Peikoff

[kiaer.ts]

I believe in art. I believe in music. I believe in architecture. I believe in arty. Etc. I don't believe in tying my brain in a knot by arguing art and art not.

Well, you're not getting paid to think. But human progress depends on the induction of new conceptual distinctions. Before Newton, velocity, acceleration and force were not properly differentiated. There's philosophy, wheteher natural or formal, and there's gossip, and there's precious little in between. But gossip too serves a purpose.

You expect "human progrees" through esthetic theory?

--Brant

I don't expect human "progrees" at all.

(That is an example of gossip. You are quite aware of the point I was making.)

[Brant Gaede]

I believe in art. I believe in music. I believe in architecture. I believe in arty. Etc. I don't believe in tying my brain in a knot by arguing art and art not.

Well, you're not getting paid to think. But human progress depends on the induction of new conceptual distinctions. Before Newton, velocity, acceleration and force were not properly differentiated. There's philosophy, wheteher natural or formal, and there's gossip, and there's precious little in between. But gossip too serves a purpose.

You expect "human progrees" through esthetic theory?

--Brant

I don't expect human "progrees" at all.

(That is an example of gossip. You are quite aware of the point I was making.)

I'm in awe, but I can't tell "wheteher" it's natural or formal.

You are way over my head and way under my interests. The thread is yours.

--Brant

[Chris Grieb]

Michael; I hate to be a stickler but Leonard has not been mentioned on the second page of these posts. I recognize the question to Peikoff changed the topic.

[Jonathan]

Michael; I hate to be a stickler but Leonard has not been mentioned on the second page of these posts. I recognize the question to Peikoff changed the topic.

Oh, I'm sorry. I thought that this thread was started as a typical gripe about Peikoff's annoying vocal delivery. I thought it was a frivolous topic and no one would mind my going off on a sort of "speaking of Peikoff's podcasts..." diversion. But if people think that they are actually detecting something different in his voice, are seriously worried about his health and wanted to talk about it, I apologize for intruding.

J

Edited November 9, 2008 by Jonathan

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Did somebody mention me?

Michael

[Dragonfly]

Jonathan, of course you should have realized that this was not really Chris, but Phil in disguise.

[Jonathan]

Jonathan, of course you should have realized that this was not really Chris, but Phil in disguise.

Well, Chris/Phil seems to be very interested in this thread's original topic, so let's all stop being distracted by my thoughtless interruption and give Chris/Phil our undivided attention as he now shares his deep concerns about Peikoff's voice. The floor is yours, Chris/Phil.

J

[Chris Grieb]

This is Chris. I just wish people would stick to the original topic. If it's exhausted start another one.

[kiaer.ts]

Yes, let us continue to discuss thefascinating philosophical issue of . . . Peikoff's sounding like a

nerdy professor?

I'd like to know if there is any problem with my broadening art to include such areas as couture and haute cuisine but subdividing art into fine and utilitarian and moving architecture into the utilitarian area. Also, should art photography be admitted to fine art, or have its own category? I think photography could fit within fine art, if indeed, as Rand said, Fritz Lang's movie frames are like paintings.

[Jonathan]

I'd like to know if there is any problem with my broadening art to include such areas as couture and haute cuisine but subdividing art into fine and utilitarian and moving architecture into the utilitarian area. Also, should art photography be admitted to fine art, or have its own category? I think photography could fit within fine art, if indeed, as Rand said, Fritz Lang's movie frames are like paintings.

I don't have a problem with broadening art, or subdividing it into various categories, I just don't think that subdivisions accomplish much or are important. I think that if something qualifies as art, it qualifies as art. Period. I don't really care how anyone chooses to further subdivide it after recognizing it as art. As I said above, an object's utilitarian function doesn't necessarily conflict with, contradict or impede its artistic function, so I think that buildings, dresses, cars and cakes can be art.

As for photography, yes, I think that it can be art. Not only because it can capture fictional or symbolic scenes and convey the same expressions, "sense of life" views, or aesthetic ideas that paintings can (serving the same psychological and philosophical purposes), but also because there's a wide range of special effects techniques -- including unlimited pre-digital ones -- that can allow the photographer to create images of things and events that don't/can't exist in reality. Photography is not limited to capturing things in reality, or limited to capturing them "as they are" but not as the "ought to be," as Rand claimed.

I've seen nothing to suggest that Rand actually studied the art of photography before commenting on it. I highly doubt that she viewed the images of the world's greatest art photographers or had the slightest inkling of the techniques they used, before announcing that photography wasn't art.

J

Edited November 10, 2008 by Jonathan

[kiaer.ts]

I'd like to know if there is any problem with my broadening art to include such areas as couture and haute cuisine but subdividing art into fine and utilitarian and moving architecture into the utilitarian area. Also, should art photography be admitted to fine art, or have its own category? I think photography could fit within fine art, if indeed, as Rand said, Fritz Lang's movie frames are like paintings.

I don't have a problem with broadening art, or subdividing it into various categories, I just don't think that subdivisions accomplish much or are important. I think that if something qualifies as art, it qualifies as art. Period. I don't really care how anyone chooses to further subdivide it after recognizing it as art. As I said above, an object's utilitarian function doesn't necessarily conflict with, contradict or impede its artistic function, so I think that buildings, dresses, cars and cakes can be art.

As for photography, yes, I think that it can be art. Not only because it can capture fictional or symbolic scenes and convey the same expressions, "sense of life" views, or aesthetic ideas that paintings can (serving the same psychological and philosophical purposes), but also because there's a wide range of special effects techniques -- including unlimited pre-digital ones -- that can allow the photographer to create images of things and events that don't/can't exist in reality. Photography is not limited to capturing things in reality, or limited to capturing them "as they are" but not as the "ought to be," as Rand claimed.

I've seen nothing to suggest that Rand actually studied the art of photography before commenting on it. I highly doubt that she viewed the images of the world's greatest art photographers or had the slightest inkling of the techniques they used, before announcing that photography wasn't art.

J

Well, we seem to agree fully on photography.

As for the conceptual analysis, in this case, added conceptual clarity isn't likely to allow us to figure out how to get to the moon, as did Newton's inductions. But there is a reason to at least address the matter. Clarity of mind is one's most precious possession. It is a habit and virtue of boundless value. One should always notice inconsistencies, always question ambiguities, always recognize vagueness, even if the specific issue might not, at the moment, warrant the effort at clarification. The benefits of such a mindset are manifold. One's subconscious gets in the habit of noticing all the important little details. One makes connections subconsciously and seemingly automatically. Attemptedfrauds, intellectual or monetary leap out at you. You learn to think in paragrpahs.

Elsewhere there was a discussion on the nature of creativity. The conceptually analytical mindset put you in the frame to draw connections between object of huge apparent disparity. If you think of the hierarchical nature of concepts, you can see that since all concepts are linked, one's conceptual hierarchy forms a network. You can think of this as an actual net. Do you want to try to catch things in a tangled, patchy net with holes? Or an untangled fine-meshed net with no gaps between the frame and the weave?

Objectivism is not the possession by rote of a few political doctrines. It is a way of thinking. It is Rand's theory of concepts. Conceptual clarity is not a game, it is the essence of Objectivism

[Barbara Branden]

I'll return to the topic of this thread, but you may wish I hadn't. I just discovered that on Amazon, the listings for Atlas Shrugged, The Fountainhead, We the Living, and Anthem read: "By Ayn Rand and Leonard Peikoff."

(http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_ss_gw_0_9?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywords=the+fountainhead&sprefix=The+Fount)

Barbara

[Chris Grieb]

Lenny really does have delusions of grandeur.

[Brant Gaede]

I'll return to the topic of this thread, but you may wish I hadn't. I just discovered that on Amazon, the listings for Atlas Shrugged, The Fountainhead, We the Living, and Anthem read: "By Ayn Rand and Leonard Peikoff."

(http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_ss_gw_0_9?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywords=the+fountainhead&sprefix=The+Fount)

Barbara

This is fortunate. It's another highway to contempt. Not as bad as his writing that introduction to AS. If AR had known he was ever going to do that, she would have thoroughly hosed him out of her life. I assume he's done the introduction thing with her other books.

--Brant

[Brant Gaede]

Well, I found it for the paperback editions of The Fountainhead and We the Living, not the HCs. Couldn't find it for AS, but I didn't look at all the possible screens. I'd say it's just an Amazon phen. and that LP had nothing to do with it. But those introductions? Ugh. It seems he didn't do one for The Fountainhead for his remarks appear to be tacked on to the ending. Call it an "Afterduction?"

--Brant