Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Non Objective art

Rate this topic


Jonathan13

Recommended Posts

If Ayn Rand could have projected the ideal man better in music or visual art than she did with words she might have chosen them as her vocation. Existence, Identity, Consciousness, Reason, Self-esteem, Purpose, Volition, Choice, Decision, Freedom, Communication, Values, Virtue, Morality, Fair Trade, Productivity, Justice, Accountability, The Pursuit of Happiness, Investment, Standards, Incentive, Ambition... The more concepts pertaining to consciousness a piece of work can express the better the work of art.

That's not the Objectivist position. A work of art can express the exact opposite of the values that you listed, as well as express very few concepts pertaining to consciousness, and still be judged a great work of art according to Objectivism. Objectivism does not tie aesthetic judgments to the moral rightness or wrongness of the work.

That is a bit of an oversimplification, it doesn't include aesthetic mastery, or the immense amount of Objective understanding of reality that it takes to produce such works, which include the above listed positive values that the artist uses in the process of creating the work.

Now a word of warning about the criteria of esthetic judgment. A sense of life is the source of art, but it is not the sole qualification of an artist or of an esthetician, and it is not a criterion of judgment. Emotions are not tools of cognition. Esthetics is a branch of philosophy - and just as a philosopher does not approach any other branch of his science with his feelings or emotions as his criterion of judgment, so he cannot do it in the field of esthetics. A sense of life is not sufficient professional equipment. An esthetician - as well as any man who attempts to evaluate art works – must be guided by more than an emotion.

The fact that one agrees or disagrees with an artist's philosophy is irrelevant to an esthetic appraisal of his work qua art.

Romantic Manifesto pg 32

What she is saying here is that the subjective analysis of the work is irrelevant to the Objective evaluation of the work.

From what I have read on Kandinsky his work was based on an idea called “pure subjectivity”

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I disagree. She only left room for future discoveries or definitional expansion in regard to the art forms that she liked.
This contradicts what you just said about a work of art expressing the exact opposite of the values that I listed. And it is not true, she did classify work that she did not like as art.

My understanding is that not only was she "not primarily a visual artist, nor a musician," but that she wasn't a visual artist or musician at all.
Apparently neither of us know the exact extent of Ayn Rand's knowledge of music, dance, and architecture. It seems to me that it is more than nothing. Which is why I said not primarily.

When reading her comments on visual art, I don't get the impression that she was leaving anything open to future devolopment. She doesn't come across to me as someone who admits that she's not an expert on the subject, but as someone with very set opinions and a desire to assume the position of teacher rather than student or unbiased, objective philosophical investigator.
Her defense of consciousness that she perceived as under attack from non-objective art may have distracted her from value that can be found in the actions and attributes of art. But even with her criticism she does not close the book on the issue.

In Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology she clearly presents all knowledge as an “open-end”

It is crucially important to grasp the fact that a concept is an “open-end” classification which includes the yet to be discovered characteristics of a given group of existents. All of man's knowledge rests on that fact.

Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology pg. 66

and in her own words:

This view implies the unadmitted presupposition that concepts are not a cognitive device of man's type of consciousness, but a repository of closed, out of context omniscience – and that concepts refer, not to the existents of the external world, but to the frozen, arrested state of knowledge inside any given consciousness at any given time.

Introduction to Objective Epistemology, pg 67

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And yet her philosophy accepts non-objective art forms like music, architecture and dance.
The music, architecture, and Dance that qualify as art require an immense amount of objective knowledge to achieve. Education, math, engineering, dynamics, focus, blueprints, tools, practice, communication, coordination... In the fountainhead the Character Howard Roark is essential to the understanding of Architecture. A great many works of Modern Art could have happened on accident, a skyscraper could not.

Must something be acceptable in all fields in order for it to be acceptable in some? Rand said that until a conceptual vocabulary of music is identified, we must treat our musical tastes as a subjective matter. Why is that acceptable?
There are a great many modern musicians whom I love, who would probably not have qualified as art to Ayn Rand. But if Objectivists want to speak intelligently about the subject, they can't do it from a purely subjective position. The development of a conceptual vocabulary for music is an immense objective undertaking. Ayn Rands belief that such an undertaking was possible, and that such an undertaking is already happening on a pre-verbal level in man's consciousness is pointing toward the 'open-ended' nature of objective knowledge.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think you're looking at things backwards. Your mindset seems to be that Objectivists are right by default, and that it is the responsibility of others to convince them of their differing views. You seem to have somehow promoted Objectivists to the position of judge and jury.
I believe reason and rationality are right. Objectivism is a philosophy that is geared toward reason and rationality. Objectivists are human and are not infallible, they have various levels of skill in communication and understanding in various aspects of the philosophy. I believe Objectivists are open to changing their mind in the face of a rational argument. I think this is an Objectivist forum by default, and those with differing views ought to respect the context of offense/defense.

I see things the opposite way: If Objectivists wish to convince the population of the world that they should value Objectivists' views on art, then they had better offer some reasoned arguments for their case, and they had better address the Objectivist Esthetics' blatant contradictions and inconsistencies.
This is what the philosophy is trying to do, but an Objectivist can only do so much. It is in the power of each individual to form wide conscious volitional abstractions. An integrated understanding of Objectivism can not be given to you, it has to be earned by your own effort. That is one reason why it is not a moral imperative for Objectivists to promote the philosophy. I am not required in any way to enlighten you. I am engaging in this conversation because I love art, and I want to see if I am capable of expanding consciousness my chosen vocation.

So, my goal is not to convince Objectivists of what they should value. I'm only interested in getting Objectivists to be philosophically consistent when it comes to aesthetics. I'm asking them to reconsider the double standards that they use when it comes to the issue of "re-creation" and intelligibility in art -- they can't objectively identify any meaning in abstract paintings, so they claim that such paintings are not art, but when I show them that they also can't objectively identify any meaning in music, architecture and dance, and often times in very realistic paintings such as still lifes, they still assert that those things are nevertheless art. It's quite irrational, contradictory and subjectively whimsical -- and all in the name of alleged "objectivity."
In order for you to get them to be consistent you have to be consistent by looking at your own double standards, and vague definitions. You are asking them to do something you don't seem willing to do yourself.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Objectivists do have a problem accepting subjectivism in any cognitive function. When Ayn Rand writes about having to treat music subjectively it can't be taken out of the context of the 15 pages of objective analysis on music, nor out of the context of her entire approach to existence. It has to be treated subjectively until there is a conceptual language for it, which she believed was possible only after an immense amount of physiological and psychological research.

I'm not sure I'm understanding what you mean by "which she believed was possible only after an immense amount of physiological and psychological research." Do mean that she did an immense amount of physiological and psychological research into the subject of music, or do you mean that she believed that a conceptual language of music would be discovered after someone in the future does an immense amount of physiological and psychological research?

If you meant the former, then I think you're mistaken. I'm not aware of Rand's having done any "research" into the field of music. My understanding is that she probably only read a single book on the subject, and that she hadn't even learned to read music. I get the impression that she knew very little about the subject.

If you meant the latter, then I would say that Rand's predictions about what will be discovered in the future are just as invalid as anyone else's. Human beings cannot predict the future. If Rand's predictions about which of our subjective experiences will one day be objective due to the discovery of a "conceptual language" are to be treated as valid, then anyone else's predictions should be treated as just as valid. For example, a person could assert that in the future, someone will discover an objective basis for the type of beliefs that Rand called "subjective whims," and therefore all of the subjective whims that Rand railed against are actually objective.

Saying that Non-Objective art is just as subjective as Ayn Rand's taste in music is different than saying Non-objective art may have a "not yet defined" objective base similar to that of music.

I don't think it's different at all. When I say that abstract art is just as subjective as Rand's tastes in art, I mean that the "objective conceptual language" of abstract art is "not yet defined," at least not fully, just as Rand believed that music's conceptual language is not yet defined. In fact, as I've mentioned here before, there is a stronger objective basis in abstract art than there is in music. Both involve a lot of subjectivity, but abstract art is the more objective of the two.

If you read Atlas Shrugged, you did see it, but you didn't understand it.

Nonsense. Atlas Shrugged does not present a defense of the objective intelligibility of the content of works of music, architecture and dance, nor do any of Rand's other works of fiction. If you believe that it does, then cite specific passages. AS is a work of fiction, and it presents fictional characters responding to fictional music and other works of art. Were you thinking that Rand's description of the Halley concerto somehow qualifies as an "objective defense" of what is contained in a work of music? If so, I'm starting to think that I might be wasting my time discussing anything with you.

J

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This passage suggests that you do not have clear definitions in your mind regarding:

Subjectivism: http://aynrandlexico...bjectivism.html

Objectivity: http://aynrandlexico...bjectivity.html

I'm very clear on my definitions. "Subjective" means "existing in the mind; belonging to the thinking subject rather than to the object of thought (as opposed to objective); pertaining to or characteristic of an individual; personal; individual: a subjective evaluation; based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions."

Or, as Rand said in regard to music, "In listening to music, a man cannot tell clearly, neither to himself nor to others -- and, therefore, cannot prove -- which aspects of his experience are inherent in the music and which are contributed by his own consciousness." (RM, p.55)

The concept "subjective" is not the same as the concept of "subjectivism" that you linked to above. To have a favorable subjective response to say, yellow rather than pink, or to pepperoni rather than sausage, is not to indulge in "the belief that reality is not a firm absolute, but a fluid, plastic, indeterminate realm which can be altered, in whole or in part, by the consciousness of the perceiver—i.e., by his feelings, wishes or whims."

Having subjective experiences -- experiences which involve personal feelings, tastes and opinions which are contributed by our own individual conciousnesses, and which others don't experience along with us -- is not the same thing as adopting a philosophy in which one believes that reality is indeterminate and can be altered at whim.

In the previous passage you said Subjectivity is a good thing, now you say it isn't?

Huh? I neither said that subjectivity is a good thing nor that it isn't. My point was simply that people's having subjective opinions about some things doesn't necessarily lead to oppression, murder and the destruction of the universe, or whatever you believe are the dire consequences of allowing even the slightest bit of subjectivity into our lives, and that a better case could be made for oppression being the result of people being arrogantly certain in their belief that their every opinion is objective.

Assuming Objectivism is out to oppress you disregards all of the tenants of Objective ethics.

I think the word you're looking for is "tenets," not "tenants."

Freedom of speech, volition, individualism, consciousness. Disagreeing with you is not the same as oppressing you.

Oh, but Objectivism leaves the door open for oppression. What if an Objectivist finds something that I do or display on my property "offensive" or "loathsome," and as not following proper "etiquette"? Objectivism holds that society has the right to not be "offended." See the last entry here.

Objectivists might find certain works of art "objectively offensive" and then advocate the use force to prevent them from being publicly displayed, or legally require that they be displayed only in "adults only" sections of businesses (and then the rape scene in The Fountainhead might be found to be "objectively offensive" to the majority of people, and it, too, will be relegated to the adult section, and only then will Objectivists reconsider their position on enforced etiquette).

Subjectivism has been used as a defense against the whims of mysticism and the whims of society, by making the whims of the individual supreme. It is an attempt to save the individual from the burden of oppression, but it also shelters him from the 'burden' of achieving reason and moral certainty. It takes an immense amount of volitional effort for an individual to figure out why Objectivism disagrees. A wealth information has been supplied in Ayn Rand's writings, and no one can give that to you but yourself. I scratch the surface of it here, but you seem to disregard key elements as unimportant.

You seem to be of the mindset that if I criticize anything about Objectivism, then I must be rejecting all of it, that I must hate Ayn Rand, and that I haven't understood anything she wrote and I need your learned guidance.

Don't you see that I'm practicing Objectivism in rejecting its aesthetic mistakes, contradictions and double standards?

J

Edited by Jonathan13
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That is a bit of an oversimplification, it doesn't include aesthetic mastery, or the immense amount of Objective understanding of reality that it takes to produce such works, which include the above listed positive values that the artist uses in the process of creating the work.

No, it's not an oversimplification. A work of art need not contain any of the concepts or virtues that you listed earlier in order to be considered aesthetically great according to Objectivism.

What she is saying here is that the subjective analysis of the work is irrelevant to the Objective evaluation of the work.

She's also saying that agreeing or disagreeing with the content of a work of art is irrelevant to an aesthetic appraisal of it. She means that an artwork can contain a theme and sense of life that is anti-man, and Objectivists can still rate it as a great work of art. Her point is that an aesthetic judgment is one which evaluates how well the artist presented his vision, and not that his vision is something that one agrees with.

From what I have read on Kandinsky his work was based on an idea called “pure subjectivity”

Kandinsky's thoughts on the approach and retreat of color in his Concerning the Spiritual in Art are the basis behind your comments here.

What Kandinsky may or may not have based his ideas on is irrelevant. His approach to the expressiveness of color was quite objective. I would suggest actually reading him, as opposed to reading about him from some secondary source while looking for excuses to dismiss him.

J

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This contradicts what you just said about a work of art expressing the exact opposite of the values that I listed. And it is not true, she did classify work that she did not like as art.

No, it doesn't contradict what I said. Notice that I said that Rand only left room for future discoveries or definitional expansion in regard to the art forms that she liked, not the art works that she liked. She did not like the entire form or genre or abstract art, and therefore rejected it and allowed no room for future discoveries.

Her defense of consciousness that she perceived as under attack from non-objective art may have distracted her from value that can be found in the actions and attributes of art. But even with her criticism she does not close the book on the issue.

I disagree. Read the rage with which she expresses her views on the subject. Read the harsh judgments she makes of people who create or enjoy abstract art. She equates them with evil and destruction. You can't get much more closed on the subject than that. She did not engage in any questioning of whether she had misunderstood abstract art or the motives of people who create it. She didn't ask herself if she might have had the visual equivalent of a "tin ear," or whether there might be an objective basis for abstract art. She wasn't open to any past, present or future discoveries on the subject

In Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology she clearly presents all knowledge as an “open-end”...

Sure, but elsewhere she also talks about people being so "open" as to be "empty-minded." She did not leave room for future discoveries in abstract art. She didn't even leave room for the discoveries that had been published 60 years prior to her commenting on the subject.

J

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The music, architecture, and Dance that qualify as art require an immense amount of objective knowledge to achieve. Education, math, engineering, dynamics, focus, blueprints, tools, practice, communication, coordination... In the fountainhead the Character Howard Roark is essential to the understanding of Architecture. A great many works of Modern Art could have happened on accident, a skyscraper could not.

The amount or type of effort required to create something is irrelevant to whether or not it qualifies as art according to Objecitivism. What matters is that it must be a "recreation of reality" and that it must present objectively intelligible subjects and meanings. Music, architecture, and dance therefore don't qualify.

There are a great many modern musicians whom I love, who would probably not have qualified as art to Ayn Rand. But if Objectivists want to speak intelligently about the subject, they can't do it from a purely subjective position.

Who is advocating coming from a purely subjective position?

The development of a conceptual vocabulary for music is an immense objective undertaking. Ayn Rands belief that such an undertaking was possible, and that such an undertaking is already happening on a pre-verbal level in man's consciousness is pointing toward the 'open-ended' nature of objective knowledge.

I disagree. I think there is value in studying how music affects people, but I think that, ultimately, chasing the elusive "conceptual language" will fail. Our subjective responses to music, and any of our other subjective responses, will never become objective just because certain people want them to.

J

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe reason and rationality are right.

Then you shouldn't be upset about my identifying the areas in which the Objectivist Esthetics is not reasonable or rational.

I am not required in any way to enlighten you. I am engaging in this conversation because I love art, and I want to see if I am capable of expanding consciousness my chosen vocation.

Have you seriously gotten the impression that I've been needing to be "enlightened" by you? You think that I came here in search of your guidance? If so, I think you've missed the point of this discussion. There is no "enlightenment" to be found in the contradictions and double standards of the Objectivist Esthetics. The contradictions and double standards won't disappear by ignoring them, or by telling those who recognize them that they haven't properly studied and grasped Objectivism.

In order for you to get them to be consistent you have to be consistent by looking at your own double standards, and vague definitions. You are asking them to do something you don't seem willing to do yourself.

Which of my views involve double standards and vague definitions? You seem to be making stuff up as a means of lashing out at me because I've identified contradictions that you don't want to recognize as contradictions. Is that what you imagine is the Objectivist approach? Is that what you think it means to value reason and rationality?

J

Edited by Jonathan13
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Art is a selective re-creation of reality according to an artist's metaphysical value judgments.

Romantic Manifesto pg 8

Art brings mans concepts to the perceptual level of his consciousness and allows him to experience them directly, as if they were percepts. This is the psycho-epistemological function of art and the reason of its importance in mans life (And the crux of Objectivist esthetics.

Romantic Manifesto pg 8

When we come to normative abstractions –to the task of defining moral principles and projecting that man ought to be–the psycho-epistemological process required is still harder. The task demands years of study–and the results are almost impossible to communicate without the assistance of art. An exhaustive philosophical treatise defining moral values, with a long list of virtues to be practiced will not do it; it will not convey what an ideal man wold be like and how he would act: no mind can deal with so immense a sum of abstractions. When I say “deal with” I mean retranslate all the abstractions into the perceptual concretes for which they stand—i.e., reconnect them to reality—and hold it all in the focus of one's conscious awareness. There is no way to integrate such a sum without projecting an actual human figure—an integrated concretization that illuminates the theory and makes it intelligible.

Romantic Manifesto pg 9

The destruction of Romanticism in esthetics—like the destruction of individualism in ethics or of capitalism in politics—was made possible by philosophical default. It is one more demonstration of the principle that that which is not known explicitly is not in man's conscious control. In all three cases, the nature of the fundamental values involved had never been defined explicitly, the issues were fought in terms of non-essentials, and the values were destroyed by men who did not know what they were losing or why.

Romantic Manifesto pg 94-95

Edited by Tenderlysharp
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ayn_Rand said:

Art is a selective re-creation of reality according to an artist's metaphysical value judgments.

Romantic Manifesto pg 8

Rand also said that architecture "does not recreate reality," but somehow still qualifies as art according to Objectivism. She also stated that utilitarian objects cannot be art, yet she classified architecture as a valid art form despite recognizing that it is utilitarian.

She also required that a work of art must have an intelligible subject and meaning, and said that if it ceases to be intelligible then it ceases to be art. Yet she claimed that music was a valid art form despite saying that it "cannot tell a story, it cannot deal with concretes, it cannot convey a specific existential phenomenon, such as a peaceful countryside or a stormy sea...even concepts which, intellectually, belong to a complex level of abstraction, such as 'peace,' 'revolution,' 'religion,' are too specific, too concrete to be expressed in music."

So, the question is, which of Rand's conflicting positions represents the true Objectivist Esthetics? In the name of rationality and consistency, should Objectivism adhere to Rand's definitions and criteria, and therefore reject abstract art, architecture, music and dance (and perhaps other art forms), or should Objectivism reconsider Rand's definitions and criteria, recognize that subjectivity plays a significant role in the arts (and that it even played such a role in Rand's judgments of the arts), and therefore accept abstract art, architecture, music and dance (and perhaps other art forms) as valid art forms? It's one or the other. Either or. A is A.

Ayn_Rand said:

The destruction of Romanticism in esthetics—like the destruction of individualism in ethics or of capitalism in politics—was made possible by philosophical default. It is one more demonstration of the principle that that which is not known explicitly is not in man's conscious control. In all three cases, the nature of the fundamental values involved had never been defined explicitly, the issues were fought in terms of non-essentials, and the values were destroyed by men who did not know what they were losing or why.

Romantic Manifesto pg 94-95

What does "the destruction of Romanticism" mean? I've never heard of Romanticism being destroyed. People are still free to create and enjoy Romantic artworks, and many do.

Does "the destruction of Romanticism" mean that some artists have created art that falls outside of Rand's definition of "Romanticism"? If so, in what way has the existence of their art "destroyed" anything?

J

Edited by Jonathan13
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is not so much music's relationship to non-objective art that I question here, it is your method of arguing for your point.

There are concepts that exist only in mans mind that are not subjective, they are objective concentrations of percepts. The number two is not a physical object, but it is an objective abstracted concept based on the existence of two of any thing. Two is an entity in the mind. Art, in order to be an objective abstracted concept, must be an entity, it must re-create the metaphysical existence of a rational mans consciousness, the way he sees the world and his place in it.

What does 're-creation of reality' mean to a rational consciousness? It is much more than a head, a torso, two arms, and two legs. Those are present in a corpse. Where are the concentrations of percepts abstracted into concepts and concentrated in to wider concepts that exist as mental entities in mans consciousness. A re-creation of reality is not just the image of a man, but also everything reality means to a living rational consciousness.

You seem to disregard anything I say about hero worship, which is “essential” to understanding Objectivism. Existence Identity Consciousness, Reason Self-esteem Purpose, Volition, Entity. These essential elements are self evident in good art, and are essential in the identity of a creator of art, because of the effort in craftsmanship involved.

To say that Ayn Rand's opinions about art are just as subjective as everyones disregards the connection to her entire view of life and the reason's behind her perspective. It seems to imply that Hero Worship is just as subjective as and no more valid than worshiping a swarm of parasites. If this isn't true then where is the line drawn?

Disregarding the value of music as nothing more than subjective is not going to establish the value of non-objective art. How would you differentiate music as art from what is merely noise or monotony? Some people may find great exultation in traffic noise. Is there anything that you do not consider to be art?

Non-objective art seems to recreate the collective sum of any contradictory existence of everyone who looks at it. It could have been created by a genius or a lunatic, a scientist, a mystic, a child, or a committee.

Who can tell the difference between objective and non-objective art, or between good and bad art? Who can tell difference between Chopin and Kandinsky? How does one attempt to validate any criteria of objectivity? What is the difference between a skyscraper and a mountain? What is the difference between ballet and the mating ritual of a dung beetle?

Validating subjectivity means its every man for himself, so why is it necessary to attack anyone who disagrees with you about art?

I don't smugly inform them that, since I don't experience the same things in those works of art, their minds have been indoctrinated and they are deceiving themselves

Oh, you don't? Does that mean one who disagrees with you doesn't have to be a solipsistic, smug, dogmatic, contradictory, stickler? Are you expressing a condescending certainty that no one can be certain of anything? Do you assume an individual may have no other reason for being concerned about your indoctrination? Do you think that you could have converted Ayn Rand herself to your way of thinking using such tactics? Do you believe no one ever tried to do that to her on any number of issues?

A subjectivist school of art will accept your expansion of subjectivity with open arms, you can easily find a non-objective art forum and talk for days about everyone's “valid” subjective opinions. But why are you trying to do so on an Objectivist forum? How do you expect a man you seem to assume to be a dogmatist to be able to think about any of the words you are saying?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On July 1st I said "I am not required in any way to enlighten you. I am engaging in this conversation because I love art, and I want to see if I am capable of expanding consciousness my chosen vocation."

Have you seriously gotten the impression that I've been needing to be "enlightened" by you?

You are taking this out of context, as you have taken Objectivism out of context during this entire argument. I said I am not required to enlighten you because you accuse Objectivist“s” of being oppressive when “they” disagree with you. I am not required to be oppressive. I am not required to enlighten you because Objectivism holds that it isn't a virtue to blindly follow or expect anyone else to blindly follow. I am not required to enlighten you because each man must come to his own understanding himself, because choosing to see the deeper meaning is something no one can do but yourself. I am having this conversation not because I want to enlighten you, not because I want to oppress you, not because I am a dogmatist blindly following the Holy Bible of Rand. I have read enough to understand some broad concentrated integrations of concepts that I didn't understand a year ago when I was making the same mistakes you are making.

Calling an Objectivist a stickler/dogmatist does not respect, recognize, or inspire the love he has for freedom.

How exactly is a practitioner of Objectivism to place non-objective work in the same classification as a work that can ONLY be created by the abilities of a highly developed rational “Objective” consciousness who is successful in clearly re-creating reality according to his metaphysical value judgments.

You are able to project a hero onto some works of non-objective art, and someone who cant or wont is somehow deficient. So the solution is to say that everyone who sees anything is right and everyone who doesn't like it is blind. Such is an argument based on non-essentials.

I must state, therefore, that this manifesto is not issued in the name of an organization or a movement. I speak only for myself. There is no Romantic movement today.

Romantic Manifesto pg. v

The “non-essentials” are the peanut gallery. It is a mistake to approach art as a social issue, when art is a personal issue. Art is not a collective subjectivity, but an individual projection of values.

Focus on the work, what the work means, what the work expresses. The “essential” of the argument lies in the work, not in a reaction to those opposed to the work. A greater clarification of the work, a deeper study of the work, rational arguments for the work, comparing the details of the work to similar work. Present compelling arguments to yourself for the esthetic value of a multitude of actions and attributes apparent in the work. Find more and more clear representations of your point.

There is no Romantic movement today. If there is to be one in the art of the future, this book will have helped it come into being.

Romantic Manifesto pg. v

Non-objective art did not seem essential or necessary to Ayn Rand's vision of Romanticism. If it is essential to your vision of Romanticism then keep the millions of people who disagree with her out if it, and speak for yourself. If you present an argument speaking only for yourself you will have a better chance of convincing other Objectivists of the value of your position.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is what a lack of context amounts to:

we can either be sticklers and strictly adhere... or we can... grant exceptions for the non-objective art forms that we like...if we opt to be sticklers... music is no more objectively meaningful than abstract paintings... So, I prefer to opt to not be a stickler. Since exceptions can be made...millions of people get as much emotional impact and meaning as Ayn Rand did... an indication of your personal visual limitations...does not present objectively identifiable, intelligible subjects and meanings...no objective criteria by which to judge... I and others don't experience what we experience...and she arbitrarily dismissed our experiences simply because...she imposed her personal responses (or lack thereof) as the universal standard...(they were) as stimulated as Rand claims to have been...an attempt to deny others' abilities and sensitivities...and they're either lying or delusional...Rand might have some limitations...not a possibility to be considered...not to be entertained...apply Rand's definitions, criteria and principles to all art, or to apply her exceptions to all art...ignore them or have all sorts of exceptions which are applied selectively or abritrarily...presumptuousness... your limits of knowledge and experience... I'm not solipsistic about it...and I accept everyone else's emotional responses as well....I don't smugly inform them that...their minds have been indoctrinated and they are deceiving themselves.

I can see that you have a strong collectivist bent because you often use the words they or we, and rarely talk about ideas in terms of an individual unless it is to reiterate how all encompassing and non-absolute you are.

someday someone will discover an "objective conceptual language" of abstract art,

In order for it to be defined as Objective it will not contradict the axioms of entity, identity, consciousness. Ayn Rand would probably relish the idea of redefining the genre of Abstract Art in order to remove it from the clutches of the mystics. But abandoning the arena of art to Subjectivism is not the way to do it.

I have also found value in non-objective art, I have found a way to build a bridge between objective and non-objective art in an rational way, through a discussion of actions and attributes, and through a perspective of the value of mans projection. I can see a great deal of progress to make in the field of art from taking this position. I welcome anyone to challenge the argument I made for the significance of attributes in the Helvetica font.

At this point whether or not non-objective art is “Art” is not an essential part of the argument to me. It is like questioning whether a dictionary is art or not. A dictionary is an immense achievement as far as consciousness goes, even if it is utilitarian, so is the development of my own visual language.

Existence Identity Consciousness

Reason Self-esteem Purpose

A = A

Existence requires Reason

Identity requires Self-esteem

Consciousness requires Purpose

Why did I bring these up first when I came back to this argument?

In recognition of the tactics collectivists use to attack, disregard, and disintegrate the consciousness of their opponent.

What about the psycho-epistemological function of art?

What about Normative abstractions?

We treat musical tastes or preferences as a subjective matter—not in the metaphysical, but in the epistemological sense; i.e., not in the sense that these preferences are, in fact, causeless and arbitrary, but in the sense that we do not know their cause. Where no objective proof is available, it's every man for himself—and only for himself.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Art, in order to be an objective abstracted concept, must be an entity, it must re-create the metaphysical existence of a rational mans consciousness, the way he sees the world and his place in it.

As I've said repeatedly, Rand said that architecture DOES NOT RECREATE REALITY!!!!! Nor does music or dance, at least not by Rand's standards of "objective" intelligibility. Why do you keep ignoring my point? You tell me that in order for something to be called "art" or "objective" by Rand's standards, it must meet certain criteria. I then remind you that architecture, music and dance don't qualify, and then you ignore what I've said and recite your definitions again. Why? I'm accepting your definitions and criteria and applying them to the various art forms. There's no need for you to keep repeating them. Music, architecture and dance to not qualify as art under the Objectivist definition and criteria.

You seem to disregard anything I say about hero worship...

I don't disregard heroism, it's just that it isn't relevant to this thread's topic. The issue at hand is the contradictions and double standard in the Objectivist Esthetics. My agreement with Rand that existence is wonderful, and that heroism is inspirational and good, doesn't change the fact that there are contradictions and double standards in the Objectivist Esthetics. The fact that Rand got many things right doesn't erase what she go wrong.

To say that Ayn Rand's opinions about art are just as subjective as everyones disregards the connection to her entire view of life and the reason's behind her perspective. It seems to imply that Hero Worship is just as subjective as and no more valid than worshiping a swarm of parasites. If this isn't true then where is the line drawn?

In the above paragraph, you've switched to talking about moral judgments of art when the topic at hand is aesthetic judgments, as well as what qualifies as art and what doesn't according to the Objectivist Esthetics. You seem to be confusing the issues. Rand believed that a work could qualify as art while having the purpose of "worshiping a swarm of parasites," and not only that, but it could be judged (including by her) to be aesthetically greater than a work of art which presented mankind as heroic.

Anyway, the fact that I said that Rand's judgments of art included a lot of subjectivity doesn't mean that every aspect of her judgments of art were subjective. I share her views on the importance of art's role in inspiring heroism and goodness (as did Kant, Kandinsky and many others), but that has nothing to do with whether or not certain things qualify as art by her conflicting points of view.

Disregarding the value of music as nothing more than subjective is not going to establish the value of non-objective art.

My purpose here is not to "disregard" the value of anything, nor to "establish the value of non-objective art," and I don't know why you insist on asserting that it is my goal when I've specifically told you that my purpose is not to convince anyone that they should value non-objective art, but to address the contradictions and double standards in the Objectivist Esthetics.

Validating subjectivity means its every man for himself...

What do you mean by "validating subjectivity"? I'm identifying the fact that subjective judgments are subjective. Rand's subjective interpretations and judgments of music and architecture were subjective. As are yours, mine and everyone else's. Screaming that you want your subjective judgments to be objective won't make them so.

...so why is it necessary to attack anyone who disagrees with you about art?

I'm not "attacking" anyone. Why do you see it as an "attack" when someone points out blatantly obvious contradictions and double standards? Why is it necessary for you to try to defend or ignore the contradictions and double standards?

Does that mean one who disagrees with you doesn't have to be a solipsistic, smug, dogmatic, contradictory, stickler?

Yes, there are plenty of people who have disagreed with me who aren't solipsistic, smug, dogmatic, contradictory, or sticklers.

Are you expressing a condescending certainty that no one can be certain of anything?

No, I'm not expressing the view that no one can be certain of anything. I'm certain of many things. For example, I'm absolutely certain that I know much more about the visual arts than almost all the Objectivists I've argued with over the past 10 years combined.

Do you assume an individual may have no other reason for being concerned about your indoctrination?

I'm not sure that I'm following you here. Are you saying that you think I've been indoctrinated, or that I'm trying to indoctrinate others? Apparently your view is that someone is indoctrinated and/or is an indoctrinator if he recognizes the fact that the statement "architecture is an art form that does not recreate reality" contradicts the statement "art is a selective re-creation of reality..."?

Do you think that you could have converted Ayn Rand herself to your way of thinking using such tactics?

I have no idea if I could have convinced Rand to reconsider her errors.

Do you believe no one ever tried to do that to her on any number of issues?

Actually, yes, I believe that no one probably ever confronted her with many of the issues that I've brought up here. If you have reasons (and evidence) to believe otherwise, I'd love to hear it. I get the impression that she was surrounded by people who were quite unlikely to challenge her views, and people who knew very little about the arts.

I do know that she was asked at the Ford Hall Forum, toward the end of her life, to address her contradictory views on architecture and utilitarian objects not qualifying as art. She didn't say anything that clarified the issue (and, in my opinion, she made it more muddled), but the question may have had an impact on her, since, as I mentioned in post #108, Kamhi and Torres report that Binswanger suggested that Rand may have been changing her mind on the issue of architecture and art.

A subjectivist school of art will accept your expansion of subjectivity with open arms...

I'm not expanding subjectivity. I'm simply not accepting your attempt to label your (and Ayn Rand's) subjective judgments "objective."

Besides, it's up to you (and each other individual) which of the two options to go with: you can either choose to go with Rand's definition and criteria, and therefore reject all non-objective art forms (abstract painting and sculpture, music, architecture, dance, etc.) or you can choose to accept certain non-objective art forms, as Rand did, and therefore drop the hypocrisy of condemning others for accepting their favorite non-objective art forms. If you want to eliminate all subjectivity from the arts, go for it, but do it consistently. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

...you can easily find a non-objective art forum and talk for days about everyone's “valid” subjective opinions. But why are you trying to do so on an Objectivist forum?

I'm not trying to argue that everyone's subjective opinions are valid. I'm simply saying that if Objectivists wish to be consistent, then they have to choose between accepting all subjective art forms as valid or rejecting all subjective art forms as invalid. They either have to reject music, architecture and dance along with abstract painting and sculpture, or they have to accept abstract painting and sculpture along with music, architecture and dance.

Now, why are you so resistant to recognizing and doing something about the contradictions and double standards in the Objectivist Esthetics?

Rand said, "To arrive at a contradiction is to confess an error in one’s thinking; to maintain a contradiction is to abdicate one’s mind and to evict oneself from the realm of reality."

So, why are you abdicating your mind and evicting yourself from the realm of reality rather than accepting that Rand made some errors? Why don't you go and find a non-Objectivist forum in which you can freely permit yourself to hold, evade or defend contradictory ideas without being "attacked" for doing so?

How do you expect a man you seem to assume to be a dogmatist to be able to think about any of the words you are saying?

I'm not "assuming" that anyone is a dogmatist. All that I'm doing is addressing people's arguments and behavior. If you don't want to be seen as a "dogmatist," I'd think that the best way to proceed would be to address the contradictions and double standards in the Objectivist Esthetics rather than avoiding doing so.

J

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are able to project a hero onto some works of non-objective art, and someone who cant or wont is somehow deficient. So the solution is to say that everyone who sees anything is right and everyone who doesn't like it is blind. Such is an argument based on non-essentials.

I don't know how to objectively establish whether or not someone is aesthetically deficient, but there are probably some visual/spatial tests that would be good indicators. Anyway, my point has been that I just don't accept Objectivists unsupported assumptions and assertions that their aesthetic tastes, sensitivities and interpretations automatically represent the norm or the universal. If someone wants to assert that something is unintelligible and isn't art because they get no meaning or feeling from it, then I have to ask "How did you become the standard for all of mankind? How do we know that you're not aesthetically inept, versus that the art is actually unintelligible?"

Having seen a lot of Objectivists struggling with very simple visual content in realist paintings (as Luc Travers and others did with the Joan of Arc painting), I don't think that it's unreasonable to see such difficulties as indicators of visual/spatial/aesthetic deficiency.

J

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the way that they belittle the judgment of the individual by attempting to force him, through social pressure, to accept the definition of art as all inclusive.

Huh? I don't follow. How would the existence of non-Romantic art lead anyone to "accept the definition of art as all inclusive"? Are you saying that you've somehow come to believe that Objectivism holds that Romanticism is the only valid type of art? If so, then you should learn that Rand herself accepted non-Romantic art -- Naturalism -- as being included within her definition of art.

And specifically who is going around applying "social pressure" and trying to use it to force people to accept a definition of art? Isn't it an act of "social pressure" for one to wail that certain types of art that one doesn't like, understand or respond to were created to try to destroy man's mind? Isn't it an act of "social pressure" to tell others that they must be lying when they claim to experience in certain art forms what you don't? Isn't it an act of "social pressure" to claim that Romanticism has been "destroyed" when it hasn't?

J

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You can repeat the things you think I am ignoring, but i can't repeat the things I think you are not seeing clearly enough?

Rand said that architecture DOES NOT RECREATE REALITY!!!!! Nor does music or dance, at least not by Rand's standards of "objective" intelligibility.

What does that mean to you? Does not recreate reality? I tried to address it when I mentioned the corpse. Words recreate reality in a certain way, a figurative painting recreates reality in a certain way. Film recreates reality in a certain way. Architecture, music, and Dance do not recreate reality in the same way, but they do have an internal connection to the metaphysical reality of the individual consciousness who appreciates them. Emotions in a rational man are not causeless.

I don't disregard heroism, it's just that it isn't relevant to this thread's topic. The issue at hand is the contradictions and double standard in the Objectivist Esthetics.

Heroism is completely relevant and essential to this thread topic.

Ayn Rand's book was called the "Romantic" Manifesto. She considered "Art" the creative work she could project a hero onto. She liked the kind of music she could see a hero triumphing in. She liked a skyscraper because it came from the mind of a hero. In performing arts she saw a hero using his or her body as a canvas of expression, and a hero involved in the choreography. Because she saw some redeeming qualities of intelligence in some of the work she did not like, doesn't mean she should be expected to accept the work she found no redeeming qualities in. She may be contradicting you by doing so, but she wasn't contradicting herself.

Rand believed that a work could qualify as art while having the purpose of "worshiping a swarm of parasites," and not only that, but it could be judged (including by her) to be aesthetically greater than a work of art which presented mankind as heroic.

And why is that? Because the craftsmanship involved is heroic.

My purpose here is not to "disregard" the value of anything,

But you do disregard Ayn Rand's personal values.

nor to "establish the value of non-objective art," and I don't know why you insist on asserting that it is my goal when I've specifically told you that my purpose is not to convince anyone that they should value non-objective art, but to address the contradictions and double standards in the Objectivist Esthetics.

How does one point out contradictions and double standards without establishing the value he sees in non-objective art?

What do you mean by "validating subjectivity"? I'm identifying the fact that subjective judgments are subjective. Rand's subjective interpretations and judgments of music and architecture were subjective. As are yours, mine and everyone else's. Screaming that you want your subjective judgments to be objective won't make them so.

I wasn't screaming.

I am saying that externally, collectively, or from a Psycho-Epistemological point of view music is treated as "subjective", but internally, from an individual metaphysical view it is not arbitrary, on a personal level certain music makes a connection to the objective reality of a rational consciousness.

“Screaming” that a man's views are subjective is not going to force him to project a hero onto something he doesn't see a hero in.

I'm not "attacking" anyone. Why do you see it as an "attack" when someone points out blatantly obvious contradictions and double standards? Why is it necessary for you to try to defend or ignore the contradictions and double standards?

Because art is a personal issue, not a social issue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, there are plenty of people who have disagreed with me who aren't solipsistic, smug, dogmatic, contradictory, or sticklers.

Then why salt and pepper your argument with such non-essentials?

No, I'm not expressing the view that no one can be certain of anything. I'm certain of many things. For example, I'm absolutely certain that I know much more about the visual arts than almost all the Objectivists I've argued with over the past 10 years combined.

Then speak of your knowledge without wasting time on personal attacks.

I'm not sure that I'm following you here. Are you saying that you think I've been indoctrinated, or that I'm trying to indoctrinate others? Apparently your view is that someone is indoctrinated and/or is an indoctrinator if he recognizes the fact that the statement "architecture is an art form that does not recreate reality" contradicts the statement "art is a selective re-creation of reality..."?

The 'indoctrination' is involved in the collectivist/social approach to the subject of art. In the attempt to validate everyone's subjective opinions of the work by invalidating a personal individual objective metaphysical connection to the work.

I have no idea if I could have convinced Rand to reconsider her errors.

Maybe you could have, but not by calling her a dogmatist.

Actually, yes, I believe that no one probably ever confronted her with many of the issues that I've brought up here. If you have reasons (and evidence) to believe otherwise, I'd love to hear it. I get the impression that she was surrounded by people who were quite unlikely to challenge her views, and people who knew very little about the arts.

I think 77 years is a long time for someone with a mind like hers to avoid a confrontation on art? I get the impression she was constantly surrounded by people who attempted to challenge her views.

I do know that she was asked at the Ford Hall Forum, toward the end of her life, to address her contradictory views on architecture and utilitarian objects not qualifying as art. She didn't say anything that clarified the issue (and, in my opinion, she made it more muddled), but the question may have had an impact on her, since, as I mentioned in post #108, Kamhi and Torres report that Binswanger suggested that Rand may have been changing her mind on the issue of architecture and art.

Here you don't prove anything, you simply call it all into question. I don't know the specific context of her response to the question during the lecture, or the reason Binswanger may have been unclear about the Fountainhead bringing together hero worship, architectural admiration, and art.

I'm not expanding subjectivity. I'm simply not accepting your attempt to label your (and Ayn Rand's) subjective judgments "objective."

You are not expanding “collectivism”, you are simply not accepting my attempt to label my(and Ayn Rand's) individual judgments as “personal”

Besides, it's up to you (and each other individual) which of the two options to go with: you can either choose to go with Rand's definition and criteria, and therefore reject all non-objective art forms (abstract painting and sculpture, music, architecture, dance, etc.) or you can choose to accept certain non-objective art forms, as Rand did, and therefore drop the hypocrisy of condemning others for accepting their favorite non-objective art forms.

Or you can reject the “hypocrisy” of believing that everyone has to say yes and no one is allowed to say they don't like it.

If you want to eliminate all subjectivity from the arts, go for it, but do it consistently. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

When you say do it “consistently” you are actually saying do it “collectively”. You can't disagree with the herd and value your own position too?

I'm not trying to argue that everyone's subjective opinions are valid. I'm simply saying that if Objectivists wish to be consistent, then they have to choose between accepting all subjective art forms as valid or rejecting all subjective art forms as invalid. They either have to reject music, architecture and dance along with abstract painting and sculpture, or they have to accept abstract painting and sculpture along with music, architecture and dance.

Accepting non-objective art, if a man does not see any intelligence in it, means he would have to accept street noise as music, a mud hut as architecture, and the gyrations of a bar fly as dance. It is no use attacking his self-esteem in this issue because his self-esteem is more invested in his response to the work in question than it is invested in your opinion of him. If you value him enough, or you value the work enough to want to expand the perspective of the work in question you have to focus on more clearly defending the work. If you don't want to expand his perspective there is no crime in that, you are not required to do that.

Now, why are you so resistant to recognizing and doing something about the contradictions and double standards in the Objectivist Esthetics?

Because Ayn Rand loved art, and she presented a compelling argument against the contradictions I have seen in Modern Art and the way the position of subjectivity collectivizes a personal issue.

Rand said, "To arrive at a contradiction is to confess an error in one’s thinking; to maintain a contradiction is to abdicate one’s mind and to evict oneself from the realm of reality."

So, why are you abdicating your mind and evicting yourself from the realm of reality rather than accepting that Rand made some errors? Why don't you go and find a non-Objectivist forum in which you can freely permit yourself to hold, evade or defend contradictory ideas without being "attacked" for doing so?

The non-objectivist forum would probably love it if I did that. Ayn Rand had reason to believe it was not a contradiction to exclude a form of art who's very nature celebrates pure contradiction.

A study of the actions and attributes of art sidesteps the issue of contradiction and focuses on the value of the specific details of the work.

I'm not "assuming" that anyone is a dogmatist. All that I'm doing is addressing people's arguments and behavior. If you don't want to be seen as a "dogmatist," I'd think that the best way to proceed would be to address the contradictions and double standards in the Objectivist Esthetics rather than avoiding doing so.

I believe avoiding contradictions and double standards are important to most Objectivists.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know how to objectively establish whether or not someone is aesthetically deficient, but there are probably some visual/spatial tests that would be good indicators. Anyway, my point has been that I just don't accept Objectivists unsupported assumptions and assertions that their aesthetic tastes, sensitivities and interpretations automatically represent the norm or the universal. If someone wants to assert that something is unintelligible and isn't art because they get no meaning or feeling from it, then I have to ask "How did you become the standard for all of mankind? How do we know that you're not aesthetically inept, versus that the art is actually unintelligible?"

Ayn Rand never said she was the universal standard by which others should blindly judge, that is second handedness, that is a collectivization of her beliefs which she was not interested in approaching in that way. She never advocated an Objectivist utopia. But she WAS the universal standard by which she judged herself.

“All mankind” is the non-essential part of the argument. How do “We” know that an insult to a man's self esteem is not going to work in “Our” favor?

Having seen a lot of Objectivists struggling with very simple visual content in realist paintings (as Luc Travers and others did with the Joan of Arc painting), I don't think that it's unreasonable to see such difficulties as indicators of visual/spatial/aesthetic deficiency.

If a man is “aesthetically deficient” in one area of artistic understanding, lets say he is in fact deaf, it doesn't change the personal importance of the art he does find metaphysically valuable to himself. Telling him he is deaf is not going to make a point about music any more significant to him. But if you were to translate the music to him in a visual way he might be able to bridge the understanding that his senses lack.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Huh? I don't follow. How would the existence of non-Romantic art lead anyone to "accept the definition of art as all inclusive"?

Not in the existence of non-objective art, but in the expectation of an individual to define everything and anything as art, regardless of whether he perceives any value in it at all.

And specifically who is going around applying "social pressure" and trying to use it to force people to accept a definition of art? Isn't it an act of "social pressure" for one to wail that certain types of art that one doesn't like, understand or respond to were created to try to destroy man's mind? Isn't it an act of "social pressure" to tell others that they must be lying when they claim to experience in certain art forms what you don't? Isn't it an act of "social pressure" to claim that Romanticism has been "destroyed" when it hasn't?

No, these things are not acts of social pressure, they are acts of self defense and self esteem, they are acts of personal conviction. If your personal conviction is not the same, it has no value in the collective realm of subjectivity. Your personal conviction has everything to do with who you are. That is why a person becomes so defensive when it comes to discussing art.

From a collectivist view everything is an act of social pressure. From a collectivist view an individual act of conviction is perceived as a threat. Every non-objective artist can be open to every contradicting thing. But Ayn Rand, staying true to her own vision of quality must contradict herself in order to embrace a value for non-objective art that she did not have.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What does that mean to you? Does not recreate reality?

It means that Rand believed that architecture does not re-create reality according to her meaning of the concept "re-create reality," and therefore it does not fit her definition of art, which is a "re-creation of reality"!

I tried to address it when I mentioned the corpse. Words recreate reality in a certain way, a figurative painting recreates reality in a certain way. Film recreates reality in a certain way. Architecture, music, and Dance do not recreate reality in the same way...

Exactly. Music, architecture and dance do not re-create reality in the same way as novels, figurative paintings and movies do. In other words, they do not re-create reality in the way that Rand required in order to qualify as art.

...but they do have an internal connection to the metaphysical reality of the individual consciousness who appreciates them.

Having "an internal connection to the metaphysical reality of the individual consciousness who appreciates them" is not a criterion of the Objectivist Esthetics for determining what is or is not art.

Emotions in a rational man are not causeless.

Emotions, including those in a rational man, are not a valid criterion of aesthetic judgment according to Objectivism.

Heroism is completely relevant and essential to this thread topic.

No, it's not.

Ayn Rand's book was called the "Romantic" Manifesto. She considered "Art" the creative work she could project a hero onto. She liked the kind of music she could see a hero triumphing in.

What Rand liked, or what she had as a goal while creating her own art, has no relevance to what qualifies as art according to Objectivism. A work of art need not contain heroism to qualify as art.

She may be contradicting you by doing so, but she wasn't contradicting herself.

Seriously? Do you really not understand that the statement "Architecture is an art form which does not re-create reality" contradicts the statement "Art is a selective re-creation of reality"?

And why is that? Because the craftsmanship involved is heroic.

Heroism has nothing to do with it. Objectivism does not state that art is aesthetically good when "the craftsmanship involved is heroic." You're just making stuff up now.

But you do disregard Ayn Rand's personal values.

No I don't. Pointing out Rand's contradictions and double standards is not an act of "disregarding" her "personal values."

How does one point out contradictions and double standards without establishing the value he sees in non-objective art?

The fact that one has to explain the value that can be found in something to those who don't value it doesn't mean that his purpose is to tell them that they should value it.

I am saying that externally, collectively, or from a Psycho-Epistemological point of view music is treated as "subjective", but internally, from an individual metaphysical view it is not arbitrary...

I didn't say that it was "arbitrary." I said that it was subjective.

...on a personal level certain music makes a connection to the objective reality of a rational consciousness.

The "internal," "personal" state that you just described is known as "subjectivity," at least according to Objectivism. When people look at abstract art, and "on a personal level" it "makes a connection to the objective reality of a rational consciousness," Rand and her followers call that "subjectivism," "rationalizing" etc.

“Screaming” that a man's views are subjective is not going to force him to project a hero onto something he doesn't see a hero in.

Huh??? WTF?

Because art is a personal issue, not a social issue.

So, you're admitting that you're defending and/or ignoring contradictions and double standards because it's a "personal issue"?!?!

J

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The 'indoctrination' is involved in the collectivist/social approach to the subject of art. In the attempt to validate everyone's subjective opinions of the work by invalidating a personal individual objective metaphysical connection to the work.

I'm not trying to "validate" everyone's subjective opinions. I'm simply saying that if certain people's subjective responses to non-objective art (such as Rand's subjective responses to music) allow that type of non-objective art to qualify as art, then everyone else's subjective responses should be treated as being just as valid, or, conversely, if subjective responses are deemed to be invalid, then everyone's subjective responses are invalid, including Rand's, and all non-objective art forms -- music, architecure, dance, etc. -- are therefore not art.

Maybe you could have, but not by calling her a dogmatist.

I haven't called her a dogmatist. Quit making stuff up.

I think 77 years is a long time for someone with a mind like hers to avoid a confrontation on art?

I don't. I've personally asked many Objectivists, incluidng some of the people with whom Rand had associated for years, some of the same questions I've asked here. Most of them have avoided addressing the issues, and some of them have lived longer than 77 years.

Here you don't prove anything, you simply call it all into question. I don't know the specific context of her response to the question during the lecture, or the reason Binswanger may have been unclear about the Fountainhead bringing together hero worship, architectural admiration, and art.

Where did you get the idea that Binswanger was unclear on anything? It is Rand who is said to have been changing her mind on the issue of art and architecture, not Binswanger. So, your criticism of Binswanger being "unclear about the Fountainhead bringing together hero worship, architectural admiration, and art" should be aimed at Rand.

You are not expanding “collectivism”, you are simply not accepting my attempt to label my (and Ayn Rand's) individual judgments as “personal.”

I totally accept your labeling of your judgments as "personal." I just don't accept any attempt to claim that your and Ayn Rand's "personal" judgments of non-objective art forms like architecture, music and dance are "objective" while asserting that everyone else's "personal" judgments of abstract paintings are "subjective," or "rationalizations," etc.

When you say do it “consistently” you are actually saying do it “collectively”. You can't disagree with the herd and value your own position too?

No, when I say that you must do it consistently, I mean that the criteria that you apply to determining whether or not something qualifies as art should be applied consistently to all art forms, rather than being applied selectively based on whether you (or anyone else doing the judging) likes those art forms. And I have no idea why or how you've gotten onto this "collectivism" kick. You're really coming across to me as irrational and grasping at straws.

Accepting non-objective art, if a man does not see any intelligence in it, means he would have to accept street noise as music...

No, that doesn't logically follow. I don't see any intelligence in certain country songs or certain operatic pieces, but I accept that others do, and that they are therefore art. That doesn't mean that I have to accept street noise as music.

...a mud hut as architecture, and the gyrations of a bar fly as dance.

Mud huts are a form of architecture, and the gyrations of bar flies can be dance!

It is no use attacking his self-esteem in this issue because his self-esteem is more invested in his response to the work in question than it is invested in your opinion of him.

Um, who is "attacking his self-esteem"? Where do you come up with this stuff?

Because Ayn Rand loved art, and she presented a compelling argument against the contradictions I have seen in Modern Art and the way the position of subjectivity collectivizes a personal issue.

I think you're reaching the point of incoherence with this "collectivism" stuff.

A study of the actions and attributes of art sidesteps the issue of contradiction and focuses on the value of the specific details of the work.

No, it doesn't. The contradictions cannot be "sidestepped." Ignoring them and trying to change the subject to the personal value that people get out of art, or to accusations of "collectivism," won't make the contradictions go away.

I believe avoiding contradictions and double standards are important to most Objectivists.

Apparently not when it comes to Rand's contradictions and double standards.

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...