Jonathan13

No, I'm thinking that, in general, the various theories behind modern art were not particularly Kantian. But I'm open to discovering that I might be wrong. I was using the term "non-objective" because that's what the art was often called by its creators and collectors. Prior to the existence of Frank Lloyd Wright's Guggenheim Museum, which was designed to be “a temple to non-objectivity,” Hilla Rebay housed Guggenheim's collection in a temporary space that she called the Museum of Non-Objective Painting. The term isn't meant to be derogatory. As you say, music is also non-representational, or non-objective. Even Rand said that until a conceptual vocabulary is discovered and defined, no objectively valid criterion of esthetic judgment is possible in the field of music, and our choices in music must be treated as a subjective matter. My view is that what's good for the aural goose is good for the visual gander. I agree (except for the part about Kandinsky's alleged synesthesia: it's my understanding that he did not have synesthesia -- that it's just something of a rumor, myth or misunderstanding that has been repeated -- and that he only explored the condition as part of his investigation into color, sound and the senses). J

As far as I've been able to tell, Objectivism states that art is a re-creation of reality, that it must be representational, that it cannot serve a utilitarian purpose, and that its subject and meaning must be intelligible -- except for music, architecture and dance, which either don't have to re-create reality, don't have to be representational or intelligible, and/or can serve a utilitarian purpose and still be classified as art. I'm not clear on why those art forms are considered art despite their contradicting Rand's definition of art, yet abstract paintings are seen as being akin to schizophrenia because they similarly contradict Rand's definition. J

I think that if people are looking to support Rand's claim that Kant is the father of "modern art" (which I take to mean non-objective art -- the art that moved away from direct representational figuration), a good place to start would be to quote the fathers of modern art (the actual artists who first began creating abstract paintings) citing Kant as their primary influence. J

http://www.aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/modernart.html "It is highly doubtful that the practitioners and admirers of modern art have the intellectual capacity to understand its philosophical meaning; all they need to do is indulge the worst of their subconscious premises. But their leaders do understand the issue consciously: the father of modern art is Immanuel Kant (see his Critique of Judgment)." – Art and Cognition, The Romantic Manifesto, 76.

Repeating what I posted here: Provenzo may have tried to come from what he imagines is a "Romantic school vein" in commenting on the Rockwell painting, and good for him, but I doubt that Rand would have agreed that the painting, or much of anything else by Rockwell, fit her view "romanticism" in art. She much more likely would have seen it as representing the average, the everyday, the folks next door -- a humble man doing altruistic work in a rural landscape painted in muddy colors. --- I think that Rand would have seen Rockwell's art as homespun naturalism, that is, if she wouldn't have immediately dismissed it as illustration and, therefore, non-art. J

The quote was initially posted by me in the comments section of this thread to give an example of Rand's views, that she held toward the end of her life, on the weak and handicapped. The purpose of my posting the quote was to present Rand's own words on the subject. I quoted the tape of Rand accurately. There is no additional "context" on the tape to soften Rand's opinion that the retarded should not "be allowed to come near children," or that children cannot deal with the "spectacle of a handicapped human being." J