Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Non Objective art

Rate this topic


Jonathan13

Recommended Posts

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?

Intentionally or not, Rand appointed herself as the universal standard by which she judged whether or not things "objectively" qualified as art, and not just for herself, but for all of mankind. She claimed that certain things were not art because they were not intelligible to her, or because they caused nothing but boredom in her. She rejected the fact that others found meaning where she didn't. In fact, she claimed that they were liars and frauds. The Objectivist Esthetics was not intended to be a presentation of mere personal opinions, but of objective, universal truths about the nature of art.

J

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Um, my question was about "non-Romantic" art, not "non-objective" art. You're apparently equating the two. Man, this is turning into a waste of time. Sorry, but you really appear to be unfocused and confused.

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.

Yeah. Again with the "collectivist" stuff. Whatever. It's as if you just learned a new word that you don't quite understand, but you have an inkling that it can be used as an insult so you use it when you feel "attacked."

J

Edited by Jonathan13
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I must state, therefore, that this manifesto is not issued in the name of an organization or a movement. I speak only for myself.

Romantic Manifesto pg v

One of the grimmest monuments to altruism is man's culturally induced selflessness: his willingness to live with himself as with the unknown, to ignore, evade, repress the personal (non-social) needs of his soul, to know least about the things that matter most, and thus to consign his deepest values to the impotent underground of subjectivity and his life to the dreary wasteland of chronic guilt.

The cognitive neglect of art has persisted precisely because the function of art is non-social. (This is one more instance of altruism's inhumanity, of its brutal indifference to the deepest needs of man—of an actual individual man. It is an instance of the inhumanity of any moral theory that regards moral values as a purely social matter.) Art belongs to a non-socializable aspect of reality which is universal (i.e. applicable to all men) but non-collective; to the nature of man's consciousness.

The Romantic Manifesto, pg 4 (italic emphasis included in the book)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Until it is brought to the stage of conceptualization, we have to 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. No one, therefore, can claim the objective superiority of his choices over the choices of others. Where no objective proof is available, it's every man for himself—and only for himself. Romantic Manifesto pg. 46

If Ayn Rand's musical preferences are, in fact, causeless and arbitrary, then Ayn Rand's disdain for non-objective art is, in fact, causeless and arbitrary.

If Ayn Rand's musical preferences are not, in fact, causeless nor arbitrary, then Ayn Rand's disdain for non-objective art is not, in fact, causeless nor arbitrary.

...this is turning into a waste of time. Sorry, but you really appear to be unfocused and confused. ….

Yeah. Again with the "collectivist" stuff. Whatever. It's as if you just learned a new word that you don't quite understand, but you have an inkling that it can be used as an insult so you use it when you feel "attacked."

Yeah. Again with the 'impotent underground of subjectivity'.

Until it is brought to the stage of conceptualization, we have to treat musical tastes or preferences as a subjective matter

I am in fact attempting to bring non-objective art to the stage of conceptualization with the study of actions and attributes of art.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ayn_Rand said:

I must state, therefore, that this manifesto is not issued in the name of an organization or a movement. I speak only for myself.

Romantic Manifesto pg v

You left out the preceding paragraph:

Rand wrote:

"The dictionary definition of 'manifesto' is: 'a public declaration of intentions, opinions, objectives or motives, as one issued by a government, sovereign, or organization.'"

After that, Rand wrote what you quoted. So, she's not saying that the Romantic Manifesto is nothing but her "personal" opinions, or that it does not represent her philosophy of Objectivism. She's only saying that her manifesto is not being issued by any "government, sovereign, or organization." It is issued in the name of a philosophy as opposed to a political movement or organization. She is not saying that her definitions and criteria for art were not meant to apply to all men.

Additionally, if you read the Romantic Manifesto, you will notice that Rand writes in spots that the book represents not her "personal" opinion, but the Objectivist position on aesthetic issues, and what Objectivists believe. She writes not just about how she personally responds to aesthetic content, but declares how others must as well, even going so far as to analyze their psychology, senses of life and levels of self-esteem based on their enjoyment of things such as certain colors or landscapes.

Ayn_Rand said:

...Art belongs to a non-socializable aspect of reality which is universal (i.e. applicable to all men) but non-collective; to the nature of man's consciousness.

The Romantic Manifesto, pg 4 (italic emphasis included in the book)

That's what I've been saying: Rand believed that her assertions about what can or cannot be experienced in art were "applicable to all men" and based on "the nature of man's consciousness." And, intentionally or not, she appointed herself as the universal standard. She did not consider the possibility that she may have been lacking in some ways compared to others, and therefore that her inability to comprehend or feel anything in certain art forms may not have been true of "all men" or of the "nature of man's consciousness." She did not prove that her limits were the limits of "all men." She proposed no means of objectively testing and comparing her visual/spatial abilities to those of others, but just assumed that she could not possibly have been lacking, and therefore that others absolutely must have been lying and committing "fraud" when claiming to see and feel what she did not.

She clearly wasn't intending to write only about herself and her "personal" likes and dislikes, but about what she believed to be true of "all men."

If Ayn Rand's musical preferences are, in fact, causeless and arbitrary, then Ayn Rand's disdain for non-objective art is, in fact, causeless and arbitrary.

Who said anything about music being "causeless and arbitrary"? Music is "non-objective" or "subjective," not "causeless and arbitrary."

If Ayn Rand's musical preferences are not, in fact, causeless nor arbitrary, then Ayn Rand's disdain for non-objective art is not, in fact, causeless nor arbitrary.

Your conclusion does not logically follow. One can have causeless and arbitrary preferences or disdain for one thing while having caused and non-arbitrary preferences or disdain for another. Your "reasoning" basically amounts to saying that if Rand was right about one thing, then she had to be right about all things. Non sequitur.

Yeah. Again with the 'impotent underground of subjectivity'.

I have no idea what you're talking about.

I am in fact attempting to bring non-objective art to the stage of conceptualization with the study of actions and attributes of art.

Cool! I like your art, and I think that with your passion for the expressiveness of colors, forms and textures, you could probably bring a lot of valuable insights to those who have difficulty seeing and feeling things in visual art. Hopefully they'll listen.

J

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...
If a man believes that the good is a matter of arbitrary, subjective choice, the issue of good or evil becomes, for him an issue of :my feelings or theirs? No bridge, understanding, or communication is possible to him. Reason is the only means of communication among men, and an objectively perceivable reality is their only common frame of reference; when these are invalidated (i.e., held to be irrelevant) in the field of morality, force becomes men's only way of dealing with one another. If the subjectivist wants to pursue some social ideal of his own, he feels morally entitled to force men “for their own good,” since he feels that he is right and that there is nothing to oppose him but their misguided feelings. – Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal, pg 15

Again I want to reiterate that Art is a personal issue, not a social issue. Ayn Rand had no interest in forcing people to her way of thinking, while at the same time she refused to accept what she believed was wrong. Standing her ground does not mean she intends to force anyone. The idea of force is so entrenched in the subjective/collective way of thinking that they refuse to recognize that Ayn Rand repeatedly said she was speaking only for herself.

The Objective Theory of values is the only moral theory incompatible with rule by brute force. – Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal, pg 15

When you accuse Ayn Rand of attempting to force others to accept her view of art you are accusing her of the opposite of everything she believed. It is the straw man that her antagonists try to substitute her with. There is no force taking place in the Romantic Manifesto. Your agreement with her views can never be forced. When other people disagree with your disagreement they ought to be seen as standing on their own judgment. Only by respecting their judgment and understanding it do you have a chance to build a bridge between their understanding and yours.

If one knows that the good is objective – i.e., determined by the nature of reality, but to be discovered by man's mind – one knows that an attempt to achieve the good by physical force is a monstrous contradiction which negates morality at its root by destroying man's capacity to recognize the good, i.e., his capacity to value. Force invalidates and paralyzes a man's judgment, demanding that he act against it, thus rendering him morally impotent. A value which one is forced to accept at the price of surrendering one's mind, is not a value to anyone; the forcibly mindless can neither judge nor choose nor value. An attempt to achieve the good by force is like an attempt to provide a man with a picture gallery at the price of cutting out his eyes. Values cannot exist (cannot be valued) outside the full context of a man's life, needs, goals and knowledge. – Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal, pg 15-16

....the full context of a man's life, needs, goals and knowledge....

--

The essential in art is integration. Integration of body and mind. Integration of existence and consciousness. There is no body without mind, there is no mind without body. Integration of the art that is being viewed with what the viewer experiences.

If you want non-objective art to be appreciated by Objectivists you have to show the specific ways it integrates with consciousness. Those who are uninterested, or are in opposition to your case are not the essential concern. The essential concern is to continue presenting cases for integration, to improve the case for integration, to come at the case for integration in different ways. You must trade value for value, if he does not value your case he will not grant his approval. When he will not grant his approval you either make another case that he may trade his approval for, or you stop trying to get his approval.

Engaging in a personal attack because he does not wish to give you his approval is not a trade, it is a waste of time and energy and it reveals that you are incapable of respecting disagreement. It also tempts him into attacking you in retaliation, which further dissolves the potential for mutual respect. The initiation of a personal attack or insult is not a substitute for a rational argument.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Again I want to reiterate that Art is a personal issue, not a social issue. Ayn Rand had no interest in forcing people to her way of thinking, while at the same time she refused to accept what she believed was wrong. Standing her ground does not mean she intends to force anyone. The idea of force is so entrenched in the subjective/collective way of thinking that they refuse to recognize that Ayn Rand repeatedly said she was speaking only for herself.

Who said anything about Rand wanting to force anyone into accepting her way of thinking about art? The issue at hand is Rand contradicting herself on the issue of objective intelligibility and non-utility in art.

Repeating your view that art is personal and not social is a waste of time, since I've already pointed out that the quotes from Rand that you posted reveal that she believed that her views on art were "applicable to all men" and based on "the nature of man's consciousness." She was speaking in the name of the Objectivist Esthetics, and not giving mere "personal" opinions.

When you accuse Ayn Rand of attempting to force others to accept her view of art you are accusing her of the opposite of everything she believe.

I HAVE NOT accused Rand of attempting to force others to accept her view of art. STOP MAKING STUFF UP!!!

J

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why did Ayn Rand believe that certain types of modern art, certain types of modern dance, certain types of modern music have a disintegrating effect on consciousness?

Why is integration/“dis”integration important enough for her to refrain from giving work she perceived as disintegrating the title “Art”?

Integration is a key concept in the formation of Existence/Identity/Consciousness.

Non-objective art seems to project a world that does not exist, void of anything that could be construed as existing in reality. How does existence integrate/disintegrate when viewing non-objective art?

What is the significance of purposefully barring the inclusion of an entity, an identity, from non-objective art? How does Identity integrate/disintegrate when viewing non-objective art?

How is the mind to concretize broad abstractions based on context of what is in their perception when viewing non-objective art? How does Consciousness integrate/disintegrate when viewing non-objective art?

If non-objective art seems to be what ever the viewer wants it to be, how does this concept apply to the rest of the viewers existence?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why did Ayn Rand believe that certain types of modern art, certain types of modern dance, certain types of modern music have a disintegrating effect on consciousness?

Perhaps Rand believed that modern art had a "disintegrating" effect because she, personally, didn't get anything out of it, and she refused to believe the millions of people who have reported that they do get something out of it? She apparently needed to believe that others were committing "fraud" when claiming to experience what she couldn't, but she proposed no method of testing their claims about the effects of various art forms on their minds versus hers.

Why is integration/“dis”integration important enough for her to refrain from giving work she perceived as disintegrating the title “Art”?

I don't accept your premise that the issue of integration versus disintegration was what must have motivated Rand's angry judgments and her rejection of abstract art. There are other possible motives that are much more realistic, such as that she felt insulted by the idea that others had the ability to comprehend and experience what she could not.

Actions speak louder than words, and Rand offered no proof that others do not "integrate" abstract visual art to the same degree that she believed that she "integrated" the non-objective, abstract art forms of music, dance and architecture. And proof is what would be needed to take a truly rational, objective approach to the subject. One would not just assume that one's own inability to experience anything in an art form was the norm, or was true of all rational men; one wouldn't presume that one was an ideal, universal human being in all respects, and that everyone else absolutely must be either equally or less perceptive, intelligent, sensitive and able. Instead, one would devise means of scientifically testing one's theories, and not set oneself up as the universal standard.

Integration is a key concept in the formation of Existence/Identity/Consciousness.

Non-objective art seems to project a world that does not exist, void of anything that could be construed as existing in reality.

I disagree. Non-objective art forms (music, abstract painting, architecture, dance, etc.) project attributes of reality, but in a much more subtle way than overtly mimetic art does.

How does existence integrate/disintegrate when viewing non-objective art?

What is the significance of purposefully barring the inclusion of an entity, an identity, from non-objective art? How does Identity integrate/disintegrate when viewing non-objective art?

Non-objective visual art does not bar entities. It simply "re-creates" different attributes other than mimetic forms. It might "re-create" the warmth, softness or energetic motion, etc., of an entity rather than its shape.

How is the mind to concretize broad abstractions based on context of what is in their perception when viewing non-objective art? How does Consciousness integrate/disintegrate when viewing non-objective art?

Whose consciousness? Yours, mine, Ayn Rand's? Everyone's? Only those who see themselves as ideal and/or as a universal representative and standard of mankind, and not those who are beneath contempt because they're "frauds" for claiming to see what mankind's self-appointed universal representatives can't?

If non-objective art seems to be what ever the viewer wants it to be, how does this concept apply to the rest of the viewers existence?

I don't accept your premise that non-objective art can be "what ever the viewer wants it to be," and I don't know of any serious proponents of modern art who've ever held that view. The fact that art works are open to interpretation, and that aesthetic judgments contain a lot of subjectivity, is not the same as saying that an artwork can be "what ever the viewer wants it to be." The same is true of the non-objective art forms that Objectivism accepts as valid: All works of music, dance and architecture are open to interpretation, but that doesn't mean that they're "what ever the viewer wants them to be."

Maybe I'm not understanding what you mean by "what ever the viewer wants it to be." Do you mean that a viewer might look at a dark painting, experience it as mysterious and gloomy, but then decide that he "wants it to be" bright and cheery, and therefore he believes that it is?

Or do you mean that he looks at a painting and experiences whatever he experiences, which is different from how you experience it, but that his doing so is unacceptable because you believe that everyone should experience the painting in the same way?

If you meant the former, then you've constructed a straw man. I've never heard of anyone advocating the position that a painting which a viewer experiences as dark and gloomy can be bright and cheerful if he wants it to be.

If you meant the latter, then I would say that you have unrealistic expectations of what art should be. Everyone -- each individual -- experiences each work of art differently than everyone else, including overtly mimetic, representational realist works of art. No two people will experience The Fountainhead or the Mona Lisa in the same way. Each will have different individual interpretations of what those art works mean.

J

Edited by Jonathan13
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Non-objective art seems to project a world that does not exist, void of anything that could be construed as existing in reality. How does existence integrate/disintegrate when viewing non-objective art?

What is the significance of purposefully barring the inclusion of an entity, an identity, from non-objective art? How does Identity integrate/disintegrate when viewing non-objective art?

Hi Tenderly, I agree with what you're saying but I wanted to single out the possibility that some abstract art does actually -intend to- represent something that exists in reality.

Most Modern Art indeed seems to project a world that doesn't exist, and void of anything that can be conceptualized - grasped. However I believe there is some value in digesting some manifestations of Modern Art - more back in the day than now. Some pieces of Modern Art provided, before WWII to establish an arbitrary line, a glimpse of the World that a good part of the human experience dwells in; the unconscious, the semi conscious, dreaming and daydreaming, and how a thought is digested. Of course there is no actual artistic value in the sense of food for the soul, in watching a piece of half digested mind food - quiet the opposite - but there was value in it existing when no one dared to or thought of representing. Unfortunately this came coupled with the era of the masses, and of massive war, so in at least two aspects that art also probably depicts both scourges of the time.

The fact that a huge success, praise and hatred, followed those novelties doesn't make them art but it does denote that a historical milestone was laid. It was, as Ayn Rand implied, a return to the primitive, but it was so because it happened just when photography was about to succeed in the race for visual realism. No coincidence. Actually that technological race -paint vs light or photo- was what pushed greater minds, to strive for not just Realism but Romantic Realism.

In conclusion -to this post- it's interesting to note that while not all paintings might be good art or even art, some exercises have value where it's not supposed to be, and some have value for their historical importance rather than form and content -sic-.

I wouldn't pay to have a Miro or a Mondrian on my wall, but I know people that recreate their own Mondrians because the horizontal and vertical lines and "pure" color simply soothes them without any pretension for them being identified as Piet Mondrian's and even in some cases without knowing the artist, just thinking it's "cool wallpaper" (!).

That example would be the exact opposite of the scenes of the Emperor's New Clothes that we must endure at most art galleries.

This is a fascinating and non-concluded subject.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 year later...
, just thinking it's "cool wallpaper" (!).

Is there anything fundamentally wrong with that standpoint, though? If an artform brings a person joy isn't that all that matters? The original meaning or purpose that the creator of that art intended it to have shouldn't be relevant to the uses the consumer puts it to.
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...