A Question on Orthodox Excommunications

[Mike Renzulli]

Hey Everyone,

I am putting together an essay discussing the differences between the approaches of Doctors David Kelley and Piekoff with regards to Objectivism. I will briefly discuss the excomminications that have gone on in the orthodox community and am wondering, for those who are members of Objectivist Living and Objectivism Online's Forum.

For those who post on Objectivism Online, I recall messages posted on these boards of people who belong, or used to belong, to Objectivism Online that they had their messages deleted or censored and their accounts frozen or terminated.

This also includes if you were previously a member of ARI and switched to TAS (either recently or in the past).

If you have, could you please respond to this message and let me know. I am looking for examples of this and will compare it to what happened with David Kelley.

[James Heaps-Nelson]

Hey Everyone,

I am putting together an essay discussing the differences between the approaches of Doctors David Kelley and Piekoff with regards to Objectivism. I will briefly discuss the excomminications that have gone on in the orthodox community and am wondering, for those who are members of Objectivist Living and Objectivism Online's Forum.

For those who post on Objectivism Online, I recall messages posted on these boards of people who belong, or used to belong, to Objectivism Online that they had their messages deleted or censored and their accounts frozen or terminated.

This also includes if you were previously a member of ARI and switched to TAS (either recently or in the past).

If you have, could you please respond to this message and let me know. I am looking for examples of this and will compare it to what happened with David Kelley.

Mike,

I think the internet has changed everything. It's very hard to do an "excommunication" now in Objectivism because so much information is now available to everyone. There are a whole welter of tricky issues involved in this split above and beyond the institution strength of each of the respective organizations. The question people should be asking is how can Objectivism benefit me? Each person has a unique developmental path and institutional Objectivism should be a benefit and support intellectual and personal growth. To the extent that it does this, institutional Objectivism should be supported. To the extent that it doesn't, people should find their own way.

This extends to activism too. What are your goals in spreading Objectivism? People should be independent in this and pursue their own values. People do benefit from organizational support, but many times the price is too high. Everyone has to make that determination for themselves.

Jim

[Mike Renzulli]

Jim,

Thanks for your response. The goal of my post is one of research. I am culminating an essay that will demonstrate that Dr. Piekoff's closed system approach is not only wrong but an impossibility.

I will be utilizing a number of sources for it and am interested in finding out if orthodox Objectivists still conduct excommunications. It will tie in with what I am hammering out.

However, I get the impression that your post seems to assume that I am concerned with which institution (TAS vs ARI) is correct. While I admit some concern about that, I have finally asked myself which of the two gentlemen (Piekoff or Kelley) are correct.

Any responses from people who have recently experienced excommunications on orthodox Objectivist boards or in clubs would be appreciated and helpful.

Mike,

I think the internet has changed everything. It's very hard to do an "excommunication" now in Objectivism because so much information is now available to everyone. There are a whole welter of tricky issues involved in this split above and beyond the institution strength of each of the respective organizations. The question people should be asking is how can Objectivism benefit me? Each person has a unique developmental path and institutional Objectivism should be a benefit and support intellectual and personal growth. To the extent that it does this, institutional Objectivism should be supported. To the extent that it doesn't, people should find their own way.

This extends to activism too. What are your goals in spreading Objectivism? People should be independent in this and pursue their own values. People do benefit from organizational support, but many times the price is too high. Everyone has to make that determination for themselves.

Jim

[James Heaps-Nelson]

Mike,

Fair enough. I don't know enough about the current Objectivist club scene around the country to comment and perhaps some new data is in order. A thought to ponder: Objectivism does have an identity and I do agree that it's open, but rigorous epistemological standards should be applied to determine where it's open. Where do you draw the line?

Jim

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Mike,

You probably know about the Timeline in the David Kelley corner here on OL. If not, take a look at it. There are lots of links in it.

Also, be careful with spelling. It's Peikoff, not Piekoff. This is a common mistake, so no biggie. But if you are going to write an article about the man, ya gotta get the name right.

Michael

[9thdoctor]

You're going to have a hard time determining if any given excommunication was over a philosophical issue or something else. Take the example of George Reisman, his case was described at the time as strictly personal. After, however, several people got the ax for not toeing the party line. Look up Richard Sanford.

Even the case of David Kelley has an alternate, non-philosophic explanation: He spoke at a function for a competing book seller. Plus The Evidence of the Senses was a far greater contribution to Objectivist thought than The Ominous Parallels. Connect the dots.

Not to be a schoolmarm or anything, but it’s spelled Peikoff.

[Aaron]

Mike-

I've never had affiliation with ARI or IOS/TOC/TAS, but would be interested in your essay. In a college Objectivist club (a few years after that schism) we studied both Peikoff's 'Fact and Value' and the relevant portions of Kelley's 'Truth and Toleration' and discussed the split. I remember finding myself agreeing much more with LP's writing than DK's - yet disagreeing with Peikoff concerning (at least the proximate cause of) the split. Kelley speaking to a libertarian dinner club seemed legitimate outreach and possibly (I know, loaded word) evangelism rather than sanction, and despite agreeing more with Peikoff's philosophical points I thought it did not seem to make sense to judge Kelley badly for that action. I'm interested in reading your analysis of their respective writings and views, and the causes and outcome of that split.

Aaron

[Mike Renzulli]

Okay fine. I will have a look, Michael. Thanks!

Mike,

You probably know about the Timeline in the David Kelley corner here on OL. If not, take a look at it. There are lots of links in it.

Also, be careful with spelling. It's Peikoff, not Piekoff. This is a common mistake, so no biggie. But if you are going to write an article about the man, ya gotta get the name right.

Michael

[Mike Renzulli]

Hard time yes but not impossible. Who is Richard Sanford? Is he on OL or is he Googleable? Any info would help.

I also have Kelley's Evidence of the Senses too. While I am sure it is a great contributor, I got bored with it because, for me, it was very dry like IOE. I will revisit these books in due time.

Thanks!

You're going to have a hard time determining if any given excommunication was over a philosophical issue or something else. Take the example of George Reisman, his case was described at the time as strictly personal. After, however, several people got the ax for not toeing the party line. Look up Richard Sanford.

Even the case of David Kelley has an alternate, non-philosophic explanation: He spoke at a function for a competing book seller. Plus The Evidence of the Senses was a far greater contribution to Objectivist thought than The Ominous Parallels. Connect the dots.

Not to be a schoolmarm or anything, but it’s spelled Peikoff.

[Mike Renzulli]

No problem, Aaron. I will post my essay in the Articles section of OL soon contingent if I can get enough responses here to my original question.

Some of the points in it may come across as simplistic but I think it hits on some obvious facts that many Objectivists may not have been aware of.

It's not a long essay either. Probably 500 to 800 words. But I hope it is enough where it will have an impact.

Thanks for your interest!

Mike-

I've never had affiliation with ARI or IOS/TOC/TAS, but would be interested in your essay. In a college Objectivist club (a few years after that schism) we studied both Peikoff's 'Fact and Value' and the relevant portions of Kelley's 'Truth and Toleration' and discussed the split. I remember finding myself agreeing much more with LP's writing than DK's - yet disagreeing with Peikoff concerning (at least the proximate cause of) the split. Kelley speaking to a libertarian dinner club seemed legitimate outreach and possibly (I know, loaded word) evangelism rather than sanction, and despite agreeing more with Peikoff's philosophical points I thought it did not seem to make sense to judge Kelley badly for that action. I'm interested in reading your analysis of their respective writings and views, and the causes and outcome of that split.

Aaron

[James Heaps-Nelson]

Hard time yes but not impossible. Who is Richard Sanford? Is he on OL or is he Googleable? Any info would help.

I also have Kelley's Evidence of the Senses too. While I am sure it is a great contributor, I got bored with it because, for me, it was very dry like IOE. I will revisit these books in due time.

Thanks!

Mike,

Richard Sanford is a Reisman ally who headed a group called Society for Objective Science.

Jim

Edited January 25, 2010 by James Heaps-Nelson

[Selene]

Mike,

You probably know about the Timeline in the David Kelley corner here on OL. If not, take a look at it. There are lots of links in it.

Also, be careful with spelling. It's Peikoff, not Piekoff. This is a common mistake, so no biggie. But if you are going to write an article about the man, ya gotta get the name right.

Michael

Lol.

Yep. P.T. Barnum, one of my early guru's of marketing!

“I don’t care what you say about me, just spell my name right” — P.T. Barnum

Adam

[Jonathan]

For those who post on Objectivism Online, I recall messages posted on these boards of people who belong, or used to belong, to Objectivism Online that they had their messages deleted or censored and their accounts frozen or terminated.

Hi Mike,

I've posted messages on OO which have been deleted, beginning with some of my very first posts, and I've seen others' messages deleted as well -- one such person who comes to mind off the top of my head is Daniel Barnes, one of whose posts I saw deleted for no legitimate reason.

As I mentioned on this thread here on OL, during the times that my posts were being deleted I was sometimes blocked from posting on OO, and on some occasions it appeared that I was even being blocked from visiting the site (I couldn't access it from the building that I normally post from, but I could access it from another computer which is a few miles away that I sometimes use).

Sometimes my deleted posts would be restored after I asked a moderator why he had deleted them, and sometimes they wouldn't. When asking the moderators to explain why posts had been deleted or separated off to another thread, I would receive no response, or a response in which they told me that they were certain that I already knew why my post had been deleted, or that they had no reason that they wished to share with me. In one instance, I posted a message about a topic and was told that I couldn't post on the specific thread to which I had posted -- I was told that I could retrieve my post from the deletions subforum and repost it to any other thread, but not to the thread to which it was most relevant. Again, no reason was given when I requested an explanation. I was simply told that the moderator wasn't interested in going into any more detail about his reasoning, when he hadn't given any reasons or details to begin with.

I think that I was very polite in asking the moderators about their actions, and, generally, I think that they were quite snarky and unhelpful in response. I got the strong impression that I was seen as an "enemy of Objectivism" because I was interested in discussing some of Rand's more controversial opinions or contradictions.

Having said all that, in recent months they've been much less uptight. They've allowed me to post arguments which I think they would have deleted in the past. They now seem to be more willing to ask me what relevance a post of mine has to a topic being discussed as opposed to just assuming that it has no relevance (in the past, they didn't seem to grasp, for example, that the Objectivist position on music as an art form has relevance to the Objectivist position on abstract visual art, and any time that I would focus on that connection in regard to the Objectivist view of the nature of all art, one of the moderators would intrude and delete or move my comments on music to a thread on music -- it's really hard to discuss the larger category of art when a moderator insists on subdividing discussions on each of the arts into separate categories, while refusing to listen to any complaints that he's not understanding the bigger picture, and that his separating posts off onto other threads prevents any chance of his understanding it).

So, I've been moderated and temporarily banned from OO in the past, but what I take to be the more recent general attitude there of openness and willingness to allow differing points of view is a good thing. I currently have a very positive view of OO.

J

[9thdoctor]

Here’s a site with documentation on the Reisman split, it’s pretty damning: http://www.jeffcomp.com/faq/ Sanford’s experience is documented as well.

Richard Sanford took part in a program called The Case Against Environmentalism in the early ‘90’s, Schwartz (philosophy), Salsman (economics) and Sanford (science) were the presenters. I’m sure it’s gone down the memory hole, but I remember playing it a campus club meeting back then. I felt then that Sanford was the best presenter.

Looks like you want more recent material than this, like what Jonathan is offering. My own experiences with ARI and Lyceum are 15+ years old and were quite positive I must say.

You ought to look into the way things were back in the days of email discussion groups like MDOP and OSG. It used to be that if you posted to MDOP you were booted off OSG. I never signed on to OSG as a result, here’s Diana Hsieh discussing her experience: http://www.dianahsieh.com/ff/1994.02.17.html This is from long before she turned to the dark side.

If you’re looking into the splits, a fresh approach you might try is the Ben Bradlee way: Follow the Money. For example at the heart of the Reisman split was an objection to how much Binswanger and Schwartz were to be paid for teaching courses. They were going to get far above the market rate, and Reisman and his wife, as board members, objected.

[Mike Renzulli]

Hi Jonathan,

Thanks for this. I am very glad to hear that OO has opened up like ARI. It seems that the ARI side of the movement has relaxed quite a bit and I will mention this in my essay.

In lieu of ARI's more open attitude I am wondering if down the line The Atlas Society may go out of business and the people affiliated with it would go to ARI.

Hi Mike,

I've posted messages on OO which have been deleted, beginning with some of my very first posts, and I've seen others' messages deleted as well -- one such person who comes to mind off the top of my head is Daniel Barnes, one of whose posts I saw deleted for no legitimate reason.

As I mentioned on this thread here on OL, during the times that my posts were being deleted I was sometimes blocked from posting on OO, and on some occasions it appeared that I was even being blocked from visiting the site (I couldn't access it from the building that I normally post from, but I could access it from another computer which is a few miles away that I sometimes use).

Sometimes my deleted posts would be restored after I asked a moderator why he had deleted them, and sometimes they wouldn't. When asking the moderators to explain why posts had been deleted or separated off to another thread, I would receive no response, or a response in which they told me that they were certain that I already knew why my post had been deleted, or that they had no reason that they wished to share with me. In one instance, I posted a message about a topic and was told that I couldn't post on the specific thread to which I had posted -- I was told that I could retrieve my post from the deletions subforum and repost it to any other thread, but not to the thread to which it was most relevant. Again, no reason was given when I requested an explanation. I was simply told that the moderator wasn't interested in going into any more detail about his reasoning, when he hadn't given any reasons or details to begin with.

I think that I was very polite in asking the moderators about their actions, and, generally, I think that they were quite snarky and unhelpful in response. I got the strong impression that I was seen as an "enemy of Objectivism" because I was interested in discussing some of Rand's more controversial opinions or contradictions.

Having said all that, in recent months they've been much less uptight. They've allowed me to post arguments which I think they would have deleted in the past. They now seem to be more willing to ask me what relevance a post of mine has to a topic being discussed as opposed to just assuming that it has no relevance (in the past, they didn't seem to grasp, for example, that the Objectivist position on music as an art form has relevance to the Objectivist position on abstract visual art, and any time that I would focus on that connection in regard to the Objectivist view of the nature of all art, one of the moderators would intrude and delete or move my comments on music to a thread on music -- it's really hard to discuss the larger category of art when a moderator insists on subdividing discussions on each of the arts into separate categories, while refusing to listen to any complaints that he's not understanding the bigger picture, and that his separating posts off onto other threads prevents any chance of his understanding it).

So, I've been moderated and temporarily banned from OO in the past, but what I take to be the more recent general attitude there of openness and willingness to allow differing points of view is a good thing. I currently have a very positive view of OO.

J

[Mike Renzulli]

I will give it a look, thanks!

Here’s a site with documentation on the Reisman split, it’s pretty damning: http://www.jeffcomp.com/faq/ Sanford’s experience is documented as well.

Richard Sanford took part in a program called The Case Against Environmentalism in the early ‘90’s, Schwartz (philosophy), Salsman (economics) and Sanford (science) were the presenters. I’m sure it’s gone down the memory hole, but I remember playing it a campus club meeting back then. I felt then that Sanford was the best presenter.

Looks like you want more recent material than this, like what Jonathan is offering. My own experiences with ARI and Lyceum are 15+ years old and were quite positive I must say.

You ought to look into the way things were back in the days of email discussion groups like MDOP and OSG. It used to be that if you posted to MDOP you were booted off OSG. I never signed on to OSG as a result, here’s Diana Hsieh discussing her experience: http://www.dianahsieh.com/ff/1994.02.17.html This is from long before she turned to the dark side.

If you’re looking into the splits, a fresh approach you might try is the Ben Bradlee way: Follow the Money. For example at the heart of the Reisman split was an objection to how much Binswanger and Schwartz were to be paid for teaching courses. They were going to get far above the market rate, and Reisman and his wife, as board members, objected.

[Donovan A.]

For those who post on Objectivism Online, I recall messages posted on these boards of people who belong, or used to belong, to Objectivism Online that they had their messages deleted or censored and their accounts frozen or terminated.

Hi Mike,

I've posted messages on OO which have been deleted, beginning with some of my very first posts, and I've seen others' messages deleted as well -- one such person who comes to mind off the top of my head is Daniel Barnes, one of whose posts I saw deleted for no legitimate reason.

As I mentioned on this thread here on OL, during the times that my posts were being deleted I was sometimes blocked from posting on OO, and on some occasions it appeared that I was even being blocked from visiting the site (I couldn't access it from the building that I normally post from, but I could access it from another computer which is a few miles away that I sometimes use).

Sometimes my deleted posts would be restored after I asked a moderator why he had deleted them, and sometimes they wouldn't. When asking the moderators to explain why posts had been deleted or separated off to another thread, I would receive no response, or a response in which they told me that they were certain that I already knew why my post had been deleted, or that they had no reason that they wished to share with me. In one instance, I posted a message about a topic and was told that I couldn't post on the specific thread to which I had posted -- I was told that I could retrieve my post from the deletions subforum and repost it to any other thread, but not to the thread to which it was most relevant. Again, no reason was given when I requested an explanation. I was simply told that the moderator wasn't interested in going into any more detail about his reasoning, when he hadn't given any reasons or details to begin with.

I think that I was very polite in asking the moderators about their actions, and, generally, I think that they were quite snarky and unhelpful in response. I got the strong impression that I was seen as an "enemy of Objectivism" because I was interested in discussing some of Rand's more controversial opinions or contradictions.

Having said all that, in recent months they've been much less uptight. They've allowed me to post arguments which I think they would have deleted in the past. They now seem to be more willing to ask me what relevance a post of mine has to a topic being discussed as opposed to just assuming that it has no relevance (in the past, they didn't seem to grasp, for example, that the Objectivist position on music as an art form has relevance to the Objectivist position on abstract visual art, and any time that I would focus on that connection in regard to the Objectivist view of the nature of all art, one of the moderators would intrude and delete or move my comments on music to a thread on music -- it's really hard to discuss the larger category of art when a moderator insists on subdividing discussions on each of the arts into separate categories, while refusing to listen to any complaints that he's not understanding the bigger picture, and that his separating posts off onto other threads prevents any chance of his understanding it).

So, I've been moderated and temporarily banned from OO in the past, but what I take to be the more recent general attitude there of openness and willingness to allow differing points of view is a good thing. I currently have a very positive view of OO.

J

Jonathan,

I used to participate in OO. I no longer do, simply because I enjoy the benevolent crowed here much more (Thank you MSK). However, I know the owner of the OO site and his wife personally (for a few years now). I would like to think that many of the positive changes that you are talking about are a result of my influence. I never had any of my posts deleted over there that I am aware of. But, I did receive a warning from the moderators unjustly. I generally don't have a problem with intellectual disagreements, but I do have a problem with overbearing rudeness and obnoxious tones of superiority. Most of the time, I find that my breaks with people have been due to a lack of civility (on their part) and rarely because of how foolish, ignorant, false or evil their ideas happen to be.

Randall

[Chris Grieb]

For those who post on Objectivism Online, I recall messages posted on these boards of people who belong, or used to belong, to Objectivism Online that they had their messages deleted or censored and their accounts frozen or terminated.

Hi Mike,

I've posted messages on OO which have been deleted, beginning with some of my very first posts, and I've seen others' messages deleted as well -- one such person who comes to mind off the top of my head is Daniel Barnes, one of whose posts I saw deleted for no legitimate reason.

As I mentioned on this thread here on OL, during the times that my posts were being deleted I was sometimes blocked from posting on OO, and on some occasions it appeared that I was even being blocked from visiting the site (I couldn't access it from the building that I normally post from, but I could access it from another computer which is a few miles away that I sometimes use).

Sometimes my deleted posts would be restored after I asked a moderator why he had deleted them, and sometimes they wouldn't. When asking the moderators to explain why posts had been deleted or separated off to another thread, I would receive no response, or a response in which they told me that they were certain that I already knew why my post had been deleted, or that they had no reason that they wished to share with me. In one instance, I posted a message about a topic and was told that I couldn't post on the specific thread to which I had posted -- I was told that I could retrieve my post from the deletions subforum and repost it to any other thread, but not to the thread to which it was most relevant. Again, no reason was given when I requested an explanation. I was simply told that the moderator wasn't interested in going into any more detail about his reasoning, when he hadn't given any reasons or details to begin with.

I think that I was very polite in asking the moderators about their actions, and, generally, I think that they were quite snarky and unhelpful in response. I got the strong impression that I was seen as an "enemy of Objectivism" because I was interested in discussing some of Rand's more controversial opinions or contradictions.

Having said all that, in recent months they've been much less uptight. They've allowed me to post arguments which I think they would have deleted in the past. They now seem to be more willing to ask me what relevance a post of mine has to a topic being discussed as opposed to just assuming that it has no relevance (in the past, they didn't seem to grasp, for example, that the Objectivist position on music as an art form has relevance to the Objectivist position on abstract visual art, and any time that I would focus on that connection in regard to the Objectivist view of the nature of all art, one of the moderators would intrude and delete or move my comments on music to a thread on music -- it's really hard to discuss the larger category of art when a moderator insists on subdividing discussions on each of the arts into separate categories, while refusing to listen to any complaints that he's not understanding the bigger picture, and that his separating posts off onto other threads prevents any chance of his understanding it).

So, I've been moderated and temporarily banned from OO in the past, but what I take to be the more recent general attitude there of openness and willingness to allow differing points of view is a good thing. I currently have a very positive view of OO.

J

Jonathan,

I used to participate in OO. I no longer do, simply because I enjoy the benevolent crowed here much more (Thank you MSK). However, I know the owner of the OO site and his wife personally (for a few years now). I would like to think that many of the positive changes that you are talking about are a result of my influence. I never had any of my posts deleted over there that I am aware of. But, I did receive a warning from the moderators unjustly. I generally don't have a problem with intellectual disagreements, but I do have a problem with overbearing rudeness and obnoxious tones of superiority. Most of the time, I find that my breaks with people have been due to a lack of civility (on their part) and rarely because of how foolish, ignorant, false or evil their ideas happen to be.

Randall

Randall; Thanks for this post about posting on OO. I have never posted there but I have hopes that your good influence will continue to work. I too like the benevolent crowd here. (My thanks to MSK)

[Jonathan]

I wrote,

So, I've been moderated and temporarily banned from OO in the past, but what I take to be the more recent general attitude there of openness and willingness to allow differing points of view is a good thing. I currently have a very positive view of OO.

I guess I spoke too soon.

The following post of mine was just deleted from OO on this thread, with no explanation given to me by the moderators:

An unintelligible, amorphous, obscure, indefinite and ambiguous collection of smears on a canvas, which has to be given meaning arbitrarily through an enigmatic code of mysterious symbolism hidden from a rational mind, is definitively not an example of art under Ayn Rand's aesthetic theory.

I disagree. As I see it, we have a choice: we can either be sticklers and strictly adhere to Rand's requirement of objectively identifiable, intelligible subjects and meanings in art, or we can follow her lead in the opposite direction and grant exceptions for the non-objective art forms that we like. Personally, I prefer the latter.

See, the problem is that if we opt to be sticklers, then music should also not be considered a valid art form under Rand's criteria, since it is no more objectively meaningful than abstract paintings.

As Rand said, music "cannot tell a story, it cannot deal with concretes, it cannot convey a specific existential phenomenon, such as a peaceful countryside or a stormy sea...even concepts which, intellectually, belong to a complex level of abstraction, such as 'peace,' 'revolution,' 'religion,' are too specific, too concrete to be expressed in music."

She also said that "until a conceptual vocabulary is discovered and defined, no objectively valid criterion of esthetic judgment is possible in the field of music," and, therefore, that our musical tastes and judgments must be treated as a "subjective matter."

So, I prefer to opt to not be a stickler. Since exceptions can be made for a non-objective art form like music, then there is no reason that they can't also be made for other non-objective art forms (from which millions of people get as much emotional impact and meaning as Rand did from music).

Perhaps the meaning of the author's paintings can only be revealed to a distinct class of art critics, but I, for one, cannot distinguish most of them from this doodle...

Not to be disrespectful, but, to me, your inability to distinguish between Tym's work and the doodle you posted is nothing more than an indication of your personal visual limitations.

J

J

Edited February 11, 2010 by Jonathan

[Jonathan]

Now my post has been re-posted by the moderators, but, as in previous discussions on OO about intelligibility and art, it has been posted under yet another new thread. Apparently any time that I join a discussion on OO in which someone mentions the Objectivist requirements of intelligibility and objectivity in art, and I point out that Rand allowed exceptions, a new thread must be started.

J

[anonrobt]

I wrote,

So, I've been moderated and temporarily banned from OO in the past, but what I take to be the more recent general attitude there of openness and willingness to allow differing points of view is a good thing. I currently have a very positive view of OO.

I guess I spoke too soon.

The following post of mine was just deleted from OO on this thread, with no explanation given to me by the moderators:

An unintelligible, amorphous, obscure, indefinite and ambiguous collection of smears on a canvas, which has to be given meaning arbitrarily through an enigmatic code of mysterious symbolism hidden from a rational mind, is definitively not an example of art under Ayn Rand's aesthetic theory.

I disagree. As I see it, we have a choice: we can either be sticklers and strictly adhere to Rand's requirement of objectively identifiable, intelligible subjects and meanings in art, or we can follow her lead in the opposite direction and grant exceptions for the non-objective art forms that we like. Personally, I prefer the latter.

See, the problem is that if we opt to be sticklers, then music should also not be considered a valid art form under Rand's criteria, since it is no more objectively meaningful than abstract paintings.

As Rand said, music "cannot tell a story, it cannot deal with concretes, it cannot convey a specific existential phenomenon, such as a peaceful countryside or a stormy sea...even concepts which, intellectually, belong to a complex level of abstraction, such as 'peace,' 'revolution,' 'religion,' are too specific, too concrete to be expressed in music."

She also said that "until a conceptual vocabulary is discovered and defined, no objectively valid criterion of esthetic judgment is possible in the field of music," and, therefore, that our musical tastes and judgments must be treated as a "subjective matter."

So, I prefer to opt to not be a stickler. Since exceptions can be made for a non-objective art form like music, then there is no reason that they can't also be made for other non-objective art forms (from which millions of people get as much emotional impact and meaning as Rand did from music).

Perhaps the meaning of the author's paintings can only be revealed to a distinct class of art critics, but I, for one, cannot distinguish most of them from this doodle...

Not to be disrespectful, but, to me, your inability to distinguish between Tym's work and the doodle you posted is nothing more than an indication of your personal visual limitations.

J

J

Or yours, the continued fanticization of your 'unlimited' visual ability...

and it seems a continued rejection of aural percepts - that percepts must be visual if they're to be objective...

Edited February 11, 2010 by anonrobt

[Jonathan]

Or yours, the continued fanticization of your 'unlimited' visual ability...

I don't think that my visual ability is "unlimited," I just think that yours is probably very limited, and I think it's silly when the visually-lacking want to be in charge of deciding what is or is not visual art.

Robert, don't you think that it's reasonable for you to consider the possibility that you might be visually "tone-deaf" in some ways? How would you propose to objectively prove that you're not visually lacking, versus proving that others, who find meaning in visual art forms that you don't, are part of an evil conspiracy whose goal is to put one over on you, disintegrate man's consciousness, and otherwise destroy all that is good?

and it seems a continued rejection of aural percepts - that percepts must be visual if they're to be objective...

No, I only think that sounds must be objectively identifiable "re-creations" or "representations of things from reality" if we are to consistently apply Rand's "objective" aesthetic criteria. In other words, if abstract paintings are to be labeled non-art on the grounds that they don't include objectively identifiable visual likenesses of things from reality, then music should also be labeled non-art, since it doesn't present objectively identifiable aural likenesses of things from reality. If "aural percepts" are enough to make something art, then there's no reason that "visual percepts" (abstract forms and compositions) shouldn't be enough to make something art.

J