Permitted art?

[Jonathan]

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.

It's really too bad that Kant has been so vilified in Objectivist circles, because his views on the Sublime tie in well with the issue of why people might enjoy 'horror' movies. The experience of facing the illusion of a powerfully dangerous entity might be satisfying, or even exhilarating, because it stimulates our enjoyment of the desire to comprehend and overcome, and allows us to experience ourselves as exalted above it.

J

[Selene]

Michael and Jonathan:

Not to mention the endorphin rush that fear or terror releases in the body.

They shouldn't feel guilt or unhappiness, but should freely explore and enjoy the art they enjoy.

Yes, maybe they should face that attempt to impose guilt or unhappiness like that Galt guy with no pain, fear or guilt...you know just like that crazy Russian lady opined as to how to face life.

Ooops

Sorry Leonard, nah, I withdraw the sorry.

Adam

[rodney203]

Steven,

Just because we might enjoy an "entertainment product" doesn't necessarily make it a work of art. I think there is definitely a line that can be crossed when some kind of work ceases to be "art". Where that line is might be difficult to say. You mentioned "Dracula and Frankenstein"- I have not seen that one, but I tell you, "The Rocky Horror Picture Show" is certainly art; there is a definite message there. I could say that jazz is not much art, but I liked some Chuck Mangione stuff, and they say he was jazz. Most jazz I've heard doesn't even lend itself much to having a title attached to the song! I have a joke I tell: Why is blues music better than jazz? Answer: Because it's more honest.

On making moral judgments regarding the art other people respond to? Well, I wouldn't get all rabid about it, but I certainly notice what other people enjoy and it goes into the mix of how I evaluate people. I find that few people in my daily contact circle have much hunger for a great literary account, a fine movie or song, etc. This is very disappointing to me. Of particular pain is the lack of appreciation I see for the message some movies try to display.

Just a few thoughts

[Starbuckle]

One must distinguish between explication of the nature of art per se, principles of aesthetics, critical standards, and critical evaluation of a specific work of art. Response to art involves subjective preferences, values and memories as well as the objective elements of the work. One's own development, including attention to insightful criticism, can lead to a revision of one's view of a particular work. There need be nothing traumatic or self-repressive about this.

I don't agree that a positive response to a work which Rand would have loathed for having a tragic or malevolent sense of life demonstrates that enjoying that work necessarily manifests said dire sense of life. Yet there is some connection to the values dramatized by a work of art and one's response to that work. Exactly what one is responding to is not always cut-and-dried, however. It may, for example, be a very well-evoked and admirable character, not the (also well-realized) dramatic argument that we're all inevitably trapped and doomed in this world. Some inspiring life-affirming movies thrill a particular viewer and other determinedly inspiring life-affirming movies repel the same viewer (me). Why? Because creative works don't all issue from some cookie-cutter metaphysical-value assembly line. A broad preference for Romanticism as defined by Rand or a broad aversion to dreary naturalism can only begin to either inform critical assessment of or explain individual response to particular works.

I don't like Rand's pronouncements about what certain aesthetic responses allegedly must imply about one's own spirit. But Rand's "dogmatic" tone per se in her criticism doesn't bother me in the least. Ever read movie reviews by Harlan Ellison, Pauline Kael, or any film critic who is discerning, passionate and intelligent...and who doesn't strain to reassure his audience when beating the crap out of something he knows is respected or popular? The certainty of persons who are confident about their aesthetic values, integrity and critical intelligence--and who are in fact critically intelligent--can be off-putting at times. One can read these critics and conclude, "Well! Clearly there is a list of items I Am Supposed to Enjoy and another list of other items I Am Not Supposed to Enjoy, and I reveal my impoverished sensibility by preferring anything on the latter list." But so what? Better that than uninformed wishy-washiness. There's something to that line of Kafka's about the value of taking an axe to the frozen sea within us.

Edited October 21, 2010 by Starbuckle

[Starbuckle]

MLK wrote: "I hate restricting people and would love to remove the one I just put you on."

What is the antecedent of "one" here? Are you restricting Kimmler in some way?

[Selene]

MLK wrote: "I hate restricting people and would love to remove the one I just put you on."

What is the antecedent of "one" here? Are you restricting Kimmler in some way?

Shamus me lad:

Yes, both he and Ms. Xray are limited to five (5) posts in a twenty-four (24) hour period.

Adam

[Starbuckle]

Adam wrote: "Yes, both he and Ms. Xray are limited to five (5) posts in a twenty-four (24) hour period."

Give the kid a break. Everybody is 13 once.

[Kimmler]

Thanks for all the replies. I know you are all good people with better things to do than answer my questions.

[Kimmler]

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

I am certainly not here to mock you, in fact I think you are all kinda cute the community you have build here. A happy circle of prime movers.

As for horror films...I tend to favour old over new. Loving the old Universal horror films, with my favourite film from that stable being The Bride of Frankenstein.

"...I am more like the little kid in the theater, chomping on popcorn, laughing at the zombies and mugging the scary stuff."

Indeed. But aren't we all squire?

"But this is a discussion board for philosophy, not a kindergarten for a playground bully."

I am glad to hear it.

"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."

By Jove! That is not me, you are the prime movers and I an but a humble second-hander.

[anonrobt]

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

I am certainly not here to mock you, in fact I think you are all kinda cute the community you have build here. A happy circle of prime movers.

As for horror films...I tend to favour old over new. Loving the old Universal horror films, with my favourite film from that stable being The Bride of Frankenstein.

"...I am more like the little kid in the theater, chomping on popcorn, laughing at the zombies and mugging the scary stuff."

Indeed. But aren't we all squire?

"But this is a discussion board for philosophy, not a kindergarten for a playground bully."

I am glad to hear it.

"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."

By Jove! That is not me, you are the prime movers and I an but a humble second-hander.

LOL - out of the mouth of babes.... even in sarcasm, truth can emerge...

[Mike11]

Kimmler, seriously?

www.objectivismonline.net - its more fun.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Joel,

You might have a point.

Michael

[Rich Engle]

This would definitely not be "permitted" art. But, I love Roger Corman's work (although I will admit that this year's "Sharktopus" was awful, even by the lowest of drive-in standards) There is always a black little hole in my heart available when it comes to "B" movies, including the "women in prison" variety.

Without further goings-on, a true masterpiece of nastiness:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CWJUETL0vD8

[Kimmler]

Women in prison movies? I think we better draw a discreet veil over that. Whatever gets you through the night I suppose.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Kimmler,

It gets worse.

Don't get Rich started on Kung Fu movies.

Michael

[Rich Engle]

Kimmler,

It gets worse.

Don't get Rich started on Kung Fu movies.

Michael

Too late. But why bother with Kung Fu movies, as zing-zow as they are? Looky here: Word: Black Folk love Kung Fu movies, and Bruce Lee above all. Word. But we don't need that if we evolve into Black-Fu. Hence, Pootie Tang. Behold the Fury:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=flqAvJxgKJQ