Hello

[manavmehta]

Hello all, this is Manav Mehta from Hyderabad, India. I work for a software company in India that does projects for clients around the world, with the majority being in the United States. I am in Minneapolis, MN right now, executing a project for one of our clients. My company is one of the leaders of the still booming software industry in India, and in that sense, I feel inspired by the people who lead it - very much like many characters in Rand's books, they started small and practically built up our company from scratch.

I was introduced to Ayn Rand at the age of 17, when I read "Atlas Shrugged" during my sophomore year in undergrad school. I was instantly mesmerized by her ideas - the single most defining moment of my life was when I finished reading the pages of "Atlas Shrugged" that contain Galt's speech - I cannot remember any instant of my life when everything became so much clearer than it was a moment ago. I lost my way a few years back and turned non-objectivist, but I found my way back again, and am working through all my confusion on Rand's ideas and on implementing the objectivist code in my life. Can't say I've succeeded too much, but I'm on it!

The specific ideas of Rand that still confuse me are the objectivist justification of civilian deaths in war, and what constitutes good art, specifically good music - I have been a fan of Rock n Roll since my undergrad school years, but I read recently at ARI's website that Hard Rock is not considered art by objectivists!

I look forward to clearing up a lot of the fog through this forum.

[MinorityOfOne]

I have been a fan of Rock n Roll since my undergrad school years, but I read recently at ARI's website that Hard Rock is not considered art by objectivists!

Whoa -- where did you read that? Can you give me a link? That's totally wrong. I know a lot of Objectivists who don't like rock (so much the worse for them!), but I don't think I've ever heard one claim that it can't be art.

[AwakeAndFree]

Personally, I like some songs from Metallica, Alice Cooper, and others. Not a lot, but some.

They are definitely art. I don't know where you've seen such nonsense, but it's probably not ARI.

As for innocent casualties in war - there have been numerous articles on this subject, but as I see it - the argument follows: A state is a complex organization of individuals, some willing and some unwilling. If a state attacks you it acts as one mechanism, utilizing resources from civilians, drafting them, taking taxes from them. I.e. - this great macine is attacking you, and these innocents are functioning as its parts.

In every war it is sometimes impossible to distinguish between innocent and guilty, especially since it's usually a matter of psychology: if the individual supports his government he is guilty. If he oppose it he is usually keeping quite about it...

So the bottom line is, to be able to defend yourself - you can't limit yourself to cases where you are sure innocents will not be hurt. Therefore, it is the responsibility of the individual not to remain in an aggresive state. If he fails in doing that, he should recognize the right of freer countries to defend themselves, and should realize he might get hurt in the process.

From what I've read in the past, the truly innocent in any enemy state realize this.

[Betsy]

Hello all, this is Manav Mehta from Hyderabad, India. I work for a software company in India that does projects for clients around the world, with the majority being in the United States. I am in Minneapolis, MN right now, executing a project for one of our clients.

Small world! Do you know Pooja Gupta? She's also an Objectivist, a software engineer, from Mumbai, India, and SHE's currently working in Minneapolis, too!

If you don't know her, check out her SocialNet page at http://www.4cybernet.com/socialnet/poojag.htm.

[Prometheus]

Hey Manav!!

I'm from Bombay and an aspiring programmer too!! Which firm do you work for? It's always great to see people from India out here!!

Welcome to the forums!! You will have a great time here!

Dinesh.

[AshRyan]

Whoa -- where did you read that? Can you give me a link?  That's totally wrong.  I know a lot of Objectivists who don't like rock (so much the worse for them!), but I don't think I've ever heard one claim that it can't be art.

I know Ayn Rand herself said some disparaging things about rock music--largely in connection with the hippie drug culture, I believe. And I think some of those criticisms are valid, and still apply to some rock music today. But I think there is definitely some (but not much) rock music that is much more artistic and/or is better art today. But I would definitely like to see exactly what it said on ARI's website, if you could provide a link.

[oldsalt]

I seem to remember, from during the time she wrote, that Miss Rand differentiated between popular culture and art. For instance, she liked what she called "tiddly-wink" music, but she didn't put it in the same category as Rachmaninov. Just because you like a genre that doesn't rise to the exalted level of art, doesn't make you less as a person, nor does it mean that there's something wrong with Objectivist aesthetics.

[nimble]

I heard somewhere that the band Rush writes a lot of Objectivist based lyrics. And they claim to be a big fan of Ayn Rand's works.

[oldsalt]

Manev, I apologize for not welcoming you to the forum before I went off on a tangent about art.

One of the things I like best about this forum in particular, and the net in general, is meeting people from all over the world. Isn't it wonderful to be able to form communities of interest from the whole world! One thing this forum gives lie to is the idea that all Objectivists are little Rand automatons who all think and act alike. You'll find a lot of lively discussions here about the ideas of Ayn Rand, and a broad range of differences in how people think those ideas apply to reality.

So welcome to the forum. I look forward to your participation.

[AshRyan]

Manev, I apologize for not welcoming you to the forum before I went off on a tangent about art.

Same here...oops.

Welcome to the forum.

[manavmehta]

Wow! I didn't expect to see so many replies, over the span of a few days! Anyway, I will attempt to reply to you all, one by one.

Thanks to those who welcomed me to the forum.

Matt and Ash - I cannot claim that there is much written on ARI about rock music, but there was a very slight hint in one article. Here is a link: http://www.aynrand.org/ssg/music.html

In case you don't want to read the entire article (although it is worth reading for its exposition of the music being taught in universities), here is the specific sentence (only one sentence in the entire article has a mention of rock!):

<QUOTE>Today, scholars promote the “artistry” of rap and hard rock at prestigious conferences once reserved for discussions of Bach and sonata form, and nowhere is this tolerance more apparent than in their unquestioning acceptance of twentieth-century “avant garde” compositions. </QUOTE>

Note the use of the word artistry enclosed in quotes, and the mention of rap and hard rock in the same breath (which I don't agree with - rap and hard rock are as far removed in the talent required for their practice, as modern and classical art).

This was the only mention of rock I could find in the entire website. Maybe I was too quick to jump to conclusions just based on this reference, about what objectivists thought about rock music.

Ash - I definitely agree with Ayn Rand when it comes to the hippie drug culture of rock music! She very accurately described drugs and other forms of intoxication as a secret confession of a person's desire to escape reality. There was a time when I prided myself on my ability to get stone drunk on hard liquor and entertain my friends with meaningless one-liners, but the moment I read what Ayn Rand had to say about it, something clicked in my mind and I will never be intoxicated ever again, although I do enjoy a drink or two after a hard day's work!

And in that aspect, the culture behind rock was certainly very trashy (and still is, in my opinion)! And that is one of its greatest contradictions - the meaningless lifestyles of the artists in comparison to the uplifting, joy-inducing nature of their music (or should I call it art)!

erandror - Firstly, I would be interested in hearing your arguments on why you consider Hard Rock to be a form of art - Ayn Rand defined art as a selective re-creation of reality reflecting the artist's metaphysical value-judgements (The Romantic Manifesto). Firstly, do you agree with this definition? And secondly, how do you see a song by Metallica or Alice Cooper fitting this definition?

And Yes, I have read the same argument you are propounding about innocents in war, in various articles on the ARI website (especially by Leonard Piekoff). The part about it that still confuses me is - if an individual wanted to abandon his government, but were unable to escape from his country for any reason (poverty, or fear of being shot at sight at checkpoints, etc.), and were in fact stuck in the country when a free nation decided to bomb it, would you say that he deserved to die? Would this not constitute the killing of an innocent? Also, I find the argument of people being cogs in their government machinery has its parallels with collectivism.

Betsy - Thanks for the link to Pooja! I have always wanted to meet fellow objectivists in person, but so far have been deprived of the opportunity! I know people at my workplace who come close to the rational, inviolate character that I admire in people, but usually spoil it with some bromide or the other (such as a desire to serve their community, whatever that means)! I find that many people today have certain admirable character traits (such as immense creativity, or honesty) but always ruin their own character with a contradictory quality.

Anyone else here who is in Minneapolis right now, feel free to drop me a line!

Dinesh (or is it Prometheus) - I work for Infosys, I'm sure you've heard of them. Don't know if everyone in this forum has, though.

oldsalt - I believe that every form of enjoyment has a purpose. Art fills a purpose in human life because a good work of art (i.e. one which underlies a benevolent view of existence) serves to demonstrate to people what greatness and heights they are capable of touching, if they just keep their focus and live objective, purposeful lives with projected long-range goals! What purpose do you think tiddly-wink music fulfils in a person's life?

nimble - I am on the Capitalism Forum too besides this one, and I did hear them mention Rush as objectivist music! I have been a fan of Rush for a long time, but I must confess I never did think of them as expounding Ayn Rand's metaphysics through their work! I intend to go back and give another dedicated listening to their songs, one of these days - as soon as I am able to wrench myself out of my current project's 16-hour workdays!

[fifi]

Betsy - Thanks for the link to Pooja!

I have always wanted to meet fellow objectivists in person

Particularly the ladies

[manavmehta]

Well, No - not really. Just any living person who shares the same morality that I do, and who lives close to where I do.

[MinorityOfOne]

Well, the ARI thing might just be saying that it's improper to claim that Snoop Dogg or Metallica are on the same level as Beethoven and Rachmaninoff. That's pretty obviously true. If the author was trying to say anything more, I firmly disagree.

Art subsumes a wide range of things, which vary in many ways. Two important continuums on which art can fall are complexity and depth. (They're probably not even the most important, but they're relevant here.) Is Metallica art? I'd say, definitely! Is Metallica complex? Well, their earlier stuff is probably more complex than 99% of the popular music around right now, but they're certainly not on the level of most classical music. Is their music as deep as Tchaikovsky or Mussorgsky? Hell no. But does it have some depth? Definitely. Point being: a difference within these ranges does not imply a fundamental difference. It's a difference of quantity, not of kind.

You can find the same pattern, by the way, in a lot of contemporary popular art. Does a Robert Ludlum novel possess the same complexity and depth as a Hugo novel? Absolutely not -- but he's still great to read, and I'd say that his books are still art.

As for how rock and rap fit into Rand's definition of art, I can only say this: I don't have a clue. But then again, I don't have a clue for the same reason that I don't have a clue how any music fits into her definition. Hopefully someone else will be able to give you a better answer, but for now, ask yourself this: if you consider Beethoven to be art, why wouldn't you consider Metallica to be art? I don't mean to put the two on the same level, obviously, but I do suggest that there is no difference between the two such that one is art and the other is not. If you have something in mind, I'd like to hear it.

[MinorityOfOne]

Sorry to be jumping in, Eran -- don't mean to step on your feet. But I feel like posting, so there!

If an individual wanted to abandon his government, but were unable to escape from his country for any reason (poverty, or fear of being shot at sight at checkpoints, etc.), and were in fact stuck in the country when a free nation decided to bomb it, would you say that he deserved to die? Would this not constitute the killing of an innocent?

I don't necessarily agree with some of the arguments which have been put forth about people being inherently responsible for their governments, but I do agree with the conclusion that it's proper to disregard bystanders when engaging in self-defense. Here's an example which helped me clear up my thoughts on this. (I don't think I came up with it, but I don't recall where I might have gotten it from.)

Imagine you're walking down the street and a psycho with a pistol starts shooting at you from within a crowd of strangers. You have nowhere to run, and it's obvious that he's going to hit you any second now if you do nothing. You have a machine gun in your hand. You know you can take him out and save your own life, but you will end up hurting or killing innocent people around him. The only other option is death. Should you shoot?

I say you absolutely should. If your goal is to live, you must shoot at him. And if you have any self-respect, you will shoot at him. You do not bear the responsibility for deaths of innocents which occur while defending yourself against the initiation of force. The guy in the crowd shooting at you is responsible.

I think you can see how this applies to foreign policy

[DPW]

Point being: a difference within these ranges does not imply a fundamental difference.  It's a difference of quantity, not of kind.

This is exactly right. Art does not mean "good art" - that would be the fallacy of the frozen abstraction. Music as such is art, and thus rock is art, albeit of a "popular" sort, in the way that Matt described.

[galt]

welcome to the forums manav......

speaking of rock music........i too have some doubts......

i am a big fan of 'pink floyd' and love their music, but i dont at all like the lyrics....

is this some kind of a dichotomy, like the soul-body dichotomy?

[manavmehta]

Sorry if this post is too long or if I rambled too much...

Matt - The ARI thing seemed to imply, by placing the word Artistry in double quotes, that rap and hard rock are really not art, but falsely considered so by many people. Do you think there is any other way of interpreting that word in quotes? A more explicit way in which the writer of that article might have put it to mean the same thing - so-called art forms like rap and hard rock.

I don't, however agree that all music is, by default, art. Me singing at the top of my voice in the shower may be considered music by very generous people but it is definitely not art!

I also don't agree that something that has depth is necessarily art! John Kerry's speeches might be considered by some to have depth, but it is not art.

And finally, I don't agree that something with complexity is necessarily art. Those who have heard of a band called Nine Inch Nails (ultra-modern industrial metal) may think that their music has complexity, but I would argue tooth and nail with anyone who called it art!

The point I am trying to drive here is - Ayn Rand defined art in a specific way i.e. a selective re-creation of reality reflecting the artist's metaphysical value-judgements, or to put it in simpler terms - something that makes a statement about existence, something that says, that THIS is the sum and meaning of human existence. The artist might be implying through this art that human beings are really automatons with no control over their destiny and that we are all doomed eventually, or it might be implying, as most good art does, that human beings are capable of achieving great things. My point is - something that merely re-creates reality with no evaluation of it cannot be considered art. The evaluation is as important as the re-creation.

Your post, however, did remind me of something I read which Ayn Rand had written in her book "The Romantic Manifesto" (this book is a complete statement of her artistic tastes, and I would dare say, objectivist definitions of good art), specifically pertaining to music. She defined music as something which evokes emotions in the listener. So, in that respect, perhaps, bands like Metallica and Alice Cooper can probably be considered music. But, then again, I don't recall if she said anything about whether ANY music that evokes emotions may be considered art. I would venture to say, that in order to be considered art, the music has to make a statement about existence through the emotions it invokes.

For example, the emotional equivalent of a poem that makes an ode to human greatness would be a piece of music that evokes in you, a feeling of triumph, of exalted happiness, of competence, of control over nature, and of conquering and wiping out every obstacle in your path, of attaining your greatest hopes and dreams. You should feel, on listening to it, that this represents a feeling that every human being deserves to experience. So the question you might ask yourself before you sit down to evaluate any piece of music might be - what to me is the best feeling in the world!

My personal answer to that question be - the feeling I get when I succeed in fixing a defect in a piece of software that was impossible to trace! Or the feeling I get when a software program I designed performs excellently when it is implemented! (Replace this with the equivalent for your line of work) It was the feeling that I recall having, when I designed a software program to migrate the accounting data for one of my clients to a new technology, and when it was implemented, their books were balanced down to the last cent between the old and new systems! At that time, I felt like I could achieve anything that I put my mind to, and that human intelligence is completely competent to deal with any challenge that it faces!

That feeling of victory, of raw competence, of pride, of achievement, I would say, is what any piece of music should evoke in you! For a complete illustration of this point, read (or re-read) those pages of Atlas Shrugged where Halley's Fifth Concerto is described, especially, the scene in the train where Dagny hears the rising notes of the music and likens them to an immense feeling of achievement and triumph! And that is probably the feeling that most western classical music would inspire in a listener!

So, in conclusion, I might agree with someone who said that most hard rock might be considered art, but most of it is probably also not good art. And I would strongly disagree with anyone who claims that rap is a form of art!

Rana - What you described is precisely the conclusion I arrive at when I try to evaluate most Rock n Roll songs. I love the music, but I find the lyrics depressing. As a case in point, consider "Rock you like a hurricane". The music evokes in you a sense of speed and efficiency, a sense of competence. The lyrics, on the other hand, are about partying in a wild night ("...the wolf is hungry/he wants the show/he's licking his lips/he's ready to win/for the hunting night/for love at first sting..." and so on). Or, as another example, consider "The Trooper" (Iron Maiden). I cannot think of any music that gets me more in the mood for action than this song. But the lyrics are about war and bloodshed ("...you'll take my life, but I'll take yours too/you'll fire your musket but I'll run you through...").

I don't agree with you about Pink Floyd, though. I think their music and lyrics are perfectly integrated. Their music has a psychedelic air about it - a kind of dreamy air which seems to suggest a reduced state of consciousness, of escapism, or of attempting to create your own reality, rather than perceiving reality as it is and reacting to it. And, in the same vein, their lyrics are consistently anti-industrial, anti-technology and immensely pessimistic about existence. If you are in doubt about this, listen to "The Wall", which is one of their most pessimistic albums. It is about the alienation felt by an individual in modern society. The song, "The Wall" perfectly sums up this feeling. Or listen to the lines in "Wish you were here" - "...can you tell green fields/from cold steel rails...we're just two lost souls/living in a fish bowl...").

It has nothing to do with a soul/body dichotomy, but more to do with a form of art that inherently contradicts itself and thus loses the title of art! In order to be art, it must be fully integrated and consistent. That which is self-contradictory cannot even be considered music, let alone obtain the honorable title of art!

[MinorityOfOne]

Well, I do think the broad point the author was trying to make is that it's illegit to put contemporary popular music on the same pedestal as classical composers. But you might be right, it's hard to tell... and if that is what he meant, then like I said, I disagree.

I think you misinterpreted some of what I said. I didn't mean to imply that everything that's musical is art, nor that everything with depth or complexity. (Though here it'd be important to define what is and what isn't music. Perhaps a distinction between what's music, and what's merely musical, would show that all music is indeed art.) Rather, I was saying that depth and complexity are some of the traits which all music has, but in varying degrees.

I'd definitely call Nine Inch Nails art, by the way. To say that something is art isn't necessarily to say that it's good, though I do enjoy some NIN when I'm in the right mood. (Bust out the teeth and nails.)

I agree with your point that something must express metaphysical value-judgments in a non-journalistic way to qualify as art. (Though I'm still very unclear about how music "recreates" anything.) But you say that most good art depicts humans as efficacious, etc. I'd have to disagree with that -- it's 50/50 at best. You have to distinguish between good art, and art that you like. It's not always the same thing. There is some art of which I can say "It's masterful, and I can't stand it," and others of which I can say "I like it, though I recognize that it objectively sucks." Rand talks about this somewhat in The Romantic Manifesto, though I couldn't give you a reference, not having read it for a while. For a really detailed analysis, check out Peikoff's tape, "The Survival Value of Great (Though Philosophically Flawed) Art."

[BondShirley]

I can't clearly isolate the essential difference between music (pop songs, violin peices, lullabys, etc.) and nonmusic (speech, noises when walking in a park, an airplane whizzing by, etc.). Still, it's clear to me when I hear a series of sounds if it goes into the "music group" or the "nonmusic group".

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the Objectivist point is that the essential distinction between music and nonmusic (whatever it is ) is an instance of the essential distinction between art and non-art.

In other words, if I see that the "music group" is in some basic way similar to novels and poetry and painting, as against other man-made things, then I grasp that music is art. And if that's the case, in identifying something as music I'm identifying it as art.

[MinorityOfOne]

Yeah, but the distinction I had in mind wasn't music vs. noise, but music vs. musical non-art: for instance, manavmehta's example of singing in the shower. Sure, it's musical, but it doesn't make you an artist!

[Betsy]

I can't clearly isolate the essential difference between music (pop songs, violin peices, lullabys, etc.) and nonmusic (speech, noises when walking in a park, an airplane whizzing by, etc.).  Still, it's clear to me when I hear a series of sounds if it goes into the "music group" or the "nonmusic group".

That's because the essential difference is that musical sounds are tonal.

As I wrote in the Music & Animals Thread:

What is unique to music -- as opposed to sound effects -- is that music is composed of tones. A tone is a sustained sound of one mathematical frequency. Almost every existent which produces a tone is a man-made object because sustaining a sound at one frequency means producing the sound with an entity that is mathematically regular: a flute, stringed instrument, digital instrument, etc.

[manavmehta]

Matt - I do agree with the author of that ARI link I forwarded, if he was implying that rap is not art! Call me prejudiced, but I don't see how anyone can regard that random progression of rhetoric with no tune as even musical, leave alone classifying it as art!

And, well, I don't claim to have heard much of NIN, but the one album I heard of them was enough for me never to feel like buying another one, and I probably dumped that one in the trash (don't remember what I did with it). What I recall of their music is well-synchronized progressions of machines whirring and clicking and doing whatever it is that they do in a factory, and some barely perceptible vocals in the background. No melody whatsoever! And I couldn't even clearly hear the vocals to discern what the lyrics are about! I cannot regard this as musical! And from what Betsy said about music having a tonal quality to it, I don't think anyone can!

Bond - I think that Ayn Rand was driving at in The Romantic Manifesto is the fact that art is about metaphysical statements, so in that sense, I would not agree that anything that is musical is necessarily art! Do you consider "Twinkle Twinkle Little Star" to be art? I know some may consider it musical when it is sung as a nursery rhyme?

Betsy - What about singing? Do the human vocal chords also have some in-born mathematical precision in them - are unaccompanied vocals from a person without any background instruments considered to be music?

[Betsy]

Betsy - What about singing? Do the human vocal chords also have some in-born mathematical precision in them - are unaccompanied vocals from a person without any background instruments considered to be music?

Most certainly.

The vocal chords, properly used, can produce tones. They are the prototypical "stringed instrument" from which other stringed instruments, like the lyre, violin, guitar, piano, etc. evolved.

[nimble]

Most certainly.

The vocal chords, properly used, can produce tones.  They are the prototypical "stringed instrument" from which other stringed instruments, like the lyre, violin, guitar, piano, etc. evolved.

I always learn something every time you post.