Kant and Aesthetics

[Thomas M. Miovas Jr.]

All of that to avoid and evade the fact that Ayn Rand clearly gave objective criteria for the arts. What a farce....

[Jonathan13]

All of that to avoid and evade the fact that Ayn Rand clearly gave objective criteria for the arts. What a farce....

The only objective criteria that Rand identified in regard to art were that a work of art must be a re-creation of reality, that it must present objectively intelligible subjects and meanings, and that it must not serve a utilitarian purpose. Therefore architecture, music and dance do not qualify by her criteria (nor do realistic still life paintings if intelligibility is determined by Objectivists' inabilites to identify meanings in them).

And beyond the issue of the criteria by which something would or would not qualify as art, Rand identified no criteria by which to "evaluate the purely esthetic elements of the work" -- she identified no objective standards by which to objectively evaluate aesthetic style (and when it came to examples of her judging works of visual art in reality, she didn't give objective judgments, but instead gave subjective opinions in which she falsely asserted that mediocre work was "sheer perfection of workmanship" -- by any objective standards of visual art, Capuletti's work is mediocre, it is anything but sheer perfection of workmanship).

If you believe otherwise -- if you believe that Rand identified specific objective standards by which to judge style and "the purely esthetic elements of the work" -- then quote her and post her criteria.

In the absence of such quotes, your attempts at distraction by falsely claiming that I'm evading are laughable.

J

[DonAthos]

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).

Hey Thomas,

Let's be fair about this. Paraphrasing the above as follows (and as I believe is accurate), "Art is defined as a re-creation of reality, but architecture (e.g.) is not a re-creation of reality... and yet is also art," we must admit that this sounds like a contradiction.

It seems almost like we could say of this that A = B; C ≠ B; but C = A. Which... does not appear to make sense.

So if we grant all of the above -- and I'm not saying that you necessarily do -- but if we do, then I think it's in our best interest to admit that there is an apparent contradiction here.

If one is not going to be a rationalist...

LOL. Well, I'd like to avoid it if possible. That's one well which is not safe to drink from!

...and is going to be objective about the facts of reality, then one must realize that a concept is more than it's definition...

This is true. A concept is more than its definition. But can any "instances of a concept" contradict the definition of that concept, and still properly be considered instances? My initial response is to say "no," they can't. In searching for a definition of art, our purpose is thus: we wish for our definition to apply to every single thing which is art, and nothing which is not.

If we propose a definition of art, and find that it does not apply to certain things which we are quite certain are art (like, say, music), then we must conclude that our definition is faulty.

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.

Just to say, I find all of this both reasonable and to approximate my own experiences (well... I don't know that I can agree that music lacks "objective language" accounting to a poverty in identification of emotional states; I'm not precisely certain what that means, but it sounds... problematic at "first blush").

The one caveat I'd offer is that, as you expand "art" to account for a "re-creation of the reality of human emotions" and "motions" and similar, you may be opening the door for a defense of abstract visual art. You and I have already discussed (and agreed?) that certain colors may have associations to certain moods or feelings. And frankly, in reading through Jonathan's assessments of the abstract works which he's provided, I kind of think that you and he are doing the very same thing. Only you hold that this is only possible for assessing music or dance, and cannot be performed with visual (static) arts, whereas Jonathan says that it can be done with visual arts as well. I think his argument is compelling.

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

I can't speak to that. Perhaps you think that's true of me, too? I don't know.

Once upon a time, I received Mormon missionaries at my door. They asked me to pray over some Book of Mormon passages and told me that, "if my heart was truly open," that God would convince me of the truth of those passages. I did the best I could to pray, and to have an "open heart," but I was not struck with any revelatory experience.

Surely they accounted this to the fact that my heart wasn't "truly open." Was it? How is a person to know? Am I evading and not aware of it? I guess, since we hold this sort of thing to be somehow pre-conscious, I can't really guarantee one way or the other. What a horrifying notion! And of what questionable utility, upon reflection! (Well... it serves to demonize those who disagree with us, I suppose... to render them beyond the pale of reason, if that's useful. )

But here's the deal: I promise to do my best to adhere to reason and reality -- to be "non-evasive" -- if you do, too.

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.

I don't think it's really ideal to try to assess whether The Romantic Manifesto, as a whole, is "full of contradictions" or not. I'm developing what will eventually amount to a large-scale critique of aesthetics in another thread, and I hope you'll join me there for that, but for here, for now, I think it would be best to address ourselves to Jonathan's central thesis.

It is a problem that Rand's definition of art appears to disqualify certain endeavors that we know are art. If some of the earlier discussion in this thread is credible, it seems that even Rand eventually was led to question whether architecture was properly thought of as "art." To me? That's like a definition of color that leads us to throw out raw umber. What would Crayola do without raw umber? And moreover, shouldn't that lead us to an intensive re-examination of said definition?

When we try to expand our definition of art to include abstract examples, like dance, music, architecture, etc. (and I understand if you take issue with my use of "abstract" there; we can discuss that further, if necessary), then it seems like we are "forced" (by the logic of the arguments which we use) to also include abstract visual art.

Which honestly? Doesn't strike me as a horrifying thing to have happen, if that's the conclusion we reach. I've never personally been much of a fan of modern/abstract art, and I don't expect that to change. I don't think Jonathan would ask me to admire Pollock, come to it, and for now, I don't. But perhaps there's room for me to simply pronounce his art "bad" (or to begin with, given my particular level of knowledge, "not what I like") without needing to disqualify it from the category of "art" altogether?

What do you think?

[Thomas M. Miovas Jr.]

I don't care to have anything else to do with this thread, and have unsubscribed from it.

[Jonathan13]

It is a problem that Rand's definition of art appears to disqualify certain endeavors that we know are art. If some of the earlier discussion in this thread is credible, it seems that even Rand eventually was led to question whether architecture was properly thought of as "art." To me? That's like a definition of color that leads us to throw out raw umber. What would Crayola do without raw umber? And moreover, shouldn't that lead us to an intensive re-examination of said definition?

When we try to expand our definition of art to include abstract examples, like dance, music, architecture, etc. (and I understand if you take issue with my use of "abstract" there; we can discuss that further, if necessary), then it seems like we are "forced" (by the logic of the arguments which we use) to also include abstract visual art.

Which honestly? Doesn't strike me as a horrifying thing to have happen, if that's the conclusion we reach. I've never personally been much of a fan of modern/abstract art, and I don't expect that to change. I don't think Jonathan would ask me to admire Pollock, come to it, and for now, I don't. But perhaps there's room for me to simply pronounce his art "bad" (or to begin with, given my particular level of knowledge, "not what I like") without needing to disqualify it from the category of "art" altogether?

What do you think?

I think Thomas's problem is that he very badly wants and needs to believe that what he said here is true: He wants Objectivism to be a perfectly integrated system which is right about everything, and which contains no errors or contradictions. He seems to believe that if any part of it were to be shown to be wrong, then it would no longer qualify as a perfectly integrated philosophy, and could no longer be served as a whole, but would have to be broken down, at least in part, and served "piecemeal." And that's not what proper Objectivists do! According to Thomas, if one wants to call oneself an Objectivist, one must accept all of Objectivism as The One Wholly Integrated Truth. He realizes that acknowledging contradicitons and double standards in Rand's philosophy -- even in something that is as unimportant to him as aesthetics -- is to recognize that the Objectivist claim of perfect philosophical integration is not true, so he has dedicated himself toward defending the notion of integrated perfection at all costs. He's willing to twist himself into pretzels, to evade and deny reality, to lie about Kant and engage in all sorts of other distractions just so as to not have to acknowledge any errors. To Thomas, the errors cannot and must not exist.

J

[DonAthos]

I don't care to have anything else to do with this thread, and have unsubscribed from it.

Of course this is your prerogative, though I'm sad to see it. I apologize if anything in my manner has driven you away. Don't feel as though you cannot come back to this thread (or these questions more generally), should you later change your mind.

[Jonathan13]

What do you experience when you look at the photos that accompany this story?

What do you think you'd feel and think if you were there in person?

J