Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Must art be representational?

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

I've always wondered about this. Were his fugues written for God, or for himself? I haven't read a biography about him, so I've never known if his contatas, etc. were just to pay the bills, or if he was truly religious.

I will say that my knowledge of his motivation will never change my appreciation for his music.

I know that he wrote S.D.G. on his works. Soli Deo Gloria, "to the only God's glory". Then again, there were other composers that did that, so perhaps he wrote it as a sort of homage to one of them.

Edited by ctrl y
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Basically, Halley says that Dagny is able to do the following:

1. Listen to the music

2. Objectively determine from the music exactly what values went into the creation of that piece

3. Compare those values to her values

It is step #2 that Rand says is currently impossible.

I don't think Halley wants Dagny to do step #2, exactly as expressed above. I think #2 would be:

2a. Get a certain message from the music: life is light-hearted fun, life is dramatic, etc.

2b. Respond because she gets this message

2c. Agree with the message

2d. Feel some emotion (in terms of timing, this will probably seem instantaneous, and one might have to 'work backward to work out 2a,2b,2c)

Two people listening to Halley's music may both get the same message, and even agree with the message, but they could feel different emotions. Admittedly, in the typical situation, if they both get the same message and agree with the message in the same sense, then they will feel similar emotions. Halley is saying that the final emotion is not his payoff, the other two steps are.

What Halley wants is steps 2b and 2c.

I think that Rand's comment in "RM" is about step 2a. If someone else comes along and says that the piece of music is "sad" rather than "light-hearted", we don't know how to objectively argue for one or the other.

Edited by softwareNerd
Expanded a copule of points
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2d. Feel some emotion (in terms of timing, this will probably seem instantaneous, and one might have to 'work backward to work out 2a,2b,2c)

Now, how do you determine if you are actually "working backwards" or if you are just rationalizing? I'd say that the working backwards is currently impossible.

Before you can get to 2b and 2c, don't you need to do 2a, which is the impossible step?

Edited by brian0918
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.

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.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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