Artist's intent and Aesthetic judgement

[Jonathan13]

Of course that hypothetical is crazy because there is no way someone could actually start with that motivation and end up with the other result. So, I make it only to stress the point. If we're evaluating art, as such, then we have to look at the art. We could, separately, evaluate the artist's intent, relative to final result -- and that is a second type of evaluation, but strictly not art-criticism.

Let's take a look at an interpretation of The Fountainhead.

In Robert Mayhew's book, Essays on Ayn Rand's The Fountainhead, Tore Boeckmann has an essay titled What Might and Ought to Be, Aristotle's Poetics and The Fountainhead, in which he writes:

First, Roark designed Cortland and made sure the government agreed to build it exactly as designed. Then Gordon Prescott and Gus Webb, two second-hander architects with bureaucratic pull, disfigure Roark's design. The disfigured design is now under construction; if Roark does nothing, it will stand forever. His achievement will have been desecrated, which is intolerable to a man of his character. It is made clear that he cannot sue the govenment. His only recourse is to blow up the project, so he dynamites the whole monstrosity.

Had the preceding events been different, e.g., had there been no breach of contract, Roark would have acted differently. (Earlier in the novel, he does not dynamite the disfigured Stoddard Temple)...

Note that Roark acts by logical, not deterministic, necessity...

...This action thus follows logically from his character – in the partial context of the preceding events, and irrespective of any further particularities of Roark's full context. (A necessary condition is that Roark's action is morally legitimate. For instance, he would not have dynamited Cortland if this had entailed a breach of contract, let alone the killing of innocent people).

Is that an objective identification of what happens in The Fountainhead?

I have the novel right here in front of me, and Howard Roark did not "ma[k]e sure the government agreed to build it exactly as designed," but instead sought to work on the project without the knowledge of those who were in charge of it. He actively hid his involvement in the project from the government because, as he says in the novel, he thought that he would never be hired by "any group, board, committee, public or private." His only "contract" was with Keating, who was not yet involved with the project when he and Roark agreed to try to pass off Roark's work as Keating's -- which most people would consider to be a form of fraud, with both Keating and Roark knowingly involved in its commission.

So it seems that Boeckmann's views aren't quite objective. Since no one other than Roark's co-conspirator Keating was in "breach of contract" with Roark, don't Boeckmann's judgments need revision? Is he still correct in claiming that Roark acted by "logical necessity" and that his actions were "morally legitimate" in light of the fact that those in charge of the project were not actually in breach of any contract with Roark? Shouldn't the facts -- the evidence contained in the novel -- mean that quite a different judgment is required?

J

Edited July 18, 2009 by Jonathan13

[softwareNerd]

Let's take a look at an interpretation of The Fountainhead.

In Robert Mayhew's book, ...

Is that an objective identification of what happens in The Fountainhead?

A reply to the details of a review like that really ought to be a separate topic, particularly because you seem to be commenting not just on the review, but also on the book itself.

However the main thing relevant to this thread is that you seem to agree with the point made by others in this thread: i.e., that an objective evaluation is possible. Or, are you saying that Boeckmann is right because he is reflecting Rand's intent rather than what's in the book? Is that the point you're making with respect to "artist's intent/motivation/background"?

BTW, on the main topic...

I should make clear that I don't think the meaning of a work is always clear. I do think that an author can write in a way that people don't quite get what he means. I think a painter can paint the same way too.

An additional point is that an author can write in a way that he can reasonably expect certain audiences to draw additional meaning from his work. Lewis Carroll is an example: a child may reasonably be expected to take a certain meaning from it, and an adult might take more, and someone living in Carroll's own times may take away still more.

[Jonathan13]

A reply to the details of a review like that really ought to be a separate topic, particularly because you seem to be commenting not just on the review, but also on the book itself.

I didn't mean to imply that I was asking for a detailed analysis of which revisions would need to be made to Boeckmann's views of the novel. I was just basically asking for acknowledgment that the novel does not contain what he claims it contains, and therefore that any evaluations he has made of it need revisions, and perhaps quite substantial ones.

My bringing up the Boeckmann essay was primarily in response to your presenting of a hypothetical and then surmising that there is no way that someone could start with one motivation for writing a novel and end up with an extremely different, if not opposite, result. I think that people who read The Fountainhead, and recognize that the government was not in breach of any contract with Roark, probably end up with quite a different view of the novel's "actual theme" than its author would have expected.

However the main thing relevant to this thread is that you seem to agree with the point made by others in this thread: i.e., that an objective evaluation is possible.

No. There's quite a difference between objectively observing and reporting which entities and events are or are not contained in a work of art versus claiming to have objectively added up what those entities and events mean, and then also claiming to have objectively evaluated the aesthetic mastery with which that meaning was conveyed.

Or, are you saying that Boeckmann is right because he is reflecting Rand's intent rather than what's in the book? Is that the point you're making with respect to "artist's intent/motivation/background"?

I'm saying that Boeckmann appears not to have followed your views on what constitutes an objective evaluation, but that he seems to have allowed his interpretation to be affected by what he thinks was the author's intent. And he's not alone. Many Objectivists have interpretations similar to his.

My main interest here is in gauging the practical relevance of the concept of "objective aesthetic evaluation" in light of the fact that a book of essays written by ARI heavyweights includes views which seem to focus on intent at the expense of the objectively observable, and not only that, but that they do so in regard to not just any random works of art, but it regard to one of Rand's. If Rand's proposed methods aren't even practiced by those who are the leading experts on her ideas, especially in a volume analyzing her art, what might that imply about the practicability of those methods?

BTW, on the main topic...

I should make clear that I don't think the meaning of a work is always clear. I do think that an author can write in a way that people don't quite get what he means. I think a painter can paint the same way too.

An additional point is that an author can write in a way that he can reasonably expect certain audiences to draw additional meaning from his work. Lewis Carroll is an example: a child may reasonably be expected to take a certain meaning from it, and an adult might take more, and someone living in Carroll's own times may take away still more.

Which would seem to suggest that all interpretations of art are based not only on the objectively observable content of the art, but also on the unique personal contexts, levels of knowledge and experience, aesthetic sensitivities and aptitudes, and passions and interests of the viewers. In other words, each viewer will come to his own unique interpretation, and there is no single "actual theme."

J

Edited July 19, 2009 by Jonathan13

[Eiuol]

Which would seem to suggest that all interpretations of art are based not only on the objectively observable content of the art, but also on the unique personal contexts, levels of knowledge and experience, aesthetic sensitivities and aptitudes, and passions and interests of the viewers. In other words, each viewer will come to his own unique interpretation, and there is no single "actual theme."

Are you suggesting that since there are many interpretations, that there is no single actual theme? For one, people can be wrong. Secondly, there is no limit to the number of themes, so even if two people have seemingly different interpretations, they both can be accurate. Provided that the interpretations don't contradict each other. So if a child's interpretation is different from an adult's, it does not mean only one can be right. Your arguments only suggest how hard it can be to evaluate art, not that objective aesthetic evaluation is not possible. What -IS- is what matters, not what you feel. What it makes you feel should only affect how you want to decorate your house. The viewer has no say in what IS.

To clarify, I think artist's intent only matters for saying how well value judgments are communicated. Poor communication usually only happens with lack of technical ability. If the artist's intent is not seen anywhere, it's an indication of poor technique, which produces ugly art. Similarly, if the technique is good, it's safe to say the theme in the artwork is what the artist intended.

Edited July 19, 2009 by Eiuol

[softwareNerd]

Jonathan, Obviously a viewer interprets art, who else can? If I speak to a group, my listeners interpret what I say. Does that mean communication is subjective?

[Jonathan13]

Jonathan, Obviously a viewer interprets art, who else can? If I speak to a group, my listeners interpret what I say. Does that mean communication is subjective?

I think that most conversations are a combination of objectivity and subjectivity. I think subjectivity is one of the reasons that communication often requires more than one attempt, why those involved might need to rephrase what they mean, give examples or analogies to help make their points, and to verify with each other that they've been understood.

J