Thoughts on The Romantic Manifesto

[C. Jordan]

Thoughts on The Romantic Manifesto

by C. Jordan

I probably should apologise for having been away for months, both adjusting to my new country (Netherlands) and struggling on my writer's deadline. In penance, I won't tell you too much about WÉI (Surrounding) except that my deadline is 31 December, this year.

I stopped in because I have recently gotten THE ROMANTIC MANIFESTO, and have read it twice. Ayn Rand's work requires reading twice before making a judgment. And now that I'm on my 3rd reading, I have begun to draw up some objections.

Most of my objections come from Rand's tendency to overgeneralise and to make blanket statements. Here are three. The first is relatively minor, and the second more significant; and the third is a problem.

(01) Ayn Rand writes: "Consider the difference if man turns to the art of ancient Greece or to the art of the Middle Ages." She says the first presents men as heroic, and the second presents men as damned sinners.

The first is the easiest to demonstrate is NOT true. Rand gave no examples, but from her novels I assume she means t Greek statues of heroes. This is true, but "the art of ancient Greece" also includes the play ŒDIPUS REX, which contains the explicit message that men are pawns in the hands of the gods (or of Fate, as if it matters). The "art of ancient Greece" includes the ILIAD, which presupposes that the actions of men on the battlefield are influenced by the gods.

I will refrain from arguing that she also over-generalises the Mediæval period. She does have a broader point, which I do take. There is indeed a difference between those assumtions, and I agree with her choice. My point is that one should be careful against generalising too broadly. I would have no objection if she specifically had compared (for example) Michelangelo's statue of David to the Church Doors of Orvieto (or any other example of Mediæval hell).

(02) Ayn Rand, in defining Romanticism, lists a hierarchy of good writers. To paraphrase: (1) the best writers have precisely integrated their plot and ideas; (2) the second-best writers have a romantic vision, but use conventional ideas instead of their own and oversimplify their characters; (3) the third-best are writers who mix Romanticism with Naturalism and either (a.) have good stories with bad characters or (b.) write "grand scale themes and characters, with no plots and an overwhelming sense of tragedy."

This last was precisely where my objection lays. Does a tragic story mean the writer believes tragedy is necessary? Rand's earlier argument in the book was that a writer chooses those elements he believes are important to write about. "Important to write about" is not always a synonym for "metaphysically significant" or "what I believe is right and good."

I will illustrate this by a personal example. Among other things, I choose to write about child soldiers. I do consider the subject important. My point in writing about them is that there are child soldiers being exploited by warlords in our world today. I believe that if I had not written about them, it would be the same as ignoring the phenomenon in reality. Warlords will continue to use child soldiers, if they believe they can get away with it. I agree the subject is tragic, and it reflects the "malevolent" ideas of the warlords. But ignoring it would be wrong.

Surely Ayn Rand would not disagree with that argument. Why did she write WE THE LIVING, if not to state that it was wrong to ignore the truth of Soviet Russia? WE THE LIVING did not have a happy ending, making it a tragedy. This makes her blanket condemnation of "tragedy" sound a bit strange.

Of course, one could argue that "WE THE LIVING was not a tragedy, because Kira never surrendered, even though she died." I would say then that you and I don't agree on what qualifies something as a tragedy. I consider a great tragedy to be a story showing the defeat of the hero. And I will even argue that this is not "malevolent" per se.

Sometimes a hero can be beaten by his situation: a real-life example is the death of Steve Biko. After Biko's death, his followers kept "the flame of struggle" alive. This is precisely what happens in a tragedy, where the hero (presuming this a character I can admire) is defeated. If the book is well written, then I will feel rage at this defeat. I will be inspired to keep the "flame" alive, by standing up for what the hero died for.

Alternately, a great tragedy can show a hero who chooses badly/wrongly, and must face the consequences. If well done, this is a cautionary tale, showing the reader what mistakes not to make. One could write this from the perspective of "a malevolent universe" if one chose, although I would not consider that "great art" for the same reasons Ayn Rand gave. It is also overgeneralising to say this is ALWAYS true of a tragic story, wherein the hero fails. THE FOUNTAINHEAD was not a tragic book, but Gail Wynand was a tragic character, because of his choice.

(03) The third is an omission. Nowhere does Ayn Rand specifically define Naturalism, and I can only create this definition from the examples she gave over the flaws in objectivism. Naturalism, based on this, by definition is (a.) about boring characters (b.) never has a coherent plot (c.) repeats standard plot clichés (d.) is written with the "malevolent universe" premise and (e.) is overall of low quality.

This strikes me of a definition of bad writing in ANY genre, than a damnation of a genre. Again, there is no DEFINITION of Naturalism. Only examples of Naturalism that Ayn Rand does not like. The closest definition is that Naturalist writing reports and recreates real people and real situations. By that defintion reportage is Naturalism. And again, I have a pair of potent counter-examples.

The first is MY TRAITOR's HEART by Rian Malan, which is based on his reportage, history studies, and personal experiences in South Africa. I would have to write an essay just to prove this point, and I'm willing to do so if it's requested. My point is that Malan's book of reportage also has a subtle thematic structure which has become clear to me after ±30 readings. I will give but one example: early on Malan tells us of an ancestor of his who went into the African frontier 200 years ago; and later he tells us of that same frontier in 1986. Explicitly and implicitly, he invites the reader to consider the problems that remain unsolved and to see what it will take to solve these problems (if ever).

The second is also reportage: THE EMPEROR by Ryszard Kapuscinski, about the reign and downfall of Ethiopian autocrat Haile Selassie. Kapuscinski does not moralise, he does not tell us explicitly what to think. He reports what he learned from former dignitaries of the palace. In my judgment that is enough to paint a damning portrait of His Most Generous/Wise/Noble Majesty. While the former dignitaries always call Haile Selassie by such titles, this always stands in contrast to the Emperor's actual behaviour, which is a long way from generous, wise, or noble. Kapuscinski did not mention this. He trusted us the readers to see it and to judge it for ourselves.

Even assuming we agree with these examples, one could still object. "Malan's book uses a Romanticist strategy, and so does Kapuscinski's." That brings me back to the first point: there is no clear defintion of Naturalism, only examples of Naturalism that Ayn Rand did not like, and the statement that a Naturalist writes like a reporter. That gives me grounds to say Malan's and Kapuscinski's work was Naturalism, and I will repeat that it also showed considerable skill in the writing, in both cases.

This argument cuts to the deepest heart of my argument. Without a clear definition, it is too easy to resort to the "True Scotsman" argument. If I say, "But this is Naturalism and also very good," then one could say, "if it's good, it can't be Naturalism." Without a definition, Naturalism sounds as if it means nothing more than bad writing. This could easily lead us to damn books with no further explanation than "it's Naturalism."

Surely that cannot be justice.

[Jonathan]

(03) The third is an omission. Nowhere does Ayn Rand specifically define Naturalism, and I can only create this definition from the examples she gave over the flaws in objectivism. Naturalism, based on this, by definition is (a.) about boring characters (b.) never has a coherent plot (c.) repeats standard plot clichés (d.) is written with the "malevolent universe" premise and (e.) is overall of low quality.

This strikes me of a definition of bad writing in ANY genre, than a damnation of a genre. Again, there is no DEFINITION of Naturalism. Only examples of Naturalism that Ayn Rand does not like. The closest definition is that Naturalist writing reports and recreates real people and real situations.

"Romanticism is a category of art based on the recognition that man possesses the faculty of volition.

"Art is a selective re-creation of reality according to an artist's metaphysical value-judgments. An artist re-creates those aspects of reality which represent his fundamental view of man and of existence. In forming a view of man's nature, a fundamental question one must answer is whether man possesses the faculty of volition—because one's conclusions and evaluations in regard to all the characteristics, requirements and actions of man depend on the answer.

"Their opposite answers to this question constitute the respective basic premises of two broad categories of art: Romanticism, which recognizes the existence of man's volition—and Naturalism, which denies it."

(Romantic Manifesto, pb 99)

J

Edited September 23, 2007 by Jonathan

[RTB]

Thoughts on The Romantic Manifesto

by C. Jordan

I probably should apologise for having been away for months, both adjusting to my new country (Netherlands) and struggling on my writer's deadline. In penance, I won't tell you too much about WÉI (Surrounding) except that my deadline is 31 December, this year.

I stopped in because I have recently gotten THE ROMANTIC MANIFESTO, and have read it twice. Ayn Rand's work requires reading twice before making a judgment. And now that I'm on my 3rd reading, I have begun to draw up some objections.

Most of my objections come from Rand's tendency to overgeneralise and to make blanket statements. Here are three. The first is relatively minor, and the second more significant; and the third is a problem.

(01) Ayn Rand writes: "Consider the difference if man turns to the art of ancient Greece or to the art of the Middle Ages." She says the first presents men as heroic, and the second presents men as damned sinners.

The first is the easiest to demonstrate is NOT true. Rand gave no examples, but from her novels I assume she means t Greek statues of heroes. This is true, but "the art of ancient Greece" also includes the play ŒDIPUS REX, which contains the explicit message that men are pawns in the hands of the gods (or of Fate, as if it matters). The "art of ancient Greece" includes the ILIAD, which presupposes that the actions of men on the battlefield are influenced by the gods.

I will refrain from arguing that she also over-generalises the Mediæval period. She does have a broader point, which I do take. There is indeed a difference between those assumtions, and I agree with her choice. My point is that one should be careful against generalising too broadly. I would have no objection if she specifically had compared (for example) Michelangelo's statue of David to the Church Doors of Orvieto (or any other example of Mediæval hell).

(02) Ayn Rand, in defining Romanticism, lists a hierarchy of good writers. To paraphrase: (1) the best writers have precisely integrated their plot and ideas; (2) the second-best writers have a romantic vision, but use conventional ideas instead of their own and oversimplify their characters; (3) the third-best are writers who mix Romanticism with Naturalism and either (a.) have good stories with bad characters or (b.) write "grand scale themes and characters, with no plots and an overwhelming sense of tragedy."

This last was precisely where my objection lays. Does a tragic story mean the writer believes tragedy is necessary? Rand's earlier argument in the book was that a writer chooses those elements he believes are important to write about. "Important to write about" is not always a synonym for "metaphysically significant" or "what I believe is right and good."

I will illustrate this by a personal example. Among other things, I choose to write about child soldiers. I do consider the subject important. My point in writing about them is that there are child soldiers being exploited by warlords in our world today. I believe that if I had not written about them, it would be the same as ignoring the phenomenon in reality. Warlords will continue to use child soldiers, if they believe they can get away with it. I agree the subject is tragic, and it reflects the "malevolent" ideas of the warlords. But ignoring it would be wrong.

Surely Ayn Rand would not disagree with that argument. Why did she write WE THE LIVING, if not to state that it was wrong to ignore the truth of Soviet Russia? WE THE LIVING did not have a happy ending, making it a tragedy. This makes her blanket condemnation of "tragedy" sound a bit strange.

Of course, one could argue that "WE THE LIVING was not a tragedy, because Kira never surrendered, even though she died." I would say then that you and I don't agree on what qualifies something as a tragedy. I consider a great tragedy to be a story showing the defeat of the hero. And I will even argue that this is not "malevolent" per se.

Sometimes a hero can be beaten by his situation: a real-life example is the death of Steve Biko. After Biko's death, his followers kept "the flame of struggle" alive. This is precisely what happens in a tragedy, where the hero (presuming this a character I can admire) is defeated. If the book is well written, then I will feel rage at this defeat. I will be inspired to keep the "flame" alive, by standing up for what the hero died for.

Alternately, a great tragedy can show a hero who chooses badly/wrongly, and must face the consequences. If well done, this is a cautionary tale, showing the reader what mistakes not to make. One could write this from the perspective of "a malevolent universe" if one chose, although I would not consider that "great art" for the same reasons Ayn Rand gave. It is also overgeneralising to say this is ALWAYS true of a tragic story, wherein the hero fails. THE FOUNTAINHEAD was not a tragic book, but Gail Wynand was a tragic character, because of his choice.

(03) The third is an omission. Nowhere does Ayn Rand specifically define Naturalism, and I can only create this definition from the examples she gave over the flaws in objectivism. Naturalism, based on this, by definition is (a.) about boring characters (b.) never has a coherent plot (c.) repeats standard plot clichés (d.) is written with the "malevolent universe" premise and (e.) is overall of low quality.

This strikes me of a definition of bad writing in ANY genre, than a damnation of a genre. Again, there is no DEFINITION of Naturalism. Only examples of Naturalism that Ayn Rand does not like. The closest definition is that Naturalist writing reports and recreates real people and real situations. By that defintion reportage is Naturalism. And again, I have a pair of potent counter-examples.

The first is MY TRAITOR's HEART by Rian Malan, which is based on his reportage, history studies, and personal experiences in South Africa. I would have to write an essay just to prove this point, and I'm willing to do so if it's requested. My point is that Malan's book of reportage also has a subtle thematic structure which has become clear to me after ±30 readings. I will give but one example: early on Malan tells us of an ancestor of his who went into the African frontier 200 years ago; and later he tells us of that same frontier in 1986. Explicitly and implicitly, he invites the reader to consider the problems that remain unsolved and to see what it will take to solve these problems (if ever).

The second is also reportage: THE EMPEROR by Ryszard Kapuscinski, about the reign and downfall of Ethiopian autocrat Haile Selassie. Kapuscinski does not moralise, he does not tell us explicitly what to think. He reports what he learned from former dignitaries of the palace. In my judgment that is enough to paint a damning portrait of His Most Generous/Wise/Noble Majesty. While the former dignitaries always call Haile Selassie by such titles, this always stands in contrast to the Emperor's actual behaviour, which is a long way from generous, wise, or noble. Kapuscinski did not mention this. He trusted us the readers to see it and to judge it for ourselves.

Even assuming we agree with these examples, one could still object. "Malan's book uses a Romanticist strategy, and so does Kapuscinski's." That brings me back to the first point: there is no clear defintion of Naturalism, only examples of Naturalism that Ayn Rand did not like, and the statement that a Naturalist writes like a reporter. That gives me grounds to say Malan's and Kapuscinski's work was Naturalism, and I will repeat that it also showed considerable skill in the writing, in both cases.

This argument cuts to the deepest heart of my argument. Without a clear definition, it is too easy to resort to the "True Scotsman" argument. If I say, "But this is Naturalism and also very good," then one could say, "if it's good, it can't be Naturalism." Without a definition, Naturalism sounds as if it means nothing more than bad writing. This could easily lead us to damn books with no further explanation than "it's Naturalism."

Surely that cannot be justice.

Anyone want to tackle this? I can see flaws and holes all over this but esthetics is not my strongsuit. I'll do it if noone else can.

[C. Jordan]

I'm all ready for it.

[Newberry]

Anyone want to tackle this?

Yikes!

[Brant Gaede]

There is no "Objectivist Esthetics." That is a myth. There are AR's esthetic opinions. That's all.

--Brant

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Brant,

Objectivist aesthetics boils down to one word: volition.

Michael

[Rich Engle]

Interesting, MSK. I think I see your reduction, but would you care to elaborate? Because, in a way, I kind of see where Brant is coming from...

[Rich Engle]

OK, I went over there. It didn't take long: my immune system is not up to its usual capabilities, I suppose, having not been over there for a while. I ran after reading but one Perigo chestnut.

"Strolling through town just now I found it necessary to contrive a state of nonchalance, so infectious was the alarm that had clearly taken charge of everyone else. Scurrying hither and thither with clenched, yet ominously splayed, grimness etched into their faces, everyone else reminded me of nothing so much as the outbreaks of mass hysteria that notoriously overtook medieval villages.

"Hither and thither?" Ohhhhh.... What the eff?"

rde

Contriving a state of wanting puffy sleeves and a quill pen, whilst dashing about circularlly (and thither), in a petulant frenzy, a PETULANT FRENZY, so say I!

Edited December 28, 2007 by Rich Engle

[Jonathan]

Brant,

Objectivist aesthetics boils down to one word: volition.

Michael

Rand's aesthetic theory is that art can be great whether one likes it or not, and whether or not one agrees with it. So I don't think that "volition" is what it boils down to, since a work of art doesn't need to represent or express volition in order to be considered a successful or great work of art. I think that Rand's preference for volitional world views in art should be classified as more of a personal, epistemological or moral preference than as representing the essence of her aesthetic theory.

I think her aesthetic theory actually boils down to the idea that an art work is created according to what an artist considers to be significant or essential to existence, that we respond to art based on our "senses of life," that art must be intelligible and must communicate, that it must serve no purpose other than contemplation, and that an objective evaluation of a work of art requires that we identify the artist's subject and theme based only on the evidence contained within his work, and then evaluate how well he has communicated his meaning (unfortunately Rand didn't address how we might go about discovering whether or not we have accurately identified an artist's theme if the artist isn't available to tell us what he intended).

J

Edited December 28, 2007 by Jonathan

[Brant Gaede]

Brant,

Objectivist aesthetics boils down to one word: volition.

Volition is not validity save in the basic case. All philosophy, true or false, rests on volition. Volition is why humans have and need philosophy and no other living thing. It validates philosophy as such but no particular philosophy. A determinist may argue against volition, but by so doing he is arguing against philosophy too. He has a hard case demonstrating that quality and type of political philosophy or philosophy generally doesn't affect a society and by trying he only attacks his own deterministic philosophy. Why does the determinist cross the road? He is determined to get run over.

--Brant

Edited December 28, 2007 by Brant Gaede

[Rich Engle]

Jonathan says:

"Rand's aesthetic theory is that art can be great whether one likes it or not, and whether or not one agrees with it or not."

I've always wondered if that is true. I would like to think so, in a way. But, it nudges close to "everything is relative" world. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder world.

I really don't know! Maybe you did finally delineate it...her personal vs. pure.

One way or another, she probably screwed up a few record sales...no Beethoven, no wire hangers!

OK, that was a little mean.

I very much liked your whole post.

best,

rde

Edited December 28, 2007 by Rich Engle

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Jonathan,

To me this whole issue becomes easy when I filter it through cognitive and normative abstractions. The normative is how volition weighs in a person's sense of life (the role of volition) and the cognitive is how well that sense of life is expressed through a "selective recreation of reality."

When Rand says an artwork can be great but expresses a malevolent sense of life, I understand that she is talking about the cognitive part for greatness. In this sense, a great work expresses a sense of life (any old sense of life will do) in a universally accessible manner (especially emotionally) with a high degree of technique. Lesser works miss the mark in (1) getting the sense of life across, and (2) technique.

Technique is a hard one because often the technique involved in helping cause the greatness is present along with misfires of other aspects. (This is too long to go into right here, but I hope you know what I mean.)

I see a huge problem with Rand's writing at times where she uses the same word to mean two different things. I see this especially when using an evaluation like "great." If you use two meanings for the same word and use the same word more than once in nearby statements, but do not specify the meanings at the time you use them, a work can be great and not great (even trash) at the same time for the same person. The word can mean cognitively (great) in the first case and normatively (not great) in the second.

Rand is pretty clear that her aesthetic theory is based on both cognitive and normative abstractions. Your summary is good, but incomplete, since this is left out. In fact, The Romantic Manifesto is one of the few places in all her writing where she discusses normative abstractions as a category.

I have a theory about why this is, but it is only speculation. The very existence of a separate category for normative abstractions plays hell with the whole "is-ought" thing (the Objectivist version) and threatens to undermine the logic of Rand's anti-mind/body dichotomy position once you move away from art and get into metaphysics. It can get downright Kantian and become a categorical imperative if you are not careful.

Michael

[Newberry]

Brant,

Objectivist aesthetics boils down to one word: volition.

Michael

Michael,

I don't think reducing aesthetics down to one concept works. It lacks a comprehensive view of human nature and its interaction with the outside world--I would go with art being made up of thought, emotion, and perception. My experience is that if you sacrifice one or more of those you end up with something nihilistic. I cover something close to this here: http://newberryworkshop.com/Tutorial/axioms/axioms.html

Though; aesthetics is different than art--it's the study of art. Emotion plays a huge role in making and responding to art. In aesthetics identifying emotional elements in art would be cool, but you don't really want the critic using his emotions as some sort of given, but for the artist it is.

Michael

Edited December 30, 2007 by Newberry

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Michael,

I agree with you.

But I didn't say that "aesthetics" boils down to one issue. I said "Objectivist aesthetics." I understand volition to be at the heart of Objectivist aesthetics from Rand's own works. I certainly can provide quotes if need be (I'm tired right now, so please forgive the laziness).

I personally have a wider view of art based, as a matter of fact, on a wider view of human nature. It does not negate Objectivist aesthetics, but includes it—somewhat in the manner Ken Wilber uses in his integrated approach to the world's thinkers and schools of thought.

The reason I stress volition for Objectivist aesthetics (in addition to being true) is that it is becoming fashionable to bash Rand's aesthetics because she did not like Beethoven, or she harshly judged a person because he liked a certain artist. and things like that. The real issue—the objective one—is often missed or ignored while keeping focus on Rand's quirks and subjective opinions.

Whether one adheres to Romantic Realism or the definition of art in Objectivist aesthetics, the issue of volition is a critical one in art and it is a mistake to ignore it, or ignore that Rand dealt with it as a core issue.

(btw - I enjoyed the tutorial on axioms.)

Michael

[Newberry]

Hi Michael,

I think you are discussing that Objectivist aesthetics is different from other views of art because of its (explicit) recognition that man has volition. With that I agree. But, that is different than boiling down O aesthetics to one concept. Hope that clarifies things better.

Michael

Edited December 31, 2007 by Newberry

[Jonathan]

MSK,

I agree that the issue of volition, or, more precisely, the issue of volition versus determinism, is important to the Objectivist Esthetics. When you said that it "boils down to volition," I thought you were repeating the common Objectivist view that in order to be rated as good or great, an art work must express or represent a volitional worldview, or that Romantic Realism (which by Rand's definition means "volition-expressing realism") is the "best kind of art." Rand defined art as being created according to "metaphysical value-judgments," which she felt addressed such questions as "Can man find happiness on earth, or is he doomed to frustration and despair?" and "Does he have the power to choose his goals and achieve them, or is he a helpless plaything of forces beyond his control?" So, yes, volition vs determinism is an important element of her aesthetic theory, it's just not relevant to making a judgment of a work of art's aesthetic value.

Whether one adheres to Romantic Realism or the definition of art in Objectivist aesthetics, the issue of volition is a critical one in art and it is a mistake to ignore it, or ignore that Rand dealt with it as a core issue."

I'm not ignoring it, but is it really a critical issue to all art? Does Rand seriously address the issue of how it applies to all art forms, including the more abstract forms such as dance, music and architecture, or does she just say that it applies, without providing any substantive support for her views?

I know that the issue of volition vs determinism was of vital importance to the creation of Rand's art, and to her personal methods of artistic interpretation and art-psychoanalysis, but I don't think it's all that important to art in general. In fact, I think that Rand's (and many of her followers') insistence on using volition vs determinism as something of a litmus test is one of the more unfortunate aspects of their approaches to judging art (and to judging other people's responses to it), because it's so unreliable, subjective, and, well, so shallow. I think that Rand's ideas on what an artist will present, based on whether he believes in volition or determinism, are largely caricatures designed to prop up the weakness of that aspect of her theory.

Any story or image which could be classified as showing mankind in a state of defeat or despair is not necessarily a denial of volition. As I've mentioned on earlier threads, Newberry's Rend is a good example of the futility of trying to apply Rand's (and Newberry's) methods of "detecting" metaphysical value-judgments in art. David's Death of Socrates is another obvious example (and I mention it because it has been used many times by people like Newberry, Kamhi & Torres, and other Objectivish-types in past discussions). Even if we ignore Rand's requirement of allowing no "outside considerations" when looking at the painting, and, therefore, if we allow ourselves the knowledge of the historical events to which the painting refers, we still can't know if David was implying that mankind should be heroic and rebellious and should choose the truth regardless of the consequences, or that mankind is a plaything of forces beyond his control and should gracefully accept his fate.

And the unreliability of the Randian hermeneutic is not limited to tragic works of art, but also applies to those which show people as heroic or godlike as well, since they are not necessarily, or even generally, representations of volition. A hardcore determinist could create art which denies volition but represents a heroic vision. He might show, as many artists have, figures being destined to greatness as opposed to being "fated to defeat and despair." There are determinists of many varieties which don't fit Rand's caricature. In fact, most of the determinists I've known have been more passionate and focused in life than most free-willers. They don't sit around moping about their miserable fate in life as Rand implies.

I mentioned in post #10 that Rand didn't address how we might go about discovering whether or not we have accurately identified an artist's theme if the artist isn't available to tell us what he intended. Since Newberry is available and he seems to largely agree with Rand, I thought I'd try, once again, to get him to explain whether or not I'm properly applying his and Rand's theories of "detecting metaphysical value-judgments" in art.

Try it yourself. Try to detect the metaphysical value-judgments in Newberry's God Releasing the Stars into the Universe, which can be found here (scroll down to the bottom of post #225), without relying on "outside considerations" such as the title of the piece, any backgound information that can be found on the web, or the fact that you know that Newberry is Objectivish and has created other works which you think represent a heroic, volitional vision.

Here's my attempt at it:

The image is not a "sunlit universe." It shows a naked man on his knees. His facial expression is anything but happy or confident and appears to have perhaps a worn-out look, which, in combination with the body language, makes him appear to be emotionally and physically lost in the dark space that he inhabits. The background is one of unintelligible, twisting forms and object-less, "muddy" color zones. The figure seems to exist in an unknowable void, or, at best, in a cave (which implies that mankind is a primitive cave-dweller who doesn't even know how to create his own shelter or clothing). From his hands he appears to be releasing or losing control of a light or fire which quickly turns into a swirl of dark smoke as it floats away from him. Apparently this is a visual metaphor for his losing or letting go of what little light or passion he had, and helplessly watching it drift away and fade into darkness. The image is a nightmarish vision in which the figure is fated to despair and incomprehension in the dark, unintelligible, meaningless void of existence. That is the "metaphysical value-judgment" that the image represents.

Of course, I think that such a method of interpretation should be thought of as facile or simplistic and in need of serious reconsideration, but that would mean no longer applying the method to art created by other artists, and that, I think, is the rub.

J

Edited December 31, 2007 by Jonathan

[Newberry]

Oh god!....Happy New Year everyone.

J:

I mentioned in post #10 that Rand didn't address how we might go about discovering whether or not we have accurately identified an artist's theme if the artist isn't available to tell us what he intended. Since Newberry is available and he seems to largely agree with Rand, I thought I'd try, once again, to get him to explain whether or not I'm properly applying his and Rand's theories of "detecting metaphysical value-judgments" in art.

I have hope for you.

Try it yourself. Try to detect the metaphysical value-judgments in Newberry's God Releasing the Stars into the Universe, which can be found here (scroll down to the bottom of post #225), without relying on "outside considerations" such as the title of the piece, any backgound information that can be found on the web, or the fact that you know that Newberry is Objectivish and has created other works which you think represent a heroic, volitional vision.

BTW, I don't consider myself an Objectivist, a Newberryist feels about right.

The image is not a "sunlit universe."

That would be an outside platonic consideration. I should hope it is clear that the scene doesn't take place in daylight. So let's nix that comment.

It shows a naked man on his knees.

Good, a simple fact. But, it would be more helpful in adding that he is thrusting his hands outwards on a diagonal angle and looking up along that same line. Leaving the comment about a man simply on his knees might conjure up passive resignation.

His facial expression is anything but happy or confident and appears to have perhaps a worn-out look...

The comments "happy" and "confident" can go the way the sunlit universe--unless you used them to show the opposite, like "sad" and "self-effacing." Of course I am the artist, but I don't think the expression conveys any of these: confident, happy, sad, or self-effacing. The worn-out look could work--I think it makes sense with the energy he is releasing.

...which, in combination with the body language,

Would be helpful to describe what exactly that body language is.

...makes him appear to be emotionally and physically lost...

Can you point out the charactoristics that come across to you as "lost?"

The background is one of unintelligible, twisting forms and object-less, "muddy" color zones. The figure seems to exist in an unknowable void, or, at best, in a cave (which implies that mankind is a primitive cave-dweller who doesn't even know how to create his own shelter or clothing).

The painting is 7x5 feet, you are looking at a low resolution image, seeing some of the details might help. But, that said, where do you see a cave? Another point that I think people can grasp is that it is a night scene outside. Another is that there is rocky peak in the upper half of the painting. Also, what is clear in real life that there are stars in the upper corners of the painting, with some dispersed the wave of light. When I do a presentation on this painting I will show some details of them.

From his hands he appears to be releasing or losing control of a light or fire which quickly turns into a swirl of dark smoke as it floats away from him.

That description is fine until "a swirl of dark smoke." I would think dark smoke would be dark against a lighter background. In the painting the swirl is does get darker, but still remains lighter than the background.

Apparently this is a visual metaphor for his losing or letting go of what little light or passion he had...

Does that huge ball of light look "little" to you? The light banking is a major compositional element in the painting, and it is made up of hundreds of shifting hues of light gold, hot oranges, and brilliant whites. Does his face lack passion? For me not--wide eyes and mouth open in deep inhaling.

...and helplessly watching it drift away and fade into darkness.

"Helplessly" implies it is being done to him, but since he is pushing the light outwards, its his doing--a pro-active gesture.

The image is a nightmarish vision in which the figure is fated to despair and incomprehension in the dark, unintelligible, meaningless void of existence.

I can understand how you can think that based on your previous assertions, but what if your assertions are wide of the mark?

I mentioned in post #10 that Rand didn't address how we might go about discovering whether or not we have accurately identified an artist's theme if the artist isn't available to tell us what he intended.

I thought a great deal about this when I was 20 years old. I didn't have anyone to ask about it, so I simply did a hell of a lot of art making, and research. But the idea to solely look at the clues within the art work is spot on. One of my strong points in my mentor art program is analyzing and getting them to see what the visual expression of their visual idea is. BTW, but for one in the past, none of my students are Objectivsts, for that matter, very few of my collectors are as well.

So Jonathan, I enjoyed this little exercise, and I hope you appreciate the insights I offered. But, I am a little concerned that you have such sloppy habits and are so quick to make big judgments on so little factual perceptions. If you were less contentious you would benefit greatly from my mentor program.

Happy New Year,

Michael

[Jonathan]

Try it yourself. Try to detect the metaphysical value-judgments in Newberry's God Releasing the Stars into the Universe, which can be found here (scroll down to the bottom of post #225), without relying on "outside considerations" such as the title of the piece, any backgound information that can be found on the web, or the fact that you know that Newberry is Objectivish and has created other works which you think represent a heroic, volitional vision.

BTW, I don't consider myself an Objectivist, a Newberryist feels about right.

Which is why I said "Objectivish" rather than "Objectivist." Anyway, I haven't seen much difference between your views and Objectivism.

The image is not a "sunlit universe."

That would be an outside platonic consideration. I should hope it is clear that the scene doesn't take place in daylight. So let's nix that comment.

The comment wasn't about the scene's lighting. I've always taken Rand's concept of "sunlit universe" to be about attitude. It's the idea of being untouched by suffering, and suffering is most definitely not an "outside Platonic consideration" when discussing Newberrian/Randian theories of aesthetic interpretation. When judging works of art created by people other than Newberry and Rand, nasty things like suffering "take on metaphysical meaning," and they "equal" very bad views of the essence of existence.

It shows a naked man on his knees.

Good, a simple fact. But, it would be more helpful in adding that he is thrusting his hands outwards on a diagonal angle and looking up along that same line. Leaving the comment about a man simply on his knees might conjure up passive resignation.

Did you read the entire description that I gave? You see, the whole paragraph was to be taken as a unit. Each sentence isn't an independent evaluation of the image. You may notice that later in the paragraph I did mention what the figure was doing with his hands.

The fact that the figure is on his knees doesn't mean that he's passive. It does, however, imply that the he is coming from a low position resembling something like submission, weakness, or vulnerability, and the overall effect is that that he's surrendering his lifeforce.

His facial expression is anything but happy or confident and appears to have perhaps a worn-out look...

The comments "happy" and "confident" can go the way the sunlit universe--unless you used them to show the opposite, like "sad" and "self-effacing."

The lack of happiness and confidence are quite relevant to an aesthetic theory which purports to be able to reliably detect in works of art the answers to such questions as "Can man find happiness on earth?" and "Does he have the power to achieve his goals?"

Besides, the face is beyond "sad." It appears to be a visual version of a light moan.

Of course I am the artist, but I don't think the expression conveys any of these: confident, happy, sad, or self-effacing.

Then by Rand's standards of objective aesthetic judgment, your art is probably bad because it hasn't communicated your precise intended meaning to me.

The worn-out look could work--I think it makes sense with the energy he is releasing.

But being worn out while releasing such a brief flash of energy which instantly fades into darkness implies defeat.

...which, in combination with the body language,

Would be helpful to describe what exactly that body language is.

As mentioned above, the figure is coming from a low position resembling something like submission, weakness, or vulnerability. Add to that the fact that the figure is thin -- his torso especially looks malnourished. In art, a malnourished body equals a malnourished soul. That's Newberrianism 101.

...makes him appear to be emotionally and physically lost...

Can you point out the charactoristics that come across to you as "lost?"

Aside from the ones that I've already mentioned but that you've been eager to "nix"?

The background is one of unintelligible, twisting forms and object-less, "muddy" color zones. The figure seems to exist in an unknowable void, or, at best, in a cave (which implies that mankind is a primitive cave-dweller who doesn't even know how to create his own shelter or clothing).

The painting is 7x5 feet, you are looking at a low resolution image, seeing some of the details might help. But, that said, where do you see a cave? Another point that I think people can grasp is that it is a night scene outside. Another is that there is rocky peak in the upper half of the painting.

Your "rocky peak" had the effect that I've seen in certain paintings of Mont Sainte-Victoire -- it took on the appearance of possibly being the mouth of a cave. The fact that both the rocky peak and the sky have bluish hues implies that in the figure's world, both rock and sky can be blue. The blue part that you apparently meant to be sky appears to be closer to the viewer than the blue part that you meant to be the rocky peak, so I saw the sky as likely being a cave ceiling and the peak as being sky seen through a cave's mouth and between various rock formations on the ground outside of the cave.

Also, what is clear in real life that there are stars in the upper corners of the painting, with some dispersed the wave of light. When I do a presentation on this painting I will show some details of them.

I can see them. But I was disregarding the "outside consideration," supplied in the image's title, that the little sparkles were "stars." Based only on the visual information, I had to see them as something like embers or ash from the quickly fading light or fire.

From his hands he appears to be releasing or losing control of a light or fire which quickly turns into a swirl of dark smoke as it floats away from him.

That description is fine until "a swirl of dark smoke." I would think dark smoke would be dark against a lighter background. In the painting the swirl is does get darker, but still remains lighter than the background.

Dark is dark. The fact that a background ranges from 75% value density to 90% and the smoke ranges from 70% to 85% doesn't make the smoke "light." Besides, why would I compare the value of the swirl to the value of the background when I'm saying that the swirl gets darker as it floats away? It's darker than the lightest area of the swirl. End of story.

Apparently this is a visual metaphor for his losing or letting go of what little light or passion he had...

Does that huge ball of light look "little" to you?

It's not a large ball of light -- about the size of the man's body when adjusted for perspective -- but it's not an issue of size, but of duration. The light looks insignificant when considering it's motion: it's intensity fades very quickly; it's quite fleeting.

The light banking is a major compositional element in the painting, and it is made up of hundreds of shifting hues of light gold, hot oranges, and brilliant whites. Does his face lack passion? For me not--wide eyes and mouth open in deep inhaling.

It looks like a moan and something more like unpleasantness or incomprehension than wonderment.

...and helplessly watching it drift away and fade into darkness.

"Helplessly" implies it is being done to him, but since he is pushing the light outwards, its his doing--a pro-active gesture.

But the fading light quickly does as it pleases -- or as fate pleases. It doubles back on itself and changes course at random. The figure is clearly not in control of its direction or its duration. Perhaps his disappointment due to not being able to control it is the source of his moaning and incomprehension.

The image is a nightmarish vision in which the figure is fated to despair and incomprehension in the dark, unintelligible, meaningless void of existence.

I can understand how you can think that based on your previous assertions, but what if your assertions are wide of the mark?

They can't be. I've followed your method of "detecting" metaphysical value-judgments, and since your assertions are never wide of the mark, mine can't be either. There's never a "Hey, good point" or a "I hadn't seen it that way before" when using the Newberrian method. Admitting to errors or hasty judgments, or considering new information or different perspectives isn't an option.

So Jonathan, I enjoyed this little exercise, and I hope you appreciate the insights I offered. But, I am a little concerned that you have such sloppy habits and are so quick to make big judgments on so little factual perceptions.

Hey, I'm just using the Newberrian method of aesthetic interpretation that I've come to know and love after seeing it used online for several years, so slop, inconsistency, double standards and quick judgments are what it's all about. Actually, I think that I haven't been sloppy or hasty enough. If I were truly Newberrian, I'd review only one fifth of one of your paintings and try to mislead my readers into believing that I had seen the whole thing.

If you were less contentious you would benefit greatly from my mentor program.

I don't need your program. I've got the Newberrian method down pat.

J

[Dragonfly]

I must say that if I hadn't read the title of the work, I would never have guessed it. To me it conveys anguish, desperation - the image that comes to mind is Orpheus the moment he looks back and sees Euridyce disappear forever into the underworld. It might be an interesting experiment to show this picture to different people, without telling the title, and ask them to describe their impressions, what it means, the mood, etc. and to perform a statistical analysis of the results.

[C. Jordan]

I should address both Michaels. First to Michael Stuart Kelley:

Your point that volition being at the centre of Rand's æsthetic theory is taken. My point is that Rand spent too much space (in my judgment) writing negative commentary about Naturalism than in writing positive commentary.

And yes, there IS positive commentary in The Romantic Manifesto. Rand's praise of Victor Hugo is worthy of Victor Hugo. Her statement on why she wrote, is worthy of any writer's attention.

Yet Rand also gave much space to her denunciations. I consider she gave too much space to denunciations; and if you don't agree with me on that, it remains true that this is a significant part.

In particular, the one part that I find most angering is Rand's comment on a painting of a woman with a cold-sore on her lips. Rand then denounced the motives of anyone who would dare paint such a scene.

I am shocked that anyone can write that a cold sore (in real life) is of no importance, but behave as though a woman to have a cold sore is some sort of metaphysical disaster. It isn't pleasant. By a strange coincidence, I have a cold sore right now. (It's rather cold in Utrecht). But it's not a disaster.

Another interpretation of that painting, the woman with the cold sore, is possible. Right now I'm imagining a woman I knew at the University of Georgia. I can imagine her looking in the mirror and thinking: "This sucks. Well. I'm going to the party anyway. I won't let this ruin my life."

And if someone painted that, it would reflect my sense of life.

Elsewhere on this Forum, you've posted about Rand's admiration of Hollywood and glamour. Part of the issue is that I don't share that perspective. I look on Hollywood as a culture of vanity and adolescent tantrums, a place where (mostly) mediocre performers with sex appeal are worshipped beyond their deserts, where most of the products are written and filmed in strict conformity to tradition and clichés, and above all a place where a writer has no rights. I also don't see glamour as all that desirable.

Of course, what makes my opinion better than Rand's? Nothing at all. Mine isn't better. I don't have a problem with her opinion. I do have a problem with Rand's statement that anyone who did not see that picture of the woman with the cold sore as she did must have evil intentions in his or her soul.

That in particular is the reason why my tone in the original post was so critical. Because of this, when Rand criticises (for example) a romantic story with naturalistic characters, and says that the result is an unrealistic story, I cannot take her word for it. Had she (here) given a specific example, I could decide whether to agree or disagree. But without an illustration on what she means, I cannot be sure. And at least in one case, Ayn Rand has jumped to a conclusion which I don't consider justified.

[C. Jordan]

Now to address Michael Newberry. This also answers Dragonfly's question: what do we think of Newberry's paintings?

I will give you MY interpretations:

The first one I would call "STAMINA". It illustrates a runner's high, when there is a kind of euphoria hidden under the pain and exhaustion. Wielrenners know what that feels like. And that light from the chest illustrates the heart, the will to keep going, courage and strength. Because the light shines, it can also be a beacon. I mean the way that seeing another distance runner or another wielrenner keep going can give me the courage to keep going myself.

And this one the artist called REND.

The second one I would call "THE FEAR LEAVING THE BODY" and I believe that says everything.

And this one the artist called GOD RELEASING THE STARS INTO THE UNIVERSE.

[Newberry]

Oh gosh.

Perhaps I can subtitle the painting: Pearls Before Swine, and add little piglets running around, branded with the initial "J" on their hienies?

J, if I thought like you do I wouldn't make anything.

Since I do create a lot of work and love the art I make, if people are interested at all, how I think about art is where they might find some insights into how I keep my fire alive, and perhaps relate that to their own lives.

The painting came about from how I feel in the act a creating a major work. There is a kind of ferocious energy that I channel from my perceptions of lights and colors around me, which I focus and let loose with. Once I complete a work it goes out into the world and has a life of its own.

If you took some of things you said and looked at them slightly different you might come along and see the path in the painting.

The man in channeling and generating so much energy, I thought of that has a spiritual orgasm. I wanted the face to convey something of the urgency, focus, and release--none of which comes close to being happy or sad, confident or trite.

There are studies for the painting with the man standing but I rejected those because I wanted to convey that he was grounded, solidly, like a tree's roots into the ground, and that is was a conduit between the Earth and the sky.

The light shoots out of his hyper-extended fingers, banks, and then immediately disperses in the night sky. And that is your clue that they are stars. And like I said, you can see them standing in front the painting easily.

If you were to ask me if I am happy with the painting, I would reply that I am elated with it--when I look at it, it gives me that intense feeling from which the first idea of the painting came from.

I worked on the painting over a period of 7 years, thinking, tweaking, and using all of my knowledge of art to bring it about until I was absolutely satisfied with it.

-----

I wish everyone here a happy, healthy, and successful New Year.

Michael

[Newberry]

Happy New Year Chrysaor,

I enjoyed by your unexpected views on my two works. They work for me.

About the cold sore and other realistic things...could you perhaps see Rand's point of view if you looked at the cold sore, not as something realistically, but as a symbol? Oscar Wilde wrote somewhere that he was seeing symbolism in everything, and he didn't seem too happy about that observation. Do you think Romantics simply give a lot more weight to symbolism? Where a realist might simply brush it aside as insignificant because they wouldn't give two moments of thought in real life?

There are so many options in art and so much depends on what you want to express. The stylized Greek sculptures, none of the young men or women have zits for example. Someone could not care for those sculptures much, as not being real. For me, they rock my world. There is a realist sculptor alive now, he uses silicone and inserts hairs into the sculptures. I find it really hard to stomach him.

Do you plan to write epic literature? What are your goals as a writer? I would think that your goals will help dictate what you find as aesthetically viable, no?

Cheers,

Michael

[Jonathan]

Oh gosh.

Perhaps I can subtitle the painting: Pearls Before Swine, and add little piglets running around, branded with the initial "J" on their hienies?

Ha! Pearls before swine. Good one. How originally Newberrian and not Objectivist at all!

J, if I thought like you do I wouldn't make anything.

Since I do create a lot of work and love the art I make, if people are interested at all, how I think about art is where they might find some insights into how I keep my fire alive, and perhaps relate that to their own lives.

That's what I'm doing. I'm using your methods, and applying them to your art. I'm being a heroic cultural warrior.

The painting came about from how I feel in the act a creating a major work. There is a kind of ferocious energy that I channel from my perceptions of lights and colors around me, which I focus and let loose with. Once I complete a work it goes out into the world and has a life of its own.

If you took some of things you said and looked at them slightly different you might come along and see the path in the painting.

That's what I would normally do, but now I've dedicated myself to using the Newberrian method instead, so I have to look at the image as I saw it at first glance, and stick to my hasty appraisal.

The man in channeling and generating so much energy, I thought of that has a spiritual orgasm. I wanted the face to convey something of the urgency, focus, and release--none of which comes close to being happy or sad, confident or trite.

Then you failed. What you intended to be "urgency" communicates something more like panic. Along with the dark, barren landscape, it's what creates the impression that the figure is lost in a nightmare. As Dragonfly said, it's an image of anguish and desperation.

There are studies for the painting with the man standing but I rejected those because I wanted to convey that he was grounded, solidly, like a tree's roots into the ground, and that is was a conduit between the Earth and the sky.

The light shoots out of his hyper-extended fingers, banks, and then immediately disperses in the night sky. And that is your clue that they are stars. And like I said, you can see them standing in front the painting easily.

No. They're embers and ashes in a cave. I've made my objective Newberrian judgment, and I'm sticking to it. It's heroic and passionate for me to do so.

If you were to ask me if I am happy with the painting, I would reply that I am elated with it--when I look at it, it gives me that intense feeling from which the first idea of the painting came from.

Your subjective feelings are irrelevant. I can't do anything with them. Try remaining objective instead. You'll grow in the process.

I worked on the painting over a period of 7 years, thinking, tweaking, and using all of my knowledge of art to bring it about until I was absolutely satisfied with it.

Then you wasted your time. My objective Newberrian judgment is that your art is a failure because it conveys the opposite meaning of what you intended: it represents the metaphysical value-judgment that mankind cannot find happiness and is fated to exist naked and in the dark in a state of lonely desperation as he allows his meager passion to fade away.

That's what the image means, and I'm heroically protecting our culture by exposing it.

J