Permitted art?

[Kimmler]

I understand from my reading of Romantic Manifesto that the type of art a man enjoys betrays his soul. As in Wikipedia entry on the Romantic Manifesto it states that “Rand asserts that one cannot create art without infusing a given work with one's own value judgments and personal philosophy… the audience of any particular work cannot help but come away with some sense of a philosophical message, colored by his or her own personal values, ingrained into their psyche by whatever degree of emotional impact the work holds for them.”

I have read that book and do know that Rand gives some examples of books that she is dismissive of. Such as The Tin Drum, Dracula & Frankenstein. For works of art she does not like, read modern art and photography. Neither of which she considered art at all. For music she hated jazz.

What I’m asking is…do other objectivists agree with her. What if you read and enjoyed say, Dracula? Are there any books, films etc that you are forbidden from watching and if you did watch/read/enjoy them would you be unable to call yourself an objectivist or receive finger-wagging from other card-carrying members?

[Mike11]

This is more a question you would want to pose at OO.Net in the form of, "I am wondering which forms of art Ayn Rand described as Evil as I want myself to be rightly guided in all things." Should give you five or ten pages of epic fail.

Pretty well all the posters around here I think are to mature to consent to their own lobotomy.

From what I have read there was a totalitarian control on artistic expression in the NBI period, not sure how effective the Pope has been in creating that Orwellian atmosphere. I think the Will is there, just not the ability.

[Brant Gaede]

The troll has become more sophisticated.

--Brant

[Kimmler]

The troll has become more sophisticated.

--Brant

Oh my dear, you are far too kind.

But seriously, have you ever said to one of your fellow objectivists "you really shouldn't be reading or watching that"?

[Selene]

I understand from my reading of Romantic Manifesto that the type of art a man enjoys betrays his soul. As in Wikipedia entry on the Romantic Manifesto it states that "Rand asserts that one cannot create art without infusing a given work with one's own value judgments and personal philosophy… the audience of any particular work cannot help but come away with some sense of a philosophical message, colored by his or her own personal values, ingrained into their psyche by whatever degree of emotional impact the work holds for them."

I have read that book and do know that Rand gives some examples of books that she is dismissive of. Such as The Tin Drum, Dracula & Frankenstein. For works of art she does not like, read modern art and photography. Neither of which she considered art at all. For music she hated jazz.

What I'm asking is…do other objectivists agree with her. What if you read and enjoyed say, Dracula? Are there any books, films etc that you are forbidden from watching and if you did watch/read/enjoy them would you be unable to call yourself an objectivist or receive finger-wagging from other card-carrying members?

Steven:

Her views on art, music and other aesthetic issues were hers and hers alone. There is absolutely no connection with being a believer in her philosophy, as far as she developed the philosophy, and the kind of art, music and other aesthetic choices. "True believers" should be incompatible with a philosophy of rationality, objective reality, laissez faire capitalism and freedom.

I hope that answers your question. When I heard Ayn say those statements when I was attending NBI at 19 and 20 years old and saw the cult like stares of some of the acolytes in attendance, I could see that we were going to have problems down the road with folks like Peikoff, et. al.

A philosophy dedicated to independent thought has no room for second handers.

Adam

[PDS]

One viewing of The Fountainhead, the movie, as compared to the book, should lead to healthy caution in the area of judgments on art.

[9thdoctor]

But seriously, have you ever said to one of your fellow objectivists "you really shouldn't be reading or watching that"?

We've been there done that. If you’re looking to have fun at the expense of cultists, you’ve come to the wrong place. BTW, I asked before, Kimmler=Himmler? Why is Steve Johnston trolling an Ayn Rand discussion group under the name Kimmler? I could explain Ninth Doctor to you pretty easily. We had another troll using the name “Herb Sewell”, which is the name of a fictional child molester. I’m sure he thought it was oh so clever, but he wore out his welcome fast.

[kiaer.ts]

I told you you guys were being kimmled.

[Mike11]

Steven:

Her views on art, music and other aesthetic issues were hers and hers alone. There is absolutely no connection with being a believer in her philosophy, as far as she developed the philosophy, and the kind of art, music and other aesthetic choices. "True believers" should be incompatible with a philosophy of rationality, objective reality, laissez faire capitalism and freedom.

I hope that answers your question. When I heard Ayn say those statements when I was attending NBI at 19 and 20 years old and saw the cult like stares of some of the acolytes in attendance, I could see that we were going to have problems down the road with folks like Peikoff, et. al.

A philosophy dedicated to independent thought has no room for second handers.

Adam

Setting the tone for yet another bit of trolling-

Correct me if I am wrong but doesn't Ayn's view of Art belong in Objectivism, as its theory of Aesthetics?

More specifically, her view that a piece of art conveys man's value judgments is as much a part of her philosophy as her politics or economics isn't it?

The reason why I ask is in making artistic choices statements about your values seems to enforce a uniformity of expression. Why are you listening to Mozart, do you embrace his irrationality? Why are you watching Fight Club, do you value its Nihilism over the Perfection of Atlas Shrugged?

Selene, is this close to what you were referring to?

Edited October 19, 2010 by Joel Mac Donald

[Selene]

Steven:

Her views on art, music and other aesthetic issues were hers and hers alone. There is absolutely no connection with being a believer in her philosophy, as far as she developed the philosophy, and the kind of art, music and other aesthetic choices. "True believers" should be incompatible with a philosophy of rationality, objective reality, laissez faire capitalism and freedom.

I hope that answers your question. When I heard Ayn say those statements when I was attending NBI at 19 and 20 years old and saw the cult like stares of some of the acolytes in attendance, I could see that we were going to have problems down the road with folks like Peikoff, et. al.

A philosophy dedicated to independent thought has no room for second handers.

Adam

Setting the tone for yet another bit of trolling-

Correct me if I am wrong but doesn't Ayn's view of Art belong in Objectivism, as its theory of Aesthetics?

More specifically, her view that a piece of art conveys man's value judgments is as much a part of her philosophy as her politics or economics isn't it?

The reason why I ask is in making artistic choices statements about your values seems to enforce a uniformity of expression. Why are you listening to Mozart, do you embrace his irrationality? Why are you watching Fight Club, do you value its Nihilism over the Perfection of Atlas Shrugged?

Selene, is this close to what you were referring to?

Well, I mean, you know, Joel, whatever...

Actually, I enjoy Mozart and do not embrace his irrationality. I love George Carlin's comedic satire, but do not agree with all of his politics. I get pleasure from Joan Baez's voice, but do not share her Marxism.

I do think there is a connection between a piece of art and my personal pleasure value. However, that is far and away from Ayn's bizarre position that is love what I love in art or music or you are psychologically deficient. This from someone who is reported to have said to Nathanial, "I leave psychology to you - it is a sewer," or words to that effect.

Not sure if that answers where you were going with your statements.

Adam

[Jonathan]

Correct me if I am wrong but doesn't Ayn's view of Art belong in Objectivism, as its theory of Aesthetics?

That's right. Adam is not correct in his opinion that Rand's views on art were "hers and hers alone," or that there is "absolutely no connection with being a believer in her philosophy, as far as she developed the philosophy, and the kind of art, music and other aesthetic choices."

Rand believed that she had established an objective aesthetics, and that her tastes, interpretations and judgments of art were objective. Her Esthetics is as much a part of Objectivism as her views on the other branches. If fact, her view of mankind begins with an aesthetic vision. In some respects Objectivism involves the aesthetic tail wagging the dog. "Man qua man," and all that.

J

[Selene]

Correct me if I am wrong but doesn't Ayn's view of Art belong in Objectivism, as its theory of Aesthetics?

That's right. Adam is not correct in his opinion that Rand's views on art were "hers and hers alone," or that there is "absolutely no connection with being a believer in her philosophy, as far as she developed the philosophy, and the kind of art, music and other aesthetic choices."

Rand believed that she had established an objective aesthetics, and that her tastes, interpretations and judgments of art were objective. Her Esthetics is as much a part of Objectivism as her views on the other branches. If fact, her view of mankind begins with an aesthetic vision. In some respects Objectivism involves the aesthetic tail wagging the dog. "Man qua man," and all that.

J

I just disagree with her view.

Adam

[Jonathan]

I just disagree with her view.

Well, then you're a subjectivist monster who wants to destroy all values.

Frickin' death-worshiper!

J

[Brant Gaede]

The troll has become more sophisticated.

--Brant

Oh my dear, you are far too kind.

But seriously, have you ever said to one of your fellow objectivists "you really shouldn't be reading or watching that"?

Not once in 47 Objectivism years.

--Brant

[Kimmler]

But seriously, have you ever said to one of your fellow objectivists "you really shouldn't be reading or watching that"?

We've been there done that. If you’re looking to have fun at the expense of cultists, you’ve come to the wrong place. BTW, I asked before, Kimmler=Himmler? Why is Steve Johnston trolling an Ayn Rand discussion group under the name Kimmler? I could explain Ninth Doctor to you pretty easily. We had another troll using the name “Herb Sewell”, which is the name of a fictional child molester. I’m sure he thought it was oh so clever, but he wore out his welcome fast.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Himmler

I can assure you I am not Himmler as he is dead…really dead. Even if I was him and faked my own death in 1945 I’d be a very old man by now.

As for trolling under that name, well what name would you prefer I use.

As for coming here to poke fun at the expense of Objectivists, I can assure you that is not my intention. You guys do a great job of that anyway…but seriously I have some friends who are objectivists and enjoy debating with them. I’m not one myself but felt I would be welcome here as this is a saner board than others I’ll had a look at. As for thinking myself clever…my friends I’ll leave that up for you to decide. I guess I’ve worn out my welcome with you and others here already but do enjoy reading, for all the right reasons, the response of some of the posters here. Particularly Selene.

If you have been here and done that with Herb, then there is no need to do that with me.

[Kimmler]

The troll has become more sophisticated.

--Brant

Oh my dear, you are far too kind.

But seriously, have you ever said to one of your fellow objectivists "you really shouldn't be reading or watching that"?

Not once in 47 Objectivism years.

--Brant

Well that is good to know, but is there a reason for that? You realised that hey, that just would not work in the real world or you felt that an objectivist should be free to watch/read/listen to whatever they want?

[Kimmler]

Correct me if I am wrong but doesn't Ayn's view of Art belong in Objectivism, as its theory of Aesthetics?

That's right. Adam is not correct in his opinion that Rand's views on art were "hers and hers alone," or that there is "absolutely no connection with being a believer in her philosophy, as far as she developed the philosophy, and the kind of art, music and other aesthetic choices."

Rand believed that she had established an objective aesthetics, and that her tastes, interpretations and judgments of art were objective. Her Esthetics is as much a part of Objectivism as her views on the other branches. If fact, her view of mankind begins with an aesthetic vision. In some respects Objectivism involves the aesthetic tail wagging the dog. "Man qua man," and all that.

J

But what if you enjoyed a work of art that was considered, by objectivist ethics, immoral? If you were an objectivist, would you feel guilt and/or unhappiness because of this?

Edited October 20, 2010 by Kimmler

[9thdoctor]

We've been there done that.

I don't see any indication that you clicked the link. By "been here done that", I meant we've discussed this topic.

[anthony]

Correct me if I am wrong but doesn't Ayn's view of Art belong in Objectivism, as its theory of Aesthetics?

That's right. Adam is not correct in his opinion that Rand's views on art were "hers and hers alone," or that there is "absolutely no connection with being a believer in her philosophy, as far as she developed the philosophy, and the kind of art, music and other aesthetic choices."

Rand believed that she had established an objective aesthetics, and that her tastes, interpretations and judgments of art were objective. Her Esthetics is as much a part of Objectivism as her views on the other branches. If fact, her view of mankind begins with an aesthetic vision. In some respects Objectivism involves the aesthetic tail wagging the dog. "Man qua man," and all that.

J

But what if you enjoyed a work of art that was considered, by objectivist ethics, immoral? If you were an objectivist, would you feel guilt and/or unhappiness because of this?

Kimmler,

You apparently have not heard of the fundamental Laws* of Objectivism: 1. think for yourself 2. consistently apply the given structure of Objectivism, and reason it out for yourself 3. If in doubt, think for yourself.[*unofficial]

There is no way on Earth anyone, including Ayn Rand herself, can tell a rational egoist what to think, or what to feel.

She would have been horrified, I'm sure, at Objectivists self-censoring themselves from works of art and literature, on her 'command' alone.

Tony

[Selene]

Correct me if I am wrong but doesn't Ayn's view of Art belong in Objectivism, as its theory of Aesthetics?

That's right. Adam is not correct in his opinion that Rand's views on art were "hers and hers alone," or that there is "absolutely no connection with being a believer in her philosophy, as far as she developed the philosophy, and the kind of art, music and other aesthetic choices."

Rand believed that she had established an objective aesthetics, and that her tastes, interpretations and judgments of art were objective. Her Esthetics is as much a part of Objectivism as her views on the other branches. If fact, her view of mankind begins with an aesthetic vision. In some respects Objectivism involves the aesthetic tail wagging the dog. "Man qua man," and all that.

J

But what if you enjoyed a work of art that was considered, by objectivist ethics, immoral? If you were an objectivist, would you feel guilt and/or unhappiness because of this?

Kimmler,

You apparently have not heard of the fundamental Laws* of Objectivism: 1. think for yourself 2. consistently apply the given structure of Objectivism, and reason it out for yourself 3. If in doubt, think for yourself.[*unofficial]

There is no way on Earth anyone, including Ayn Rand herself, can tell a rational egoist what to think, or what to feel.

She would have been horrified, I'm sure, at Objectivists self-censoring themselves from works of art and literature, on her 'command' alone.

Tony

Tony:

But that would take all the fun out of bashing Ayn as a fascist, or, a kinky, crazy lady who wanted to see all, white, Übermensches elevated to mountain tops, drawing dollar signs in the air as the the non white, and immoral white plebeians writhed in pain and starvation on the smoking plains below.

Remember, as Nietzsche observed,

"All beings so far have created something beyond themselves; and do you want to be the ebb of this great flood and even go back to the beasts rather than overcome man? What is the ape to man? A laughingstock or a painful embarrassment. And man shall be just that for the overman: a laughingstock or a painful embarrassment…"

The sad part is that Ayn's philosophy scares the hell out of a lot of folks who consider themselves less than, even an Eddie Willers. They have bought into the socialist myth that capitalism is innately oppressive, unequal and will avariciously take from them what they are entitled to merely by being born.

The economic fact that socialism cannot work has no effect on them. As long as it lasts for their lifetime it is fine.

The dirty little secret that Ayn touched is the internal death wish that is covered up by the sanction of the victim.

Adam

[Rich Engle]

But what if you enjoyed a work of art that was considered, by objectivist ethics, immoral? If you were an objectivist, would you feel guilt and/or unhappiness because of this?

It might be harder to get a seat up front at the next club meeting. Glad I'm not in that position or I'd be in a terrible funk all the time. I guess you could "confess." Then, a few Hail Rands and several dozen Our Peikoffs, you're off the hook for at least a few days.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Kimmler,

Let's be clear about something. People on OL admire and love what Rand did, but there is no religion thing going on here. The attitude here (and one I consciously foster) is that Objectivism is a starting point for thinking for yourself, not an end point of revealed wisdom like in sacred texts.

If you are interested in Rand's ideas--or people who like Rand's ideas--and want to discuss them here, please understand that we have all responded to Rand because she resonated deep within us--and it called to the very best parts of us. (I don't really speak for anyone but me, but I have observed many people on OL express this sentiment in a variety of ways.) Just because her work did not get to you on that level and does not resonate with you, that does not mean you should come here and mock us to our faces or spit on Rand all the time to get a rise out of the ignorant savages.

We share a common experience--a good common experience that happened before we knew each other. We did not get together and create one out of cult procedures or anything like that. We were attracted here because we all reacted in roughly the same manner to something similar.

So why mock that?

Do you want anyone to do that with you?

But that's all you did in your first 50 posts of obnoxious one-liners. And 50 posts is quite enough to get an idea of what you were about.

In your last few posts, though, you seem to be more interested in the ideas. I sincerely hope that is true. If this is your intention, please let me know. I welcome objections to Objectivism--the stronger the better--and hope you can give it your very best shots. Hell, almost everyone on OL disagrees with Rand over something. I hate restricting people and would love to remove the one I just put you on. But this is a discussion board for philosophy, not a kindergarten for a playground bully.

If you want to look down your nose at the people here, do it from afar. There's the entire Internet available to you just waiting for you to express your innate superiority and superhuman intellect.

Or if you want to discuss ideas, even disagree with ideas, OK. I'm find with that intent. Like I said, let me know.

Now that that's off my chest, about the idea you raised. For the record, I can appreciate art in the manner Rand proposed (I love heroic stuff), but I have a vaster level of reaction to art than the ideas she came up with.

I most certainly can appreciate Dracula and horror tales. And with relish. Rather than watch a horror movie because my soul became a stinking swamp of irrational viciousness and death wish, I am more like the little kid in the theater, chomping on popcorn, laughing at the zombies and mugging the scary stuff.

I like to be scared at times, too. But only up to a certain point. And I like the sense of relief of realizing that there was no real danger after all (either in the story if that is what happens, or after the end of the story and I return to real life).

I believe this appeal is universal. With horror stuff, that's why there's always a make-believe element, though. And you can't really take it seriously. Imagine if you did. I don't know about you, but I would not want to give myself aesthetically over to total raw panic and blind terror where I crapped my pants. And I don't find pleasure in a heart attack.

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

The troll has become more sophisticated.

--Brant

Oh my dear, you are far too kind.

But seriously, have you ever said to one of your fellow objectivists "you really shouldn't be reading or watching that"?

Not once in 47 Objectivism years.

--Brant

Well that is good to know, but is there a reason for that? You realised that hey, that just would not work in the real world or you felt that an objectivist should be free to watch/read/listen to whatever they want?

You're talking about cultism and objectifity in art but your ad hominem perspective is trite. Rand considered her views on aesthetics to be part of Objectivism, but I cannot find the logical connection that binds them to it. That's why I left aesthetics out of my signature line. In the late 1960s a writer in The Objectivist criticized Michelangelo's David statue because of its slightly worried look--he was about to fight Goliath. Without that look it might as well have been an example of Soviet Realism or Nazi gigantism instead of a real, heroic, individual human being. But these different evaluations are outside Objectivism as such or you get the philosophical bull in the aesthetic china shop effect. All this doesn't mean Rand didn't have a lot to say of valuable interest about aesthetics.

--Brant

[PDS]

MSK: very nicely said.

[Jonathan]

But what if you enjoyed a work of art that was considered, by objectivist ethics, immoral?

I think that if an Objectivist enjoys a work of art that he judges to have an immoral meaning or message, and his enjoyment of it worries him, he should think about what he likes about the art, and why. He probably doesn't like it because he thinks it's immoral, but despite thinking it's immoral. In other words, he values parts of it while not valuing other parts of it.

If you were an objectivist, would you feel guilt and/or unhappiness because of this?

Hell no. I think Objectivists should recognize that, despite what Rand wanted to believe, the nature of artistic creation and response can be very complex, and it includes a lot of subjectivity and highly individual contexts and interpretations, many of which can be subconscious or difficult, if not impossible, for a creator or consumer of the arts to understand or explain. Art and psychology are complex enough that a person might not be able to figure out why he likes a work of art.

Add to that the fact that the Objectivist Esthetics is incomplete and contains some errors, contradictions and unwarranted judgments. I think anyone -- Objectivist or not -- who is interested in art and aesthetics shouldn't allow any of Rand's inappropriate judgments, or those of her followers, to intimidate them. They shouldn't feel guilt or unhappiness, but should freely explore and enjoy the art they enjoy.

But, unfortunately, that's not the way all Objectivists behave in reality. There are many who act more like Ellsworth Toohey or the sheep who obeyed his opinions than like Howard Roark. There are a lot of Objectivists who want to dominate or submit.

J

Edited October 20, 2010 by Jonathan