The Art Instinct

[anonrobt]

The Painted Word

PEOPLE DON’T READ THE MORNING NEWSPAPER, Marshall McLuhan once said, they slip into it like a warm bath. Too true, Marshall! Imagine being in New York City on the morning of Sunday, April 28, 1974, like I was, slipping into that great public bath, that vat, that spa, that, regional physiotherapy tank, that White Sulphur Springs, that Marienbad, that Ganges, that River Jordan for a million souls which is the Sunday New York Times. Soon I was submerged, weightless, suspended in the tepid depths of the thing, in Arts & Leisure, Section 2, page 19, in a state of perfect sensory deprivation, when all at once an extraordinary thing happened:

I noticed something!

Yet another clam-broth-colored current had begun to roll over me, as warm and predictable as the Gulf Stream ... a review, it was, by the Time’s dean of the arts, Hilton Kramer, of an exhibition at Yale University of “Seven Realists,” seven realistic painters . . . when I was jerked alert by the following:

“Realism does not lack its partisans, but it does rather conspicuously lack a persuasive theory. And given the nature of our intellectual commerce with works of art, to lack a persuasive theory is to lack something crucial—the means by which our experience of individual works is joined to our understanding of the values they signify.”

Now, you may say, My God, man! You woke up over that? You forsook your blissful coma over a mere swell in the sea of words?

But I knew what I was looking at. I realized that without making the slightest effort I had come upon one of those utterances in search of which psychoanalysts and State Department monitors of the Moscow or Belgrade press are willing to endure a lifetime of tedium: namely, the seemingly innocuousobiter dicta, the words in passing, that give the game away.

What I saw before me was the critic-in-chief of The New York Times saying: In looking at a painting today, “to lack a persuasive theory is to lack somethingcrucial.” I read it again. It didn’t say “something helpful” or “enriching” or even “extremely valuable.” No, the word was crucial.

In short: frankly, these days, without a theory to go with it, I can’t see a painting.

Then and there I experienced a flash known as the Aha! phenomenon, and the buried life of contemporary art was revealed to me for the first time. The fogs lifted! The clouds passed! The motes, scales, conjunctival bloodshots, and Murine agonies fell away!

All these years, along with countless kindred souls, I am certain, I had made my way into the galleries of Upper Madison and Lower Soho and the Art Gildo Midway of Fifty-seventh Street, and into the museums, into the Modern, the Whitney, and the Guggenheim, the Bastard Bauhaus, the New Brutalist, and the Fountainhead Baroque, into the lowliest storefront churches and grandest Robber Baronial temples of Modernism. All these years I, like so many others, had stood in front of a thousand, two thousand, God-knows-how-many thousand Pollocks, de Koonings, Newmans, Nolands, Rothkos, Rauschenbergs, Judds, Johnses, Olitskis, Louises, Stills, Franz Klines, Frankenthalers, Kellys, and Frank Stellas, now squinting, now popping the eye sockets open, now drawing back, now moving closer—waiting, waiting, forever waiting for . . . it . . for it to come into focus, namely, the visual reward (for so much effort) which must be there, which everyone (tout le monde) knew to be there—waiting for something to radiate directly from the paintings on these invariably pure white walls, in this room, in this moment, into my own optic chiasma. All these years, in short, I had assumed that in art, if nowhere else, seeing is believing. Well—how very shortsighted! Now, at last, on April 28, 1974, I could see. I had gotten it backward all along. Not “seeing is believing,” you ninny, but “believing is seeing,” for Modern Art has become completely literary: the paintings and other works exist only to illustrate the text.

...

copyright © 1975 by Tom Wolfe

Always liked that book.... about sums it all up [except am sure someone will claim is a 'shallow' view lacking 'aesthetic sensibilities']...

[Jonathan]

I've referred to the The Painted Word many times when discussing art with Objectivists, since they often treat art as if it has the purpose of illustrating Rand's texts.

Wolfe:

"In short: frankly, these days, without a theory to go with it, I can’t see a painting."

Without Rand's theory, I think there would be a lot of Objectivists who wouldn't see many paintings, including most realistic paintings. They don't look at paintings as visual art, but as visual imitations of literature. They look for what Rand told them to look for: 1) Clearly identifiable subject matter which acts as narrative to overtly signal a thematic subject and meaning, 2) Visually sharp, realistically-rendered objects which allegedly reveal to any good Objectivist the artist's sharp, clear epistemology (at least until they discover that the artist disagrees with them about some things), 3) Bright colors (because bright colors are good and "muddy" colors are bad). If that's your approach to visual art, then I think that Hilton Kramer was right: you're lacking something crucial.

Wolfe:

"All these years I, like so many others, had stood in front of a thousand, two thousand, God-knows-how-many thousand Pollocks, de Koonings, Newmans, Nolands, Rothkos...waiting, waiting, forever waiting for...it...for it to come into focus, namely, the visual reward..."

Millions of people experience the same thing with opera. They try to listen to it, but they never receive a reward. If the majority of the population finds opera to be dull, meaningless, shrill and annoying, does that make it non-art, and does it make those who claim to find an aesthetic reward in it charlatans?

Rand wrote:

"In listening to music, a man cannot tell clearly, neither to himself nor to others – and, therefore, cannot prove – which aspects of his experience are inherent in the music and which are contributed by his own consciousness. He experiences it as an indivisible whole, he feels as if the magnificent exaltation were there, in the music – and he is helplessly bewildered when he discovers that some men do experience it and some do not."

I think the above is true of many different art forms. Each form can have effects which can't be easily explained or shared with others who are not as sensitive to that form. There are many things in the arts that "some men do experience" and "some do not." What's revealing is how people behave when they're on the "do not experience" side versus when they're on the "do experience" side. Certain people, like Tom Wolfe, Rand, and many of her followers, seem to deeply resent it when they're on the "do not experience" side. They seem to take it very personally that others are claiming to have sensitivities that they lack. They're so insecure that they refuse to believe that others "do experience" what they claim to.

It's all rather childish. When we adults don't experience anything in one art form or another which makes others feel "magnificent exaltation," we usually say something like, "Hey, more power to you, it's just not my cup of tea. It doesn't do anything for me." We're not deeply wounded and resentful about it.

J

[PDS]

I've referred to the The Painted Word many times when discussing art with Objectivists, since they often treat art as if it has the purpose of illustrating Rand's texts.

Wolfe:

"In short: frankly, these days, without a theory to go with it, I can’t see a painting."

Without Rand's theory, I think there would be a lot of Objectivists who wouldn't see many paintings, including most realistic paintings. They don't look at paintings as visual art, but as visual imitations of literature. They look for what Rand told them to look for: 1) Clearly identifiable subject matter which acts as narrative to overtly signal a thematic subject and meaning, 2) Visually sharp, realistically-rendered objects which allegedly reveal to any good Objectivist the artist's sharp, clear epistemology (at least until they discover that the artist disagrees with them about some things), 3) Bright colors (because bright colors are good and "muddy" colors are bad). If that's your approach to visual art, then I think that Hilton Kramer was right: you're lacking something crucial.

Wolfe:

"All these years I, like so many others, had stood in front of a thousand, two thousand, God-knows-how-many thousand Pollocks, de Koonings, Newmans, Nolands, Rothkos...waiting, waiting, forever waiting for...it...for it to come into focus, namely, the visual reward..."

Millions of people experience the same thing with opera. They try to listen to it, but they never receive a reward. If the majority of the population finds opera to be dull, meaningless, shrill and annoying, does that make it non-art, and does it make those who claim to find an aesthetic reward in it charlatans?

Rand wrote:

"In listening to music, a man cannot tell clearly, neither to himself nor to others – and, therefore, cannot prove – which aspects of his experience are inherent in the music and which are contributed by his own consciousness. He experiences it as an indivisible whole, he feels as if the magnificent exaltation were there, in the music – and he is helplessly bewildered when he discovers that some men do experience it and some do not."

I think the above is true of many different art forms. Each form can have effects which can't be easily explained or shared with others who are not as sensitive to that form. There are many things in the arts that "some men do experience" and "some do not." What's revealing is how people behave when they're on the "do not experience" side versus when they're on the "do experience" side. Certain people, like Tom Wolfe, Rand, and many of her followers, seem to deeply resent it when they're on the "do not experience" side. They seem to take it very personally that others are claiming to have sensitivities that they lack. They're so insecure that they refuse to believe that others "do experience" what they claim to.

It's all rather childish. When we adults don't experience anything in one art form or another which makes others feel "magnificent exaltation," we usually say something like, "Hey, more power to you, it's just not my cup of tea. It doesn't do anything for me." We're not deeply wounded and resentful about it.

J

Jonathan:

I think your last paragraph is probably on the mark, but, then again, so what?

Some Objectivists view Rand's art theories the way they would have viewed the virtues of smoking or orange hair in the old days: almost an expression of esprit de corps. Because most modern art does indeed suck,and sucks very, very badly, the Objectivist theory in play reflects the reality of the situation. Truly, if Rand influenced or talked more than a handful of crappy artist types from splashing more random paint on a canvas, isn't this a good thing? Or does the world need more Angry Art gracing the walls of our country's gentrified art districts?

Unless and until the Hard- Core-Objectivist-Vermeer-Worshippers start burning down modern art museums, aren't there bigger fish to fry?

By the way, I would love to see some examples of your work, if there is an easy link to that work handy.

[Jonathan]

I think your last paragraph is probably on the mark, but, then again, so what?

Some Objectivists view Rand's art theories the way they would have viewed the virtues of smoking or orange hair in the old days: almost an expression of esprit de corps. Because most modern art does indeed suck,and sucks very, very badly, the Objectivist theory in play reflects the reality of the situation.

Yes, personally, I think that a lot of abstract art does suck, but I think there's probably much more figurative/realist art in existence that sucks just as badly.

Truly, if Rand influenced or talked more than a handful of crappy artist types from splashing more random paint on a canvas isn't this a good thing?

Who splashed random paint on a canvas? Pollock, the original "dripper," chose his colors carefully, and insisted that he was completely in control of what he was doing.

Anyway, I doubt that Rand prevented anyone from becoming a splasher of random paint. However, I think she has talked a lot of her followers into limiting themselves to appreciating what she could appreciate, and she talked some artists into becoming crappy realists. More importantly though, I think that the emotionalism and inconsistencies in her aesthetics has prevented Objectivism as a whole from being taken seriously by a lot of people, which is unfortunate.

Or does the world need more Angry Art gracing the walls of our country's gentrified art districts?

There isn't a lot of modern art that I would say qualifies as "Angry Art." But I'll ask you the same question you asked of me: If even more "angry" modern or postmodern art is created and displayed in galleries and museums, so what? What business is it of yours? If you don't like it, don't go to look at it. Why are you concerning yourself with which types of art the "world needs" and which it doesn't?

Unless and until the Hard- Core-Objectivist-Vermeer-Worshippers start burning down modern art museums, aren't there bigger fish to fry?

Okay, let's all agree to not discuss any subject unless property is being destroyed over it.

By the way, I would love to see some examples of your work, if there is an easy link to that work handy.

You can see some of my paintings here.

J

Edited February 9, 2011 by Jonathan

[PDS]

I think your last paragraph is probably on the mark, but, then again, so what?

Some Objectivists view Rand's art theories the way they would have viewed the virtues of smoking or orange hair in the old days: almost an expression of esprit de corps. Because most modern art does indeed suck,and sucks very, very badly, the Objectivist theory in play reflects the reality of the situation.

Yes, personally, I think that a lot of abstract art does suck, but I think there's probably much more figurative/realist art in existence that sucks just as badly.

Truly, if Rand influenced or talked more than a handful of crappy artist types from splashing more random paint on a canvas isn't this a good thing?

Who splashed random paint on a canvas? Pollock, the original "dripper," chose his colors carefully, and insisted that he was completely in control of what he was doing.

Anyway, I doubt that Rand prevented anyone from becoming a splasher of random paint. However, I think she has talked a lot of her followers into limiting themselves to appreciating what she could appreciate, and she talked some artists into becoming crappy realists. More importantly though, I think that the emotionalism and inconsistencies in her aesthetics has prevented Objectivism as a whole from being taken seriously by a lot of people, which is unfortunate.

Or does the world need more Angry Art gracing the walls of our country's gentrified art districts?

There isn't a lot of modern art that I would say qualifies as "Angry Art." But I'll ask you the same question you asked of me: If even more "angry" modern or postmodern art is created and displayed in galleries and museums, so what? What business is it of yours? If you don't like it, don't go to look at it. Why are you concerning yourself with which types of art the "world needs" and which it doesn't?

Unless and until the Hard- Core-Objectivist-Vermeer-Worshippers start burning down modern art museums, aren't there bigger fish to fry?

Okay, let's all agree to not discuss any subject unless property is being destroyed over it.

By the way, I would love to see some examples of your work, if there is an easy link to that work handy.

You can see some of my paintings here.

J

Your work is stunning. Congratulations.

You sort of missed the point of my comments, which actually can be summed up as: (1) who cares if Objectivists take Rand's art comments superficially, or too seriously, and (2) who otherwise gives a shit if Objectivists don't like modern art? If you think that Rand's theory of art/aesthetics is keeping people away from Objectivism, as opposed to 30+ years of dysfunction since Rand's death, or the lack of a coherent theory of government, and/or Peikoff as the head of the movement, then you run in a much different circles than I do.

As for your questions of me, I really don't care if there is more modern art out there, one way or another. Not everybody who splashes paint is a Pollock. I am afriad you are taking my comments a bit too literal. I am a painter too, in my spare time. My work doesn't hold a candle to yours, but I can crank a "modern" piece with half the time and half the effort of a realist piece, and most people like my modern stuff better than my realist stuff. Why? Because most people don't know any better, and they are dumbshits, pure and simple. I don't stay up at night worrying about such things.

Some adults like comic books too. I have never understood such people, but to each his own and all that.

[Jonathan]

Your work is stunning. Congratulations.

Thank you.

You sort of missed the point of my comments, which actually can be summed up as: (1) who cares if Objectivists take Rand's art comments superficially, or too seriously, and (2) who otherwise gives a shit if Objectivists don't like modern art? If you think that Rand's theory of art/aesthetics is keeping people away from Objectivism, as opposed to 30+ years of dysfunction since Rand's death, or the lack of a coherent theory of government, and/or Peikoff as the head of the movement, then you run in a much different circles than I do.

Ah, I see. I did miss the point of your comments.

But, yeah, I do care that aspects of the Objectivist Esthetics are keeping people from Objectivism, and I see the problems with aesthetics as being tied into the "30+ years of dysfunction." And I also comment on facets of the dysfunctionality other than aesthetics, like Peikoff's loopiness, the insular and fearful attitudes of many in the movement, the need to ban dissenting opinion rather than answer it, etc.

As for your questions of me, I really don't care if there is more modern art out there, one way or another. Not everybody who splashes paint is a Pollock. I am afriad you are taking my comments a bit too literal. I am a painter too, in my spare time. My work doesn't hold a candle to yours, but I can crank a "modern" piece with half the time and half the effort of a realist piece, and most people like my modern stuff better than my realist stuff. Why? Because most people don't know any better, and they are dumbshits, pure and simple. I don't stay up at night worrying about such things.

Some adults like comic books too. I have never understood such people, but to each his own and all that.

Okay, thanks for clarifying.

J

[BaalChatzaf]

Here's a video a friend did of a few of my drawings dating from the 1980s, which I think I have posted before at OL.

Please forgive me, but I don't get it.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[caroljane]

Jonathan, I like your paintings so much. There is a such a perfectly self-assured renderer and discoverer in them.

May I ask what you think of Alex Colville? OK, this is part of my gig with TC, but I would really like to know too.

[Jonathan]

Jonathan, I like your paintings so much. There is a such a perfectly self-assured renderer and discoverer in them.

Thank you. I'm happy that you like them.

May I ask what you think of Alex Colville? OK, this is part of my gig with TC, but I would really like to know too.

I like a lot of his work. Stylistically, he's kind of an Andrew Wyeth meets Grant Wood, with maybe a little Balthus thrown in. But happier. I could get lost in some of his textures for hours.

J

[Brant Gaede]

Your female nude "Resolve" is more than exceptional. The great female nude has to be one of the hardest nuts to crack in painting and sculpture.

--Brant

[Jonathan]

Your female nude "Resolve" is more than exceptional. The great female nude has to be one of the hardest nuts to crack in painting and sculpture.

--Brant

Thank you, Brant. I'm still planning on using your idea of a series of paintings of the woman being rotated (or, technically, the viewer rotating around her), and then putting up a screen which shows a continuous-loop animation of the motion. It's slowly working its way up my projects list.

J

[Brant Gaede]

Your female nude "Resolve" is more than exceptional. The great female nude has to be one of the hardest nuts to crack in painting and sculpture.

--Brant

Thank you, Brant. I'm still planning on using your idea of a series of paintings of the woman being rotated (or, technically, the viewer rotating around her), and then putting up a screen which shows a continuous-loop animation of the motion. It's slowly working its way up my projects list.

OMG, I forgot all about that.

--Brant

[caroljane]

J,

Any thoughts on AJ Casson and/or the Gang7?

I love the all's-right-with-the-world feeling I get from "Saturday Afternoon"

[Jonathan]

J,

Any thoughts on AJ Casson and/or the Gang7?

I love the all's-right-with-the-world feeling I get from "Saturday Afternoon"

Hi Carol,

Sorry for the slow response. I've been looking at art by the Group of Seven now and then since you asked, and I've got to say that I've been oddly conflicted about their work. Like you, I get an "all's-right-with-the-world feeling" from much of it, but there's something about the artists' painting technique which really seems to clash with that feeling, and I can't quite put my finger on it. I think it's something about the posterized style that seems out place for the subject matter. The style is similar in many respects to that of Thomas Hart Benton and Grant Wood, but there's also something different about it. Maybe I'm seeing it as being more similar in style/technique to Pop art and therefore as clashing with the homespun or great outdoors content.

J

"Daunce Lynam" =

Mundane Clay?

Layman Dunce?

Cane Man Duly?

Lunacy And Me?

My Nude Canal?

Calm Any Nude?

Deny Anal Cum?

Lay Maced Nun?

[caroljane]

J,

Any thoughts on AJ Casson and/or the Gang7?

I love the all's-right-with-the-world feeling I get from "Saturday Afternoon"

Hi Carol,

Sorry for the slow response. I've been looking at art by the Group of Seven now and then since you asked, and I've got to say that I've been oddly conflicted about their work. Like you, I get an "all's-right-with-the-world feeling" from much of it, but there's something about the artists' painting technique which really seems to clash with that feeling, and I can't quite put my finger on it. I think it's something about the posterized style that seems out place for the subject matter. The style is similar in many respects to that of Thomas Hart Benton and Grant Wood, but there's also something different about it. Maybe I'm seeing it as being more similar in style/technique to Pop art and therefore as clashing with the homespun or great outdoors content.

J

"Daunce Lynam" =

Mundane Clay?

Layman Dunce?

Cane Man Duly?

Lunacy And Me?

My Nude Canal?

Calm Any Nude?

Deny Anal Cum?

Lay Maced Nun?

1. Art - Ta, J.

2. Guesses- Nah, no.

Edited March 20, 2011 by daunce lynam

[Philip Coates]

> I think "Roger Bissell" is a fake name. Fucking coward.

I happened to start near the beginning of this thread (Fe. 2) and saw this.

Just Jonathan being Jonathan.

[caroljane]

It isn't "C.E. Nun Malady" either.

Since your tries were quite improper and funny I will give you a hint. It is three words of which the last two are names. The first word is another part of speech and it is a dialect word, not standard English. It's a tribute to a favourite underappreciated author of mine. And no, it is not "Lame Ayn Educ." or anything with Ayn.

[Jonathan]

> I think "Roger Bissell" is a fake name. Fucking coward.

I happened to start near the beginning of this thread (Fe. 2) and saw this.

Just Jonathan being Jonathan.

And stripping a post of its context and providing no link is just the Nutjob Schoolmarm being the Nutjob Schoolmarm.

Here's the post. Roger had called me an "anonymous coward," despite the fact that I've been having discussions with him online for years, both public and private, and despite the fact that I've even sent him a personal check with my name and address on it when ordering one of his music CDs directly from him. Maybe he's losing his memory as he gets older.

Anyway, when he got it into his head that I was an "anonymous coward" and that he wanted to vent some of his rage over it, I just thought I'd laugh at his childishness by saying:

"I think 'Roger Bissell' is a fake name. Fucking coward. The only proof I'll accept is photocopies of his driver's license, social security card, credit cards and tax returns."

Now, Nutjob Schoolmarm, do you have anything of substance to add to the thread? Do you have any comments on how Objectivists might establish objective criteria for judging the fitness of a person to judge whether or not something qualifies as art? How would you propose that we objectively determine that a work of art (or an entire genre) fails to communicate versus that those who claim that it doesn't communicate are aesthetically inept? Do you have any comments on any of the other issues that I brought up on this thread, and which Roger evaded, such as why an artist who collects round stones, arranges them, and then paints of picture of them is creating art, but another artist who collects stone tiles, arranges them, and then paints a picture of them is not creating art?

J

[Jonathan]

It isn't "C.E. Nun Malady" either.

Since your tries were quite improper and funny I will give you a hint. It is three words of which the last two are names. The first word is another part of speech and it is a dialect word, not standard English. It's a tribute to a favourite underappreciated author of mine. And no, it is not "Lame Ayn Educ." or anything with Ayn.

Hmmmm.....

[Jonathan]

Earlier on this thread I commented on my view that Rand's notion of aesthetic judgment involves attempting to identify and judge artists' intended meanings. JR, fragile emotional flower that he is, found this very upsetting and lashed out by saying that my view was "utterly wrongheaded." He apparently had such strong feelings about it that he believed that he had suddenly acquired the power to read my mind and identify my motives (he felt that I am not interested in understanding anything or learning anything, and that I only want to score meaningless points against Rand by quibbling about non-essential details, infelicities of wording, etc.)

Well, earlier today, while I was searching for an old post of mine, I happened to see a post in which Dan Edge quoted Kamhi and Torres on the subject:

"A work of art cannot be properly evaluated as 'good' or 'bad' on the basis of a sense-of-life response. She thus draws a crucial distinction between esthetic response (though she does not use that term) and what she terms esthetic judgment. The former is a spontaneous, emotional reaction to the work as a whole. The latter is a function of intellectual appraisal; it is a dispassionate evaluation of the success with which the artist projects his intended theme."

Does this mean that Kamhi and Torres, like me, are quibbling Rand-haters who are just out to score meaningless points, and are viciously opposed to learning from JR? Are they "utterly wrongheaded" in basing their views on what Rand actually wrote as opposed to adopting JR's opinion of what "she meant"? Did JR use his mind-reading powers on Rand before she died in order to find out what she really meant, or are his powers so awesome that he can read the minds of the dead?!?!

J

[anthony]

"A work of art cannot be properly evaluated as 'good' or 'bad' on the basis of a sense-of-life response. She thus draws a crucial distinction between esthetic response (though she does not use that term) and what she terms esthetic judgment. The former is a spontaneous, emotional reaction to the work as a whole. The latter is a function of intellectual appraisal; it is a dispassionate evaluation of the success with which the artist projects his intended theme."

Jonathan,

I think the crux of your issue with Rand's aesthetics lies right here. Am I correct?

(I have read many of your objections for a long while, and feel I can say this.)

For Rand, I guess, her sense of life, AND her intellectual appraisal, were one and the same thing. The validity of that 'integration' may be challenged, but one can be sure that she was convinced of this.

For the rest of us, well, it's not that simple. There have often been art-works who's sense of life were very positive to me, but of disagreeable intellectual value. The other way, too.

I suppose that means I'm 'dis-integrated' in art appreciation.

I'll live with that.

Fundamentally though, her basic principles of art hold firm.

Tony

[Jonathan]

I think the crux of your issue with Rand's aesthetics lies right here. Am I correct?

(I have read many of your objections for a long while, and feel I can say this.)

For Rand, I guess, her sense of life, AND her intellectual appraisal, were one and the same thing.

My primary issues with Rand are her attempts to objectify her subjective aesthetic opinions, her love of using art as a philosophical and psychological Rorschach test and of using her judgments as a weapon, her trying to speak as an authority on subjects about which she knew little (or her apparent belief that she could introspect her way through any subject without having to actually learn anything about it), and her rage over the idea that others could experience in certain art forms emotions and ideas which she did not.

The validity of that 'integration' may be challenged, but one can be sure that she was convinced of this.

For the rest of us, well, it's not that simple. There have often been art-works who's sense of life were very positive to me, but of disagreeable intellectual value. The other way, too.

I suppose that means I'm 'dis-integrated' in art appreciation.

Fundamentally though, her basic principles of art hold firm.

I think there's much value to be found in Rand's ideas on art. Unfortunately, the good ideas are entangled with some very bad and contradictory ideas and judgments.

J

[anthony]

I think the crux of your issue with Rand's aesthetics lies right here. Am I correct?

(I have read many of your objections for a long while, and feel I can say this.)

For Rand, I guess, her sense of life, AND her intellectual appraisal, were one and the same thing.

My primary issues with Rand are her attempts to objectify her subjective aesthetic opinions, her love of using art as a philosophical and psychological Rorschach test and of using her judgments as a weapon, her trying to speak as an authority on subjects about which she knew little (or her apparent belief that she could introspect her way through any subject without having to actually learn anything about it), and her rage over the idea that others could experience in certain art forms emotions and ideas which she did not.

The validity of that 'integration' may be challenged, but one can be sure that she was convinced of this.

For the rest of us, well, it's not that simple. There have often been art-works who's sense of life were very positive to me, but of disagreeable intellectual value. The other way, too.

I suppose that means I'm 'dis-integrated' in art appreciation.

Fundamentally though, her basic principles of art hold firm.

I think there's much value to be found in Rand's ideas on art. Unfortunately, the good ideas are entangled with some very bad and contradictory ideas and judgments.

J

Jonathan,

I understand - although if I may add something self-evident, it's that Rand wanted to expand Objectivism to embrace art, and found great success at that. Perhaps, emboldened by this, she tried to go too far, by introducing her own tastes?

Anyhow, I know you know this too well.

By long application of her principles of aesthetics, without being a slave to them, overall, I have found them to be true. In fact, more valid than ever. The proof of the pudding... etc.

Art at its best is comprehensible, reflecting a universe that is equally comprehensible - and the artist's metaphysics.

That's the base I like to work from.

However, as I've seen you take pains to point out (especially on O.Online), what is clearer to you (and for myself with literature, to a degree), is not necessarily clear to everybody.

For instance, Romantic Realism is my first preference, but the more I've read and thought about fiction, the more sophisticated my preferences have become. Actually I've taken great pleasure in discovering subtleties of romanticist individualism in otherwise 'naturalistic', and ambiguous, novels. Everything is grist to the mill, in the end. Also, I prize originality of voice, highly.

(Some author once remarked that every novel written is a paean to individualism - or words to that effect.)

Same with your appreciation and understanding of abstract art; I might not 'get it', but you obviously do. There is a buried visual language there that requires more effort from the viewer, and rewards him for the effort, and the work could still have intellectual, and sense of life, value.

(Of course, I still have doubts on that score: if the artist buries something so deep, I want to ask - what is he trying to hide?)

B)

Tony

[caroljane]

Art at its best is comprehensible, reflecting a universe that is equally comprehensible - and the artist's metaphysics.

.....

(Some author once remarked that every novel written is a paean to individualism - or words to that effect.)

....

Same with your appreciation and understanding of abstract art; I might not 'get it', but you obviously do. There is a buried visual language there that requires more effort from the viewer, and rewards him for the effort, and the work could still have intellectual, and sense of life, value.

(Of course, I still have doubts on that score: if the artist buries something so deep, I want to ask - what is he trying to hide?)

B)

Tony

In one of Iris Murdoch's novels (the Black Prince?)a character says, "I am a poet; I write to conceal." That remark has always intrigued me, because there is a truth in there that somehow I understand, but I can't explain it for the life of me. I'm sure it was a serious remark, not just Murdoch being offhand clever, and I remember that the character herself had much to conceal, from herself and others.But the idea of fiction writing itself being an act of concealment, of misdirection or deception, a sort of hiding in plain sight, -- that is powerfully true, and at the heart of art. "All writers are liars", as many cheerfully admit.

I don't seem to be making any kind of point here, maybe I'm just being tautological and saying "fiction is fiction", but the Murdoch quote just echoes on...

About every novel being an act of individualism though, thanks for that quote, it is gloriously true. I wonder who said it.

F Scott Fitzgerald once remarked that he did not understand how anybody else thought or felt, except for himself and his wife (and she was crazy!) And just recently a lit-prize judge quit the Booker committee to protest the award to Philip Roth because "he has only one subject --himself." Well, of course he does. And how well he explores it. Our friend JR to the contrary notwithstanding.

Sorry for the rambly post but it has been raining here for two weeks (hampering my recent enforced enjoyment of nature) and my brain is rusty.

[anthony]

Sorry for the rambly post but it has been raining here for two weeks (hampering my recent enforced enjoyment of nature) and my brain is rusty.

Carol,

Well, of course it is - hasn't been getting its regular OiLing, has it?

(Have to crack up at my own silly jokes.)

I enjoy devious novelists, who cleverly "hide in plain sight".*

There is a line that can be crossed into sheer obfuscation, I'd think, though.

Poetry sometimes does that to me - and I end up frustrated at my denseness to understand it.

The individualism quote was from a woman writer I hadn't heard of - and I wish I'd noted her name at the time.

*(I've had the passing thought that Rand's novels were written with such unambiguous clarity, that may have contributed to drawing negative literary criticism to her. Do we expect an amount of ambiguity in novels?)

Yes, btw, Roth's self-indulgence still did offer something valuable to me.

Nice to see you again.

Tony