like you. Regardless of how many posts you make telling me how “wrong” I am on this and that, I can tell you that I am not convinced that I have expressed only “personal opinions” on the subject of art. I sincerely believe that you have nothing much to say other than to make charges of “hot air” without citing specific examples and that you simply disagree with me—that much I know.

Victor

edit: I greatly respect your views on most other subjects—and I respect you—but your own views on art, without wishing to sound like a bastard, just sounds like Charlie Brown’s teacher. There I have said it, but I don’t want this thread to denigrate to personal attacks on people’s form of presentation and other non-issues, but rather I wish to keep the focus on the subject of this thread.

I will continue to express my views as I see fit, and what I truly believe—as others are doing. I will not pick up this conversation again--not if is not related to the topic of the thread.

In regards to even a general knowledge of art history—not scraps of specifics here and there—I’m talking about a general knowledge—you are so clearly lacking even this much. Related to the topic at hand, take this, for example:

"I disagree with the attempt to hijack the word, 'art,' for all contexts, impose only one meaning on it and prohibit the rest of mankind from using the other meanings that have developed over the centuries."

Definitions...that have developed over the centuries?? What other definitons!? When do you think the word 'art' itself came into being--and I mean the word 'art'? And even where philosophers have offered their writings on the subject—from Plato to Nietzsche—have you no idea how fraught with error and nonsense those works are? Look, nobody who even had a rudimentary knowledge of art history would make this kind of statement you made above—and I will post something soon to demonstrate what I mean.

-

Edited February 19, 2007 by Victor Pross

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Victor,

What word do you give to the activity that millions of people engage in worldwide that they call "art" and you say is not? Or is that simply something that does not need a word?

btw - The moment I decide on an example (like the quote I provided before in my post to Jeff, which continues valid to illustrate my point), you fire off another 5 or 10 posts, each with about 3 or 4 easy examples of logical fallacies. There are far too many opinions and fallacies to discuss at once. So I am staying with settling on the different definitions of art for this discussion before moving on to other issues like entities, epistemology and all the other matters that have stayed pending.

Michael

[Victor Pross]

Victor,

What word do you give to the activity that millions of people engage in worldwide that they call "art" and you say is not? Or is that simply something that does not need a word?

btw - The moment I decide on an example (like the quote I provided before in my post to Jeff, which continues valid to illustrate my point), you fire off another 5 or 10 posts, each with about 3 or 4 easy examples of logical fallacies. There are far too many opinions and fallacies to discuss at once. So I am staying with settling on the different definitions of art for this discussion before moving on to other issues like entities, epistemology and all the other matters that have stayed pending.

Michael

Michael,

Until and unless you do call me on these "logical fallacies" it all remain an unsubstantiated assertion—that is, hot air. And no, I am not beyond reason and changing my mind. Hey, I have changed my views on the whole evil ideas/evil actions convo we had last summer. So pat me on the head. But I have thought long and hard on the subject of art and I do not regard this subject a personal weakness on my part—no matter how much you crow over “cognitive” and “normative”—and do so in a manner that I believe is misapplied. For example, you took the “institutional definition” of art (that you said does not exist except as a Victor Pross construct, and Ellen corrected you on that) and called this “cognitive.” (!!) So the question came to my mind: do YOU know what they mean?

-Victor

Edited February 19, 2007 by Victor Pross

[Victor Pross]

What word do you give to the activity that millions of people engage in worldwide that they call "art" and you say is not? Or is that simply something that does not need a word?

Michael,

Let me try to be clear: As I have argued before, and as any scholar of art knows, the term “art” refers to the concept of skill. The term 'art' is a fairly modern term. It wasn't until the Renaissance period did the term 'artist' and 'art' come into being. Before then, anyone with these skills were labeled craftsmen. But the fact of ART (centuries before the word was affixed to it) can be dealt with: A logical place to begin an examination is the first philosopher to present a systematic theory of the enterprise of philosophy itself: Plato.

It is no accident that Plato was also the first to develop a systematic, philosophical presentation of aesthetics. At the root of Plato’s outlook was the belief that there are two fundamentally antithetical realms of existence, the world of particulars and the world of Forms---the world of particulars is the realm we experience everyday through sense perception---and the world of Forms is some mystical non-material realm that we can only contact through pure, non-sensory means. And there was also Aristotle who was the first rational this-worldly philosopher and who argued that there is only one reality, the reality known to the senses. He was a philosopher of reason.

As Roger Bissell said: "Aristotle is actually the historical source of the view of art as microcosm and as re-creation of reality, though he and numerous philosophers in the following two millennia used instead the phrase 'imitation of nature.'"

Case in point: whatever word was used---art or craft or aesthetics---the phenomena of “art” was being dealt with by these ancient philosophers. But there is not a bevy of philosophers thereafter defining “art” or contributing to the field to the extent Ayn Rand did. It was Rand who provided the philosophical foundations of esthetics.

-Victor

Edited February 19, 2007 by Victor Pross

[Brant Gaede]

Case in point: whatever word was used---art or craft or aesthetics---the phenomena of “art” was being dealt with by these ancient philosophers. But there is not a bevy of philosophers thereafter defining “art” or contributing to the field to the extent Ayn Rand did. It was Rand who provided the philosophical foundations of esthetics.

-Victor

This is an astounding statement. She made a few observations and provided a definition.

--Brant