Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Kant and Aesthetics

Rate this topic


Thomas M. Miovas Jr.

Recommended Posts

By the way, the whole idea that Objectivists only judge art based on their personal tastes comes directly from Kant's Critique of Judgement whereby he offered no objective criteria for judging art. He said it was all just a matter of tastes and he rejected the perceptually self-evident as being only phenomena and not reality, so who's to say that a beautiful rendering of a basket of fruit says anything about the nature of reality and man's place in it? Might as well dispense with all of that and become really pretentious and paint smears because it is no more a painting of reality than the very best romantic realism has to offer.

69CPG00Z.jpg

YL3J000Z.jpg

Images courtesy of art.com

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To back up the above claim against Kant....

Kant: Artistic Judgement is Just a Matter of Taste

By Thomas M. Miovas, Jr.

03/31/2012

Kant offers no objective criteria for the judgement of the arts – that is, one’s judgement regarding the criteria of something being worthwhile and meaningful art is rejected by Kant in favor of a subjective approach – just a matter of tastes. Objectivism, via The Romantic Manifesto, completely rejects this view of the nature and value of art. In Objectivism, the value of the art-work is presented in the art-work according to the facts of reality that it concretizes or makes real in material form. So, this entails a rejection of the post-modern, post-Kant, modern art as not being objective, since it isn’t based upon the facts of reality presented to convey an idea of importance to the artist (a metaphysical value judgment). See my essay,

The Purpose of Art.

Also see my continuing expose of Kant in contrast to Ayn Rand in

This is Your Mind.

[From The Critique of Judgement:]

If pleasure is connected with the mere apprehension (apprehension) of

the form of an object of intuition, apart from any reference it may

have to a concept for the purpose of a definite cognition, this does

not make the representation referable to the object, but solely to the

subject. In such a case, the pleasure can express nothing but the

conformity of the object to the cognitive faculties brought into

play in the reflective judgement, and so far as they are in play,

and hence merely a subjective formal finality of the object. For

that apprehension of forms in the imagination can never take place

without the reflective judgement, even when it has no intention of

so doing, comparing them at least with its faculty of referring

intuitions to concepts. If, now, in this comparison, imagination (as

the faculty of intuitions a priori) is undesignedly brought into

accord with understanding (as the faculty of concepts), by means of

a given representation, and a feeling of pleasure is thereby

aroused, then the object must be regarded as final for the

reflective judgement. A judgement of this kind is an aesthetic

judgement upon the finality of the object, which does not depend

upon any present concept of the object, and does not provide one. When

the form of an object (as opposed to the matter of its representation,

as sensation) is, in the mere act of reflecting upon it, without

regard to any concept to be obtained from it, estimated as the

ground of a pleasure in the representation of such an object, then

this pleasure is also judged to be combined necessarily with the

representation of it, and so not merely for the subject apprehending

this form, but for all in general who pass judgement. The object is

then called beautiful; and the faculty of judging by means of such a

pleasure (and so also with universal validity) is called taste. For

since the ground of the pleasure is made to reside merely in the

form of the object for reflection generally, consequently not in any

sensation of the object, and without any reference, either, to any

concept that might have something or other in view, it is with the

conformity to law in the empirical employment of judgement generally

(unity of imagination and understanding) in the subject, and with this

alone, that the representation of the object in reflection, the

conditions of which are universally valid a priori, accords. And, as

this accordance of the object with the faculties of the subject is

contingent, it gives rise to a representation of a finality on the

part of the object in respect of the cognitive faculties of the

subject.

“Here, now, is a pleasure which-as is the case with all pleasure or

displeasure that is not brought about through the agency of the

concept of freedom (i.e., through the antecedent determination of

the higher faculty of desire by means of pure reason)-no concepts

could ever enable us to regard as necessarily connected with the

representation of an object. It must always be only through reflective

perception that it is cognized as conjoined with this

representation. As with all empirical judgements, it is, consequently,

unable to announce objective necessity or lay claim to a priori

validity. But, then, the judgement of taste in fact only lays claim,

like every other empirical judgement, to be valid for every one,

and, despite its inner contingency this is always possible. The only

point that is strange or out of the way about it is that it is not

an empirical concept, but a feeling of pleasure (and so not a

concept at all), that is yet exacted from every one by the judgement

of taste, just as if it were a predicate united to the cognition of

the object, and that is meant to be conjoined with its representation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, I wouldn't say that judging a good work of art is perceptually self-evident, but it out to be self-evident regarding what the art is conveying. A good example is The Twelve Days of Christmas, which, done right, is a good song about giving exotic gifts at Christmas time, but the hidden meaning of that song was made by a persecuted religions sect as a mnemonic to help them remember their religious laws secretly, because to do it openly would generate fines or imprisonment (although this idea of the coining of the 12 days is not fully confirmed):

"A bit of modern folklore claims that the song's lyrics were written as a "catechism song" to help young Catholics learn their faith, at a time when practising Catholicism was criminalized in England (1558 until 1829). There is no primary evidence supporting this claim, and no evidence that the claim is historical, or "anything but a fanciful modern day speculation."[1] The theory is of relatively recent origin. It was first suggested by Canadian English teacher and hymnologist Hugh D. McKellar in a short article, "How to Decode the Twelve Days of Christmas," published in 1979. In a later article published in the music journal The Hymn, he reiterates that the associations are his.[24] The idea was further popularized by a Catholic priest, Fr. Hal Stockert, in an article he wrote in 1982 and posted online in 1995.[25]"

So, I don't know if this background for that particular song is accurate or not, but throughout history, hidden meanings have been placed in art to avoid government punishments, while the perceptually grasped meaning of the song is more realism.

But to have objective art -- art based on the nature of existence and on man's nature an on observations about existence and man's place in it, yes, have to be rather explicit to convey their meaning. The whole point of art, according to "Art and Cognition" in The Romantic Manifesto is a concretization of an abstraction -- of having a means of reducing an idea to the perceptually self-evident, since observation is our means of grasping existence. Reducing here is taken from Dr. Peikoff's courses on Objectivism, and means tracing the conceptual roots of an idea through its hierarchy and getting down to the perceptually grasped base of the idea, what it is founded upon in reality. Good art is a means of doing this; and that is its purpose.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Kant offers no objective criteria for the judgement of the arts – that is, one’s judgement regarding the criteria of something being worthwhile and meaningful art is rejected by Kant in favor of a subjective approach – just a matter of tastes.

Objectivism offers no objective criteria for the judgment of the arts.

On the subject of "esthetic judgment," Rand wrote, "In essence, an objective evaluation requires that one identify the artist’s theme, the abstract meaning of his work (exclusively by identifying the evidence contained in the work and allowing no other, outside considerations), then evaluate the means by which he conveys it—i.e., taking his theme as criterion, evaluate the purely esthetic elements of the work, the technical mastery (or lack of it) with which he projects (or fails to project) his view of life..."

First of all, notice that Rand doesn't say how one is to discover whether or not one has identified "the artist's theme." She just seems to assume that any theme that one interprets an artwork as containing, based on the evidence contained in the work, must be "the artist's theme." She apparently didn't realize that different people frequently have very different interpretations of what any artwork means, while basing their opinions on the same evidence. So, in order to objectively establish that one has identified "the artist's theme," one would have to confirm one's interpretation of an artworks meaning by some means outside of the artwork -- one would have to ask the artist what he actually intended his artwork to mean -- and Rand failed to recognized that fact in her writings.

Secondly, Rand offers no objective criteria by which to "evaluate the purely aesthetic elements of the work." She merely states that one is to evaluate the esthetic elements and the technical mastery or lack thereof. How is one to do so? By what objective standards is one to judge "esthetic elements" and "technical mastery" when artists selectively choose to both adhere to reality and deviate from it in their art? Rand identifies no standards. Instead, she merely states that one is to judge objectively. That doesn't solve anything. Telling someone to "evaluate" without giving them specific objective criteria by which to do so is meaningless.

Objectivism, via The Romantic Manifesto, completely rejects this view of the nature and value of art.

It depends on which of Objectivism's conflicting positions one goes with. Yes, Rand said that art must present objectively intelligible subjects and meanings, but then she also contradicted herself and accepted art forms which do not present objectively intelligible subjects and meanings. Her doing so supports Kant's position, albeit unintentionally.

In Objectivism, the value of the art-work is presented in the art-work according to the facts of reality that it concretizes or makes real in material form. So, this entails a rejection of the post-modern, post-Kant, modern art as not being objective.

How can you say a such thing when I've objectively identified meanings in abstract paintings based on the evidence contained in the work, where you haven't done the same with music, but instead offered a highly subjective "space opera" vision of Rachmaninov? I've even offered much more objectivity and detail in explaining meanings in abstract paintings than Objectivists have in regard to realist paintings!

J

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thomas,

I'm actually more in agreement with you than 13. But you and 13 both seem to stumble in your arguments in not being able to separate conceptual ideas from the perceptual mechanics that support them. My posts #287 & #290 attempted to interject a discussion of perceptual mechanic into this post. Below is an image taken from the web site Graphic Design: The New Basics

24.jpg

This study illustrates the interface between the perception of tension and the conceptual understanding of tension (the string is the tensile element in the composition, while the nails are resisting tension through compression transferred to the sheathing). You can feel the objective, visceral tension in the image. You can feel the "pull" on the strings. You can imagine what would happen if you took scissors and cut the strings -- they would snap violently! The capacity to perceive this tension is directly tied to the neurological capacity to empathize with other living organisms. Evolution gave us (mammals and birds) the capacity to perceive if someone is tense (shoulders ARE in tension when someone is tense). Bodies also express if we are angry, happy, tired, frightened, etc.

I want to be clear that the above study does not become "art" if one throws a frame around it and hangs it on a museum wall. Non-representational painting does exactly that. It focuses on such ideas as tension, anxiety, coolness, etc. (states that can be objectively perceived) and tries to elevate them to the level of art.

I just found the web site, but it's similar to the basic design studio's I had while studying architecture in the mid-80's. If you take a look around the web site, you'll see how fascinating design can be and may gain a better appreciation of the role it plays in the production of art.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think one needs to know much, if anything, specifically about neurology or physiology or evolution to understand art from a philosophical perspective. These specialties can be helpful to some degree to understand why we perceive the way we do, and in Miss Rand's investigation into music, she did say neurology of the brain might be helpful in understanding how we perceive a series of musical notes in terms of specific emotions, but it isn't really necessary for a philosophical understanding of the arts.

It is certainly not true that Ayn Rand did not provide an objective criteria for the arts. Objective has its roots in the term object -- a thing or an entity, that which we are aware of when we observe existence (entities, their attributes, and their actions). And since man is aware of existence in terms of objects, objectivity must also be in terms of objects to be reduced to the perceptually self-evident (factual evidence). For the visual arts (painting, plays, movies, poetry, literature, etc.) and tactual arts (primarily sculpture and possibly architecture in terms of shape and texture), Ayn Rand was quite clear that the art form / rendition must be in terms of objects to present an idea on the perceptually self-evident level. I don't know if 13 is rejecting objectivity (which he may well be doing with his embracing of "abstract art").

Edited by Thomas M. Miovas Jr.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thomas,

Developing an understanding of the objective foundations upon which aesthetics is based is vitally important to understanding the "philosophy" of art.

As I'm sure you are aware, Schoenberg's rejection of the Major/Minor modes of Western composition, and the creation of the 12-tone row, was driven by the very Kantian idea that the mind is infinitely malleable, and that cultural alone dictates the foundations of music. Schoenberg saw the Major/Minor modes as mere social phenomena, and a hindrance to the direct perception of the noumenal. Baggage to be thrown off.

Also, the reductionism of the Bauhaus school of Architecture was driven by the very same Kantian idea. Architecture was not only stripped of all cultural and historical references, it was also stripped of color, texture or any expression of the nature of the materials used in construction. Again, the assumption was that aesthetics is social, and not dependant upon the objective, perceptual mechanisms of the mind of the individual observer.

While not addressing aesthetics directly, the book "Descarte's Error" by the neurologist Antonio Damasio is well worth reading. So too is a short book titled "Body, Memory and Architecture" by Kent Bloomer and Charles Moore.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think one needs to know much, if anything, specifically about neurology or physiology or evolution to understand art from a philosophical perspective. These specialties can be helpful to some degree to understand why we perceive the way we do, and in Miss Rand's investigation into music...

Do you know if Rand's "investigation" into music including her learning to read music and learning to play any musical instruments? Do we know if she had any actual technical knowledge of music and its structures?

...she did say neurology of the brain might be helpful in understanding how we perceive a series of musical notes in terms of specific emotions, but it isn't really necessary for a philosophical understanding of the arts.

The neurology of the brain might also be helpful in understanding how we interpret not only auditory abstractions as emotions, but visual abstractions as well. In other words, Rand's speculations about future discoveries about how the abstract arrangments in music affect us are equally applicable to the abstract visual arrangements in architecture and abstract painting and sculpture.

It is certainly not true that Ayn Rand did not provide an objective criteria for the arts.

Then please share them with us!!! Which criteria did she provide for objectively evaluating aesthetic style? Show us where she identified specific objective criteria by which one could "evaluate the purely esthetic elements of the work."

And how might someone evaluate the "technical mastery" with which an artist projects his view of life if one has no actual technical knowledge of the art form being judged? For example, would you claim that Rand was objectively evaluating the "technical mastery" of Capuletti's work when falsely asserting that it was a "tour de force" and "sheer perfection of workmanship"? I wouldn't. Having quite a lot of technical knowledge of the visual arts, I would say that Rand's opinion was anything but objective and informed.

By what criteria do we judge a person's qualifications and fitness to objectively judge "esthetic elements" and "technical mastery"? Does Objectivism just assume that those calling themselves Objectivists are inherently qualified to judge technical mastery without any technical knowledge?

Objective has its roots in the term object -- a thing or an entity, that which we are aware of when we observe existence (entities, their attributes, and their actions).

We observe attributes and actions in the abstract art forms of architecture and abstract paintings, yet you try to mock me when I objectively refer to those attributes and actions and explain the meanings that they add up to. Meanwhile, you take a purely subjectivist approach to listening to music, and you talk about astronauts and space voyages in Rachmaninov's work!

And since man is aware of existence in terms of objects, objectivity must also be in terms of objects to be reduced to the perceptually self-evident (factual evidence). For the visual arts (painting, plays, movies, poetry, literature, etc.) and tactual arts (primarily sculpture and possibly architecture in terms of shape and texture), Ayn Rand was quite clear that the art form / rendition must be in terms of objects to present an idea on the perceptually self-evident level.

Perceptually self-evident to whom? If you can't grasp something which is perceptually self-evident to millions of other people, why should anyone side with you in your claims that they are frauds and liars and Kantians, rather than side with them in their claims that you're just not capable of grasping certain things? By what objective means would you propose that we test that they are aesthetically sensitive versus that you are aesthetically lacking?

And remember that Rand said that architecture "does not re-create reality"! Yet here you are trying to claim that architecture "possibly" re-creates objects on a "perceptually self-evident" level! Are you saying that Rand was wrong when claiming that architecture "does not re-create reality"?!!!

Anyway, Rand merely made unsupported assertions about aesthetic criteria and intelligibility in art, and then proceeded to ignore those criteria by accepting art forms which clearly did not meet them. In other words, she wanted art to be purely objective, but when confronted with its nature in reality, she had to accept things which didn't meet her criteria, and therefore her actions speak louder than her words. Her stated criteria are inadequate toward the purpose of identifying the nature of art -- even she could not adhere to her own definition and criteria.

I don't know if 13 is rejecting objectivity (which he may well be doing with his embracing of "abstract art").

I'll remind you again that I've been very objective in explaining how attributes and actions in abstract paintings add up to meaing, and, in contrast, you've given your quirky, subjective, space-opera visions of music. In the past, I've also been much more objective and effective at explaining meaning in abstract art than Objectivists have been at explaining it in realist paintings. I'll also remind you that I'm not the one who is accepting or trying to avoid addressing Rand's contradictions in her esthetics. So, if anyone is rejecting objectivity, it's you, not me.

Sorry, Thomas, but wishing isn't going to make Rand's errors go away. Nor is attempting to vilify Kant.

J

Edited by Jonathan13
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tension / suspense in Romantic Realism:

MQ7P000Z.jpg

You think that is "Romantic Realism"?!!! Oh my God!!! Heh. If Rand were alive today, I think she'd be enraged at your claiming that that image is an example of her concept of Romantic Realism. I think she'd tell you that you haven't grapsed anything, that you should leave Objectivism alone and stop pretending to speak for it. Seriously, Thomas, I think she'd totally blow a gasket over you and your ideas, and rightfully so.

J

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You think that is "Romantic Realism"?!!! Oh my God!!! Heh. If Rand were alive today, I think she'd be enraged at your claiming that that image is an example of her concept of Romantic Realism. I think she'd tell you that you haven't grapsed anything, that you should leave Objectivism alone and stop pretending to speak for it. Seriously, Thomas, I think she'd totally blow a gasket over you and your ideas, and rightfully so.

J

Yeah, but if you swap out the gray cat for a tabby that looked like Morris, she'd be ready to do some "exception making".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jonathan,

Objectivist reject Kant on the basic level of metaphysics and epistemology -- and disregard anything he has to say regarding aesthetics because of the premise upon which it is built (meaning, his metaphysics and epistemology).

Your claims to be able to "objectively" explain meaning in abstract art is no way "Kantian". Kant would laugh at you for doing so -- especially in his name. Kant's position is that there is no objective link between the ideas in one's head and the world "out there". Kant was a 18th century mystic. Period.

The main premise of Modern Art (and Architecture and Music) is that the Classical Language (base, shaft, head in Arch. or figurative painting), the Compositional Modes (Major/Minor modes, movements, chord progressions, etc) are a priori and obscure an appreciation "pure art" -- and that by rejecting the language of art, we can experience truth directly, we can experience "pure art". This is the "Kantian" in modern art.

Non-representational, Non-figurative painting was an attempt to jettison the "baggage" of language in order to get in touch with reality "as it really is" - meaning not influenced by thoughts and ideas. Pure Art. Yes, non-figurative painting can evoke objective , emotional and visceral responses in the observer (see some of my posts above), but these emotional, aesthetic responses are not "Art". Art should have meaning - it should be about ideas, ideas supported by emotional responses. Emotional responses devoid of ideas are not to be valued.

Edited by New Buddha
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jonathan,

Objectivist reject Kant on the basic level of metaphysics and epistemology -- and disregard anything he has to say regarding aesthetics because of the premise upon which it is built (meaning, his metaphysics and epistemology).

And yet all of Rand's novels are examples of Kantian Sublimity! They are perhaps the best examples in existence of Kantian Sublimity! Either she did not disregard his views on the Sublime, or she incorporated them into her art as her signature aesthetic style without realizing it!

Your claims to be able to "objectively" explain meaning in abstract art is no way "Kantian". Kant would laugh at you for doing so -- especially in his name.

Indeed. Kant would laugh at me for finding meaning in abstract art since he believed that all art must be mimetic/representational!

Kant's position is that there is no objective link between the ideas in one's head and the world "out there". Kant was a 18th century mystic. Period.

That is not Kant's position.

The main premise of Modern Art (and Architecture and Music) is that the Classical Language (base, shaft, head in Arch. or figurative painting), the Compositional Modes (Major/Minor modes, movements, chord progressions, etc) are a priori and obscure an appreciation "pure art" -- and that by rejecting the language of art, we can experience truth directly, we can experience "pure art". This is the "Kantian" in modern art.

Those are not the premises of Modern Art. They are merely your misinterpretation of the presmises of Modern Art.

Non-representational, Non-figurative painting was an attempt to jettison the "baggage" of language in order to get in touch with reality "as it really is" - meaning not influenced by thoughts and ideas. Pure Art. Yes, non-figurative painting can evoke objective , emotional and visceral responses in the observer (see some of my posts above), but these emotional, aesthetic responses are not "Art".

No. Non-figurative painting was an attempt to move beyond the aspects of visual art that artists believed were not essential to visual art qua visual art, such as narrative. You could say that moving beyond mimesis in the visual arts is like separating lyrics from music, since lyrics are not the essence of music, but are an additional feature that is sometimes tacked onto music.

Art sould have meaning - it should be about ideas, ideas supported by emotional responses. Emotional responses devoid of ideas are not to be valued.

Meaningful to whom? If you're not capable of finding meaning or of identifying "ideas supported by emotional responses" in a work of art, does that mean that no one else is capable of doing so either? If so, how and when did your abilities or lack thereof become the cognitive standard for all of mankind?

J

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It took him a while, but 13 converted me...I'm going to give up Objectivism and become a Kantian and fully embrace post-Kantian art -- embrace the beast within!

ResizedImage236300-BellyOfTheBeast.jpg

Seetwater locally is calling for artists, but I don't know that I top that,so I don't know about entering the contest.

"Artists are encouraged to submit work for this stirring exhibition. The raw force of nature unleashed. The soul of a beast exposed. The sheer power of entities not made by man that humble humanity into feeling small."

April Fool's!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No. Non-figurative painting was an attempt to move beyond the aspects of visual art that artists believed were not essential to visual art qua visual art, such as narrative.

13 We are saying the same thing. The only difference is that you believe that there actually IS something "beyond" the narrative (the noumena of Kant?).

Regarding "my interpretation". The International Style of Architecture sought to remove from architecture any sense of type: A house was to look like a factory, which was to look like a bank, which was to look like church, which was to look like a school, etc. And this was to be followed whether in Europe, the US, South America, etc. There was to be no sense of "entry" or "arrival", human scale was deliberately distorted. There was no "up" or "down", "back" or "front". Materials were not to be indicative of their structural purpose. White brick, white limestone, white concrete, white paint, etc., etc. etc. All this was done in the name of Purity, or as you put it "casting away what artists believed were not essential".

But, once all these non-essentials were cast aside, what's left?

The same can be said of Modern Music and the development by Schoenber of the 12-tone mode.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It took him a while, but 13 converted me...I'm going to give up Objectivism and become a Kantian and fully embrace post-Kantian art -- embrace the beast within!

Why would you think that you'd have to give up Objectivism to fully embrace Kantianism in art? After all, Rand fully embraced Kantian Sublimity in all of her art and made it her signature aesthetic style. Rand's aesthetic "sense of life" is Kantian Sublimity. Not to mention the fact that Kant's position was that art must be mimetic -- that art is a beautiful representation of a thing.

Your attempts to vilify Kant and claim that he held positions which were the opposite of what he actually held is really foolish.

J

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 We are saying the same thing. The only difference is that you believe that there actually IS something "beyond" the narrative (the noumena of Kant?).

Are you saying that you think that there is nothing beyond the lyrics that accompany music? Music on its own is divorced of the narrative (the noumena of Kant?) and is therefore meaningless gibberish and non-art?

Regarding "my interpretation". The International Style of Architecture sought to remove from architecture any sense of type: A house was to look like a factory, which was to look like a bank, which was to look like church, which was to look like a school, etc. And this was to be followed whether in Europe, the US, South America, etc. There was to be no sense of "entry" or "arrival", human scale was deliberately distorted. There was no "up" or "down", "back" or "front". Materials were not to be indicative of their structural purpose. White brick, white limestone, white concrete, white paint, etc., etc. etc. All this was done in the name of Purity, or as you put it "casting away what artists believed were not essential".

But, once all these non-essentials were cast aside, what's left?

What's left to you? Apparently nothing. Apparenly the essence of music to you is lyrics, and the essence of visual art is overt, illustrative story-telling (and I think a lot of Objectivists share that view, which is why they get nothing out of still lifes, and why some of them even declare that still lifes are meaningless and not art). Fortunately, art is not defined by whether or not you get anything out of it. When everything that you respond to in an art form is eliminated, it doesn't logically follow that everything that everyone else responds to has also been eliminated.

The same can be said of Modern Music and the development by Schoenber of the 12-tone mode.

Your initial statement was that you were identifying the premise of all of Modern Art. Now you've changed your position so that you're referring only to certain subcategories of Modern Art. The International Style and 12-tone mode are not the basis of all Modern Art. All Modernists did not think the same thoughts and follow the same theories.

J

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Buddha,

Welcome to the discussion!

Yes, non-figurative painting can evoke objective , emotional and visceral responses in the observer (see some of my posts above), but these emotional, aesthetic responses are not "Art". Art should have meaning - it should be about ideas, ideas supported by emotional responses. Emotional responses devoid of ideas are not to be valued.

Well...

Isn't it on the basis of these same sorts of "objective , emotional and visceral responses" by which music is included art?

I mean, if this is true -- "Art should have meaning - it should be about ideas, ideas supported by emotional responses" -- then doesn't that leave music firmly excluded?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your right Jonathan, right about everything. I'm a idiot to not have recognized it sooner. Everything I know about Architecture, Painting, Music -- it's all wrong.

Have a good day.

I didn't mean to imply that everything you know about architecture, painting and music is wrong, but just that not everyone shares your opinions about what is essential to those art forms. And not everyone shares Rand's desire to impose her view of the essence of literature on all of the art forms.

J

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just a very brief reply to 13's continual assertion that The Romantic Manifesto contained contradictions and no objective criteria for the arts: Ayn Rand basically defined art as a re-creation of reality according to an artist's metaphysical value judgements, and 13 claims that this is a contradiction to the exception of architecture (which Miss Rand says is not a re-creation of reality) and that neither music nor dance is a re-creation of reality (and is an "abstract" art form, according to 13). If one is not going to be a rationalist and is going to be objective about the facts of reality, then one must realize that a concept is more than it's definition, and that sometimes there are exceptions to a definition that is still properly organized into that concept because the facts share many similarities to the items being organized into that concept. For example, it would be quite proper to define the concept of "bird" as "an animal that has feathers and can fly", even though there are some birds that cannot fly, such as kiwis and ostriches. The reason is that there are so many similarities between, say, robins, eagles, and wrens on the one hand versus penguins, kiwis, and ostriches on the other, that to form two separate concepts would be unnecessary differentiation. Similarly, as Miss Rand demonstrates in The Fountainhead, architecture properly done shares many similarities to other forms of art, such as paintings, in that it can present an artist's metaphysical value judgements and convey wide abstractions about man qua man and man's place in existence. However, I would question the idea that architecture does not re-created reality in that a building can be thought of as a man-made form of a cave or a tree or some other natural form of shelter -- so, it can be said to re-create reality in that sense.

As to music and dance, I'm not an expert at either; though it is clear from listening to music that it is a re-creation of the reality of human emotions, while dance is a re-creation of the reality that human motions and gestures can convey ideas. If one listens to, say, Rachmaninoff's Preludes, each one conveys a different emotion, though one of the reasons music has no objective language is that not all emotions have been explicitly identified. While listening to the Preludes, I experience a particular emotion conveyed by the music, but I cannot always pin down in words what that emotion is. However, I can experience what I would have to do or experience in order to have that emotion. That human gestures and motions can convey ideas is obvious if one has ever worked in a noisy environment and has to use a type of exaggerated gestures to convey things to one's fellow workers. I'm not talking about a sign language for the deaf, but rather moving one's body a certain way to convey one's mood or valuing of certain things in the work environment. The point is that body motions can convey ideas, and the purpose of dance is to convey ideas about reality and man's place in it; such as the Tango conveying sexual tension, or Swing Dancing conveying light-hearted joy, or ballet conveying an almost gravity-less existence.

However, I do not want to argue with 13 further, as I have come to the conclusion that he is being evasive. When I pointed out the objective criteria for painting, he immediately launched into the idea that The Romantic Manifesto was full of contradictions, totally avoiding the identification of painting presented by Ayn Rand and myself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just a very brief reply to 13's continual assertion that The Romantic Manifesto contained contradictions and no objective criteria for the arts: Ayn Rand basically defined art as a re-creation of reality according to an artist's metaphysical value judgements...

Ah, so now Rand just "basically" defined art as a "re-creation of reality"? In other words, she was just being all casual and loose with her definition, and wasn't trying to be exact? She was into being vague and tentative and having lots of indeterminate "wiggle room" when it came to words and concepts and philosophical criteria? Is that what you're saying?

and 13 claims that this is a contradiction to the exception of architecture (which Miss Rand says is not a re-creation of reality) and that neither music nor dance is a re-creation of reality (and is an "abstract" art form, according to 13). If one is not going to be a rationalist and is going to be objective about the facts of reality, then one must realize that a concept is more than it's definition, and that sometimes there are exceptions to a definition that is still properly organized into that concept because the facts share many similarities to the items being organized into that concept.

There are "sometimes" exceptions to definitions? And you think that it qualifies as merely "sometimes" when there are more exceptions to the definition than there are art forms which adhere to the definition? Heh.

For example, it would be quite proper to define the concept of "bird" as "an animal that has feathers and can fly", even though there are some birds that cannot fly, such as kiwis and ostriches.

No, it would not be "quite proper" to define the concept of "bird" as "an animal that has feathers and can fly." That would only be a definition which has not been thought through very carefully. It's the type of definition that someone presenting herself as a professional lexicographer or biologist should not be using. Nor is such a sloppy method of defining things the type of activity that a professional philosopher should be involved with. If there are all sorts of exceptions to one's definition, one should have the intellectual integrity to recognize that one's definition needs work.

The reason is that there are so many similarities between, say, robins, eagles, and wrens on the one hand versus penguins, kiwis, and ostriches on the other, that to form two separate concepts would be unnecessary differentiation.

Hasn't it occurred to you that birds can be defined as "feathered, winged, bipedal, endothermic (warm-blooded), egg-laying, vertebrate animals," and that the definition can include mention of the fact that many bird species can fly and some cannot?

Similarly, as Miss Rand demonstrates in The Fountainhead, architecture properly done shares many similarities to other forms of art, such as paintings,

Bats and insects share "many similarities" to birds, and therefore they're birds?

Abstract paintings and sculptures share exactly the same similarities to the other art forms that architecture does, and therefore should be granted the same definitional "exception" as architecture, music, dance and realist still life paintings (and possibly other art forms in which many people can't objectively identify "artists' meanings").

in that it can present an artist's metaphysical value judgements and convey wide abstractions about man qua man and man's place in existence. However, I would question the idea that architecture does not re-created reality in that a building can be thought of as a man-made form of a cave or a tree or some other natural form of shelter -- so, it can be said to re-create reality in that sense.

A car "can be said" to re-create a horse, in that it can present an artist's metaphysical value-judgments and convey wide abstractions about man qua man and his method of travel and his place in existence, and is therefore art by your loose, vague and exception-making method. A hamburger patty "can be said" to re-create a dead squirrel or some other form of food that a cave man would have found, so it "can be said" to re-create reality in that sense. Any man-made object "can be said" to "re-create reality," and therefore anything and everything is art by your casual, exception-making criteria. Or, conversely, anything and everything can arbitrarily be denied exception status and "can be said" to be an attack on man's proper method of cognition. When words can mean anything that we want them to, and when we can grant exceptions at will, anything can be anything!

As to music and dance, I'm not an expert at either; though it is clear from listening to music that it is a re-creation of the reality of human emotions, while dance is a re-creation of the reality that human motions and gestures can convey ideas. If one listens to, say, Rachmaninoff's Preludes, each one conveys a different emotion, though one of the reasons music has no objective language is that not all emotions have been explicitly identified.

Ditto abstract art. If music "can be said" to re-create emotions just because you experience emotions when listenting to it, then abstract art "can be said" to re-create emotions because I and others experience them when looking at it. And I'll repeat once again that my descriptions of the content of abstract paintings were mostly objective, where your descriptions of the content of music were highly subjective and almost entirely lacking in objectivity. Therefore abstract art is more deserving of your definitional "exceptions" than music.

While listening to the Preludes, I experience a particular emotion conveyed by the music, but I cannot always pin down in words what that emotion is.

In other words, you experience in music exactly what others experience in abstract art, but you arbitrarily dismiss their experiences as lies, fraud, psychological defects and pure evil just because you con't experience what they do.

However, I do not want to argue with 13 further, as I have come to the conclusion that he is being evasive.

You're accusing me of being evasive? Hilarious. This thread has been going on for 349 posts (and then some on the previous thread), and just now you're finally getting around to addressing the issue of Rand's contradictions and double standards by claiming that they are "exceptions" to definitions, and you have the gall to claim that I'm evading?!!!

Getting back to your bird analogy, Rand's position that art is a "re-creation of reality" and that it must present objectively intelligible subjects and meanings in order to quality as art, and that, despite those requirements, architecture, music and dance qualify but abstract art does not, is like someone defining a bird as "an animal that has feathers and can fly," but then saying that ostriches and kiwis are birds even though they cannot fly, but penguins are most definitely not birds because they can't fly, and that anyone who claims that penguins are birds is viciously attacking man's proper method of cognition. It's an act of arbitrary exception-making and arbitrary condemnation despite the fact that all of the flightless birds share the same features, and despite the fact that all of the art forms are abstract.

In other words, your bird-definition analogy is nothing more than an inadvertent admission that Rand's definiton and criteria of art need work. They have errors. Her need to make exceptions to her publicly-presented, formal philosophical definition of art is an indication that it is as mistaken as a lexicographer or biologist would be in presenting "an animal that has feathers and can fly" as the formal definition of "bird."

When I pointed out the objective criteria for painting, he immediately launched into the idea that The Romantic Manifesto was full of contradictions, totally avoiding the identification of painting presented by Ayn Rand and myself.

You did not identify any objective criteria by which one is to follow Rand's advice and "evaluate the purely esthetic elements of the work." Neither you nor Rand have provided criteria by which to objectively evaluate aesthetic style. She just asserted that one was to judge objectively, which is like asserting that one is to judge flavors objectively, while not providing any specifics on how one is to go about being objective in judging flavors.

J

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...