Kant and Aesthetics

[Spiral Architect]

Read this thread, and follow the links. J

As a courtesy I just did that again and unless I’m missing something you have not given a critique of Thomas’ implication that Kant’s metaphysics and epistemology is the reason Kant is responsible for modern art. Thomas gave a very thorough rundown of why Kant’s philosophy can lead to the modern art movement by explaining philosophically why Kant’s views on thinking and reason produce a culture that creates modern art. It is a classical argument by Objectivists but he presented it well and clear. You and the Doctor did allude to some previous discussion so maybe the answer is there and I’m missing it, although I suspect this debate is a continuation over something else I’m missing altogether (It’s like walking into a preexisting argument that has evolved by the time you arrived). I’m just curious about the ideas being presented - This thread has been fascinating when it has stayed focused on aesthetics.

[Eiuol]

Kant isn't responsible for Dadaism, or Futurism, or any of that trash.

I know that Kant's epistemology is pretty bad, but it doesn't necessarily follow that it's the case his aesthetic beliefs follow from that (sort of directed at Thomas). It would be a quite complex argument that Kant is responsible for things like Dadaism. As far as I've read, Kant's aesethetic ideas are a lot more tenable than his epistemological ones. Probably ideas that are contradictory to his epistemological beliefs, though. The link between modern art and Kant seems on the face of it a lot weaker than his connection to post-modernist philosophy or philosphers like Hegel. Sure, epistemological beliefs do affect aesthetic ones, but compartmentalization is possible. Aristotle's epistemology regarding concept formation is pretty bad in the sense you perceive the essence in something, but you don't throw out everything he ever said about ethics because of that. Just talking about Kant's epistemological beliefs doesn't get much of anywhere in evaluating his aesthetic beliefs.

[Grames]

Regardless of whatever a generous reading of Kant might yield the history of philosophy is a series of philosophers and movements that took him to be saying "perception is reality".

[Hairnet]

Regardless of whatever a generous reading of Kant might yield the history of philosophy is a series of philosophers and movements that took him to be saying "perception is reality".

Shakespear expressed many of the same sentiments in Hamlet.

Although I do not know if he himself believed in them, because of the tragic nature of the play.

That fundemental idea has been around a long time. At least Kant added that our supposedly subjective inner world was governed by rules.

[Jonathan13]

The solutions are to include as recreations of reality existents (relations, attributes, etc) rather than expecting strictly entities, and to cast architecture out of art. Rand did not opine on the first, and apparently did opt for the second.

That doesn't quite solve the problems.

First of all, there's still the problem of Rand's requirement that art must objectively communicate intelligible subjects and meanings. The act of including abstract "relations" and "attributes" as falling under the concept of "re-create reality" doesn't change the fact that relations and attributes do not convey information as objectively and precisely as Rand requires, and it doesn't change the fact that our responses to mere relations and attributes necessarily contain a lot of subjectivity.

When dealing with relations and attributes, what Rand said of music is true of all art forms: "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."

Therefore, unless you're also planning on jettisoning music and dance along with architecture (and possibly many realistic art forms which people -- Objectivists most emphatically included -- seem to have a lot of trouble with, such as still life paintings, poetry, etc.), then the requirements of objectivity and intelligibility must be dropped.

Secondly, Rand offered no support for her position that a work of art must not (or cannot) serve more than one purpose or function at once. Certainly there are cases in which utility can conflict with artistic expression, but it does not follow that they necessarily conflict.

So, before accepting Rand's position on utility impeding artistic expression, and therefore casting architecture out of art as you suggest, I think we'd first have to see it we can demonstrate that utility and art can exist in the same object without conflict.

Doing so is actually quite simple: Take a copy of Atlas Shrugged, and consecutively write a date at the top of each page. There, now we have a work of art which also has the utilitarian function of being a desktop calendar, and the utility does not interfere with the art or in any way limit its expressiveness or meaning. Or, let's take a bronze sculpture of a figure of a human confidently carrying a torch sculpted of amber, and then let's add a light bulb inside the amber shape of the flame, which we can turn on when we want to use it as a reading lamp. Again, now we have a work of art which combines artistic expression and utility without conflict.

Therefore Rand's requirement that art serve only one purpose is not warranted.

Also, since you're open to accepting abstract relations and attributes as "re-creations of reality," any conflict between art and utility becomes much less likely since relations and attributes need not conform to specific likenesses of things in reality, and are therefore much more flexible in their use -- they can be applied to almost any space or form with minimal effort. For example, do you want to portray, say, sturdy, masculine stockiness and angularity in order to communicate the concept of strength and confidence? If so, then those attributes can just as easily be applied to a car as they can to a building or toaster or an electric razor, and without conflicting with the utilitarian functions of those things.

J

[Jonathan13]

You and the Doctor did allude to some previous discussion so maybe the answer is there and I’m missing it...

Yes. If you want answers, read not only the posts on this thread, but follow the links that we've provided.

I would also suggest that you consider the facts that Kant did not invent the concept of Sublimity as being stimulated by the boundless or formless, or as being a reaction to threatening entities, and that all of Rand's novels contain the presentation of such formless, threatening entities as her signature aesthetic style.

J

Edited March 2, 2012 by Jonathan13

[Jonathan13]

I wish it were possible to post a picture here without having to draw it from a website, since I think one can definitely make the case that Frank Lloyd Wright's "Falling Water" conveys an openness to existence and a type of rational exuberance for embracing the earth and what it has to offer. It does this by having the balcony extend out horizontally without any visible means of support at the corners (the way it thrusts into space), and has a crisp clean look to it. And some buildings are just a downright mess, conveying the idea that reality is confusing and self-contradictory.

A beautiful building that is stylized conveys that the universe is open to man's understanding, a downright ugly building (self-contradictory in its stylization) conveys that reality is chaotic and not open to reason.

Those are subjective opinions. Beautiful and ugly to whom, and by what standard? Beauty and ugliness in art can be interpreted to mean many more things than what you've interpreted them to mean (while borrowing phrases from Rand).

In the Lexicon, Ayn Rand identifies "beauty" as harmony: "Beauty is a sense of harmony. Whether it’s an image, a human face, a body, or a sunset, take the object which you call beautiful, as a unit [and ask yourself]: what parts is it made up of, what are its constituent elements, and are they all harmonious? If they are, the result is beautiful. If there are contradictions and clashes, the result is marred or positively ugly."

The above is false. Contrast, dischord, conflict, tension, etc., can be very beautiful. It always amazes me that I have to explain, to Objectivists of all people, that a thing which stands out in sharp contrast against everything else can be much more beautiful than that which is harmonious.

J

[Jonathan13]

Yes. If you want answers, read not only the posts on this thread, but follow the links that we've provided.

I would also suggest that you consider the facts that Kant did not invent the concept of Sublimity as being stimulated by the boundless or formless, or as being a reaction to threatening entities, and that all of Rand's novels contain the presentation of such formless, threatening entities as her signature aesthetic style.

J

Oops. I meant to also include the fact that "modern artists" were specifically concerned with the beauty and expressiveness of the forms in their art. They were into Beauty and form, where, in contrast, only Kant's concept of Sublimity is what deals with formlessness -- his notion of Beauty refers to form.

As I've noted in the past here on OO:

Kamhi and Torres, from What Art Is: The Esthetic Theory of Ayn Rand, on the views of specific Modernist artists:

"...[Mondrian] claimed that 'the essence of art expresses or evokes our emotion of beauty.' Through his art of 'pure relationships,' he hoped to create a 'moving expression of beauty.'"(137)

"...Mondrian similarly claimed, in an earlier context, that the "fundamental function of art is to express beauty plastically." (394)

"Yet Frankenthaler, too, reveals the widespread 'obsess[ion] with the idea of Beauty' when she admits that what concerns her when she paints is not what her 'picture' represents but 'did [she] make a beautiful picture?'" (395)

"...Roger Kimball maintains that, although artists such as Kandinsky, Malevich and Mondrian heavily invested their work with earnest spiritual claims, 'their primary claim on our attention has always been an artistic [esthetic] claim: [w]e care chiefly about the beauty of their art' – and 'beauty remains the touchstone of art.'" (396)

Do you follow what I'm saying? "Modern art" is not based on Kant's concept of "formlessness" in Sublimity. It does not contain formlessness just because Thomas wants to call its forms "formless" because he gets nothing out of "modern art" and dislikes it. On the other hand, Rand's novels do contain formlessness, and specifically Kantian formless Sublimity.

J

Edited March 2, 2012 by Jonathan13

[Hairnet]

Doing so is actually quite simple: Take a copy of Atlas Shrugged, and consecutively write a date at the top of each page. There, now we have a work of art which also has the utilitarian function of being a desktop calendar, and the utility does not interfere with the art or in any way limit its expressiveness or meaning. Or, let's take a bronze sculpture of a figure of a human confidently carrying a torch sculpted of amber, and then let's add a light bulb inside the amber shape of the flame, which we can turn on when we want to use it as a reading lamp. Again, now we have a work of art which combines artistic expression and utility without conflict.

1) You example of Atlas Shrugged would be a book that is also a calendar, the paper is serving two utilitarian functions, recording the work of art, and recording a calendar. The novel itself is not provding a utilitarian function. A digital copy of atlas shrugged is on a computer which also serves utilitarian functions. That does not mean that Atlas Shrugged is serving a utilitarian function.

2) Adding a lightbuilb to a sculpture for the purpose of being a lamp could very easily interfere with the artistic value of the sculpture. Honestly that would just be extremely tacky. To the point where I don't even think "thats subjective" arguments hold any validity.

A good, thoughtful, artist is going to consider very carefully what kind of lighting he or she is going to incorporate into a work of art. She has to consider how the art is affected by the light. A who is designing a lamp has to consider how to cheaply an effectiviely light the average home owner's household.

It is possible that those two value orientaitions might overlap, but most of the time compromises will have to be made, and I think that is what Ayn Rand had a porblem with .A Skyscraper can't be a gian sculpture. So the comprmise is made and that is a problem for Ayn Rand. She thinks that an Architect can not operate as a pure artist.

[Thomas M. Miovas Jr.]

Beauty is not subjective, as 13 implies. It is a specific arrangement in reality that is consistent with itself in a certain context. A jumbled mess, as in some of the architecture I referred to, is not beautiful by any proper standard of beauty -- you may well like them, as some people like smears on canvas, but it is not beautiful. And it is interesting to note that several times in his treatise on aesthetics that Kant mentioned that beauty has no emotional reaction attached to it. If anything indicated his psychology and his position on art, that is one big factor. The only emotional response he alludes to is his treatment of the sublime, which requires feeling fear or confusion and then overcoming it with reason -- except he doesn't give many examples of this (I think he mentions feeling fear, and then realizing one is not in danger), so one cannot really tell what he is referring to since he doesn't refer to specific facts of reality -- in fact, he evades them like the plaque.

And this does make him evil by an objective standard. If man's life is the standard and a man must take the facts into account rationally in order to live his life, then such a wide-scale rejection of facts represents evasion on such a grand scale that he is evil, just for that, let alone his refusal to make any sense in anything he states. This confusing way in which he presents his philosophy is why we are having this debate in the first place. No, he doesn't come out and say only the formless ought to be in art, but since he thought that which we observe is not real reality and not existence, and he carried that through in his aesthetics, then he is responsible for a subjective rejection of existence leading to modern art.

There is only one existence, and that is the one we observe with our senses and comprehend by an objective organization of what we observe according to integrating similarities into proper concepts, valid inductions, and rational generalizations -- and Kant rejects all of this.

[Spiral Architect]

Yes. If you want answers, read not only the posts on this thread, but follow the links that we've provided.

I would also suggest that you consider the facts that Kant did not invent the concept of Sublimity as being stimulated by the boundless or formless, or as being a reaction to threatening entities, and that all of Rand's novels contain the presentation of such formless, threatening entities as her signature aesthetic style.

J

Not to derail the discussion but I have to stop you there. I honestly don’t see anything in Atlas Shrugged that I would consider formless. Even the wide raging fear or threat that the heroes experience at times has an identity to it and the novel is the process of identifying it properly then overcoming it. Yes, it starts big and unidentified but ends up small and pretty pathetic by the end when James Taggart breaks. I get where you are going with the fear some of the characters experience at the “unknown thing” that is destroying the world then overcoming that fear triumphantly at the end, but it isn’t a shapeless form. It is a very identifiable threat that the novel unlocks as you progress through it. That is part of the mystery (and more importantly the conflict being battled until the resolution). The threat does indeed have an identity however. Rand even goes so far as to have the various heroes move through that process at different stages to show when they grasp the issue and the impact it has on the primary protagonists (or how secondary characters are consumed by it since they don’t).

Now, if you want to say that her style moved from not identifying the principles at first and leaving them vague and “out there” so the reader moves with the hero to understanding and identifying them, well that is an interesting point. It’s a novel approach to her style. But I still have to reject that idea simply because the issues involved in her novels do have an identity and Rand is simply moving her stories from abstraction to concretizing the points involved. They have a form; she simply doesn’t fully reveal that form until the story demands it. Since her novels deal with philosophic issues it is understandable that is how the conflict would resolve. In fact, now that you brought it up, it seems natural that it would have to happen that way since her main themes are projecting ideas. The conflict is in the ideas and her stories focus on identifying them and overcoming them. If the bum at the beginning asked us “Who is John Galt” and Eddie gave the full answer none of us would have bothered to get off of page one.

One can see the form or identity of the ideas easily however on a second reading when one knows what the mystery is.

Was she subconsciously influenced in the approach by classical artists and possibly Kant? I doubt it since, as you say, Kant simply critiqued in new ways what other had already done. More so, an artist’s style usually develops over time in what they like and we know Rand loved to read. She probably read stories when she was young that were products of influences that also influenced Kant. I see a better direct relationship between Lovecraft or Howard with your description of Kant since they do feature protagonists fighting real objects as well as “formless” antagonists that are not identified. For example, Howard (whom I am a huge fan of incidentally) has his heroes fight real threats but in worlds of formless or oppressive evils that largely exist as an emotional reaction. Ultimately they are huge beacons of hope in a malevolent universe. That seems a better fit than Rand who made it a point to have her hero spend 80 pages of the entire novel identifying the world he lived in.

[Thomas M. Miovas Jr.]

For those of you defending the Kantian position on art: What does he say about art aside from the sublime and that beauty has no emotional reaction to it? What is his position on art. I will be reading more of the Critique over the weekend, but I'm curious as to what you think his position is on art?

[Thomas M. Miovas Jr.]

For those who assert that Kant did not create Dadaism and Cubism and Surrealism or other modern art movements, this may be correct in terms of specific aestheticians coming out and creating those specific movements. However, they are accepting Kant's basic premise of that which we observe with the senses is not real reality, and therefor anything goes so long as it is an offense to the senses. Besides, it is often the case that a certain philosophy will spread through intermediaries who will draw out the implications in a logical manner.This happened with Plato leading to the Dark Ages and Aristotle leading to The Enlightenment. It's not that Augustine was a Platonist (though one can make the case that he was a neo-Platonist), but rather that he took the fundamental approach to truth that Plato had (of ideas divorced from the perceptually self-evident) and making claims about existence and what is really real and what isn't. Plato was unaware of the Christian God, but Augustine incorporated Platonism with Christianity, leading to the Dark Ages. Similarly with Aristotle and the Age of Enlightenment, which came about through Aquinas and those who followed him, which was a new understanding of the objective approach (of understanding existence via the perceptually self-evident). Unfortunately, Aristotle was not the complete answer, and so it was open to skepticism, primarily through his theory of how man gains abstractions, and so a Kant could come along and blast it all based on that skepticism, and turn it all on its head. The point is that if one is going to accept the idea that the reality that we observe is a projection of the mind (Kant's "Copernican Revolution"), then it doesn't have to be taken seriously, even in art. So a painting of an apple is just trite according to Kant's followers, but empty smears on canvas is profound (precisely because it is not based on the perceptually self-evident).

[Thomas M. Miovas Jr.]

Here is an illustration in the visual arts of the principle illustrated above.Compare the two paintings below, and ask yourself which one better conveys the idea of a human boy and the life of a young boy:

Boy and Dog

Navigator

[Ninth Doctor]

The point is that if one is going to accept the idea that the reality that we observe is a projection of the mind (Kant's "Copernican Revolution"), then it doesn't have to be taken seriously, even in art.

Sounds like you have Kant mixed up with Berkeley.

[Thomas M. Miovas Jr.]

Sounds like you have Kant mixed up with Berkeley.

I don't think so. It was Berkeley who came up with the idea of "immaterialism" that what we observe is just an idea in our heads and that to be is to be perceived. Kant is not saying that the existence that we perceive is just an idea in our heads, he says that what we observe is governed by the structure of the mind (including his idea that causation is the mind imposing order on the universe). So, Kant would not say that existence is just an idea, he maintained that existence is formed by the human mind. There is a difference in perspective.

Added on Edit: Also, to Kant, there is a reality independent of human consciousness (the noumena) it's just that we cannot comprehend it based on evidence, since evidence (of the senses) is governed by the human mind's projection of the phenomena. So, I think he would disagree with Berkeley that phenomena is an idea alone, he would say that it is the human mind's imposition on the noumena.

Edited March 3, 2012 by Thomas M. Miovas Jr.

[Eiuol]

For those of you defending the Kantian position on art: What does he say about art aside from the sublime and that beauty has no emotional reaction to it? What is his position on art. I will be reading more of the Critique over the weekend, but I'm curious as to what you think his position is on art?

From what I see on wikipedia, Kant never said that there is no emotional reaction towards beauty, and in fact said that there most definitely is.

Since most of the discussion is about what Kant said about the sublime, I'm still wondering what he said about beauty. I understand Kant's *connections* to modern art as described, but that's different than what views he had about aesthetics, even if those views may be contradictory to what he said about epistemology.

[Thomas M. Miovas Jr.]

I only use the Wikipedia as a handy reference, but I never use it as the full authority on a subject, because of its open editing policy. Here is what Kant said about beauty in his own words (and similar things in the Critique of Judgement):

“**Emotion-a sensation where an agreeable feeling is produced merely by means of a momentary check followed by a more powerful outpouring of the vital force-is quite foreign to beauty**. Sublimity (with which the feeling of emotion is connected) requires, however, a different standard of estimation from that relied upon by taste. **A pure judgement of taste has, then, for its determining ground neither charm nor emotion, in a word, no sensation as matter of the aesthetic judgement.**” [**emphasis added**]

Emotion ... is quite foreign to beauty.

Added on edit: Here is the link to the Critique of Judgement online. Use your text search for the word "beauty" and see what he has to say. Here are a few more:

"Natural beauty may, therefore, be looked on as the presentation of the concept of formal, i. e., merely subjective, finality and natural ends as the presentation of the concept of a real, i.e., objective, finality. The former of these we estimate by taste (aesthetically by means of the feeling of pleasure), the latter by understanding and reason (logically according to concepts)."

"Agreeableness is a significant factor even with irrational animals; beauty has purport and significance only for human beings, i.e., for beings at once animal and rational (but not merely for them as rational-intelligent beings-but only for them as at once animal and rational); whereas the good is good for every rational being in general-a proposition which can only receive its complete justification and explanation in the sequel. Of all these three kinds of delight, that of taste in the beautiful may be said to be the one and only disinterested and free delight; for, with it, no interest, whether of sense or reason, extorts approval."

"Accordingly he will speak of the beautiful as if beauty were a quality of the object and the judgement logical (forming a cognition of the object by concepts of it); although it is only aesthetic, and contains merely a reference of the representation of the object to the subject; because it still bears this resemblance to the logical judgement, that it may be presupposed to be valid for all men. But this universality cannot spring from concepts. For from concepts there is no transition to the feeling of pleasure or displeasure (save in the case of pure practical laws, which, however, carry an interest with them; and such an interest does not attach to the pure judgement of taste). The result is that the judgement of taste, with its attendant consciousness of detachment from all interest, must involve a claim to validity for all men, and must do so apart from universality attached to objects, i.e., there must be coupled with it a claim to subjective universality."

And that is just a handful of references. He basically says that beauty doesn't have much if anything to do with what the object *is* but only our subjective response to it, and that such judgements are not rational unless a great many people agree to it as a universal subjective presentation. Compare this to Ayn Rand's objective definition of beauty (of consistency and a sense of harmony).

Edited March 3, 2012 by Thomas M. Miovas Jr.

[Thomas M. Miovas Jr.]

To those just reading emails regarding this topic, I edited my previous entry online to give multiple quotes from Kant on the term "beauty" by searching for that term in the Critique of Judgement online.

[Hairnet]

For those who assert that Kant did not create Dadaism and Cubism and Surrealism or other modern art movements, this may be correct in terms of specific aestheticians coming out and creating those specific movements. However, they are accepting Kant's basic premise of that which we observe with the senses is not real reality, and therefor anything goes so long as it is an offense to the senses. Besides, it is often the case that a certain philosophy will spread through intermediaries who will draw out the implications in a logical manner.This happened with Plato leading to the Dark Ages and Aristotle leading to The Enlightenment. It's not that Augustine was a Platonist (though one can make the case that he was a neo-Platonist), but rather that he took the fundamental approach to truth that Plato had (of ideas divorced from the perceptually self-evident) and making claims about existence and what is really real and what isn't. Plato was unaware of the Christian God, but Augustine incorporated Platonism with Christianity, leading to the Dark Ages. Similarly with Aristotle and the Age of Enlightenment, which came about through Aquinas and those who followed him, which was a new understanding of the objective approach (of understanding existence via the perceptually self-evident). Unfortunately, Aristotle was not the complete answer, and so it was open to skepticism, primarily through his theory of how man gains abstractions, and so a Kant could come along and blast it all based on that skepticism, and turn it all on its head. The point is that if one is going to accept the idea that the reality that we observe is a projection of the mind (Kant's "Copernican Revolution"), then it doesn't have to be taken seriously, even in art. So a painting of an apple is just trite according to Kant's followers, but empty smears on canvas is profound (precisely because it is not based on the perceptually self-evident).

Kant's basic premise was followed by a more important idea that our perceptions were governed by logical forms that accounted for the apparent reasonableness of reality. There are still rationalists to this day that follow in his footsteps in arguing this such as Wittgenstein and even Mises who would argue similar ideas. Given that some people later disagreed with Kant that our inner subjective world was necessarily governed by logic, does not mean that Kant was responsible in any way for their disagreements with him.

The basic premise in itself for subjectivism has been around far longer than Kant. You can find the case for it made thoughout the play Hamlet by the title character.

1) Kant was not the originator of the idea of subjectivism.

2) Kant tried to make subjectivism rational.

How is he responsible for irrationalist art such as Dadaism?

[Jonathan13]

Beauty is not subjective, as 13 implies. It is a specific arrangement in reality that is consistent with itself in a certain context. A jumbled mess, as in some of the architecture I referred to, is not beautiful by any proper standard of beauty -- you may well like them, as some people like smears on canvas, but it is not beautiful.

What's a "proper standard of beauty"? Apparently you mean that whatever you find to be beautiful is beautiful, and anyone who disagrees is wrong? If you feel that something is ugly, it's an objective fact of reality that it is ugly, and everyone on the planet could disagree, and that would just be proof to you of their irrationality? Your tastes are the universal objective standard of beauty?

And it is interesting to note that several times in his treatise on aesthetics that Kant mentioned that beauty has no emotional reaction attached to it.

He does not say that. You've only misinterpreted him as saying that.

Let me guess, you've misunderstood his use of the word "disinterest" to mean that we have "no emotional reaction to beauty"? If so, then that's not what his use of "disinterest" means. Instead, it means that our judgments of beauty are not based on any non-aesthetic, extraneous interests that we may have in the object in question. In other words, judgments of beauty do not derive from the viewer's having a desire for the object in question because it has, say, great monetary value, or because the viewer's boss's kid made it, or because it is something that the viewer can eat, or because it has some other use or pleasure that can be gotten out of it. Rather, we appreciate the pleasure of beauty even without having any use for the object. It is beautiful in itself, apart from any extraneous practical value that we may get from the object. Beauty does not derive from such extraneous interests. Understand?

If anything indicated his psychology and his position on art, that is one big factor. The only emotional response he alludes to is his treatment of the sublime, which requires feeling fear or confusion and then overcoming it with reason -- except he doesn't give many examples of this (I think he mentions feeling fear, and then realizing one is not in danger), so one cannot really tell what he is referring to since he doesn't refer to specific facts of reality -- in fact, he evades them like the plaque.

The "plaque"? Do you mean dental plaque?

By "one cannot tell what he is referring to," you actually mean that you cannot tell, right? I and millions of other people can easily tell what he's referring to.

And this does make him evil by an objective standard.

No, it only makes him evil by your subjective, misinformed standards. Why is believing in a devil so important to you? Is it because the belief instills in you such a strong passion to resist, and to feel your estate as exalted above it? Heh.

J

Edited March 3, 2012 by Jonathan13

[Jonathan13]

1) You example of Atlas Shrugged would be a book that is also a calendar, the paper is serving two utilitarian functions, recording the work of art, and recording a calendar. The novel itself is not provding a utilitarian function. A digital copy of atlas shrugged is on a computer which also serves utilitarian functions. That does not mean that Atlas Shrugged is serving a utilitarian function.

Good point. I hadn't thought of that.

So, let's try a different approach to combining a novel with utility.

Start with a novel which contains scenes which make reference to products. Say, there's an office worker using a Remington typewriter in one scene, for example. While the novel is being reviewed in galleys, the author is asked if she'd be willing to change the typewriter to a Smith Corona in exchange for a sum of money, as well as changing the brands of other products in other scenes. The brands of the products that characters use in her novel are irrelevant to the plot, so she takes the money, changes the names, and the novel serves its aesthetic purpose unimpeded by the utilitarian function of also being a mode of advertising.

2) Adding a lightbuilb to a sculpture for the purpose of being a lamp could very easily interfere with the artistic value of the sculpture.

Yes, it could interfere. It's also possible that it would not interfere. As I said earlier, utility can interfere with a work of art in some instances, but it doesn't follow that it must interfere in all instances. Logically, there are four potential results when combining art and utility: 1) The utility interferes with the art's function, 2) The art interferes with the utility's funtion, 3) The art and utility interfere with each other's functions, and 4) The art and utility do not interfere with each other's functions. And note that two of the above options allow for art to be combined with utility (when determining which things qualify as art, it isn't a concern that art interferes with utility -- it's only a concern that utility interferes with art).

2) Adding a lightbuilb to a sculpture for the purpose of being a lamp could very easily interfere with the artistic value of the sculpture. Honestly that would just be extremely tacky. To the point where I don't even think "thats subjective" arguments hold any validity.

I've seen many sculptures which incoporate elements like electric lighting, gas flames, motion, flowing water, etc., and they were anything but "tacky." Just because you feel very strongly that something is tacky doesn't make your judgment objective.

A good, thoughtful, artist is going to consider very carefully what kind of lighting he or she is going to incorporate into a work of art. She has to consider how the art is affected by the light.

Didn't you notice that I said that the figure is carrying a torch? You know, a flame? A source of light? See what I'm getting at? Within the "re-created reality" of the sculpture, the flame is a source of light, and therefore its emitting light cannot conflict with the art.

But let's go with yet another example. We start with a sculpture of Atlas holding a sphere. Then, along a sculpted circle of latitude, we cut the sphere in half, hollow out both halves, add a hinge, put the havles back together, and voila, we now have a work of art which is also a spherical cabinet in which we can hide valuables, and the utility does not impede the artistic expression.

A who is designing a lamp has to consider how to cheaply an effectiviely light the average home owner's household.

Seriously? You think that all lamp designers are concerned only with cheapness and efficiency, and they all target only the "average home owner" as their market?

It is possible that those two value orientaitions might overlap, but most of the time compromises will have to be made, and I think that is what Ayn Rand had a porblem with.

I don't agree that compromises have to be made "most of the time" when combinging art and utility, espcially when the art is abstract (as it is in architecture, music, etc.) and when the utility is flexible enough to pretty much handle any form or relationship (as it is in architecture). But, anyway, as I pointed out above, when there is a conflict between art and utility, it does not necessarily follow that the art must in some way be compromised, since it's also possible that the utility could be compromised instead, and when utility is compormised, it has no bearing on the object's qualifying as art.

(I've visited some of Frank Lloyd Wright's buildings, and have seen a few instances where the utility was compromised but the aesthetic effect was breathtaking and, in my opinion, worth the compromise to utility).

A Skyscraper can't be a gian sculpture.

Yes it can. A skyscpaper could be made to take almost any form, including realistic forms such as that of a human being. But most architects who see themselves as artists prefer to make their skyscrapers giant abstact sculptures.

So the comprmise is made and that is a problem for Ayn Rand. She thinks that an Architect can not operate as a pure artist.

Keep in mind that we don't know for sure that Rand actually changed her mind on the subject of architecture. We only have a report of a report that Binswanger said she did. As things stand, there have been no official announcements from the Estate or ARI about corrections to the Objectivist Esthetics.

Now, if Rand did change her mind, I'm interested in the consequences of her doing so. She spent decades of her life believing that architecture was art, and that it had very effectively and objectively communicated profound meaning to her. She called it "the most important of the arts," she wrote perhaps the world's most famous novel which portrayed its aesthetic value, and when writing about it in her philosophical works on aesthetics, she referred her readers to that novel as representing her philosophy's position on the subject in reality. After all of that, if she decided at the end of her life that she had been mistaken and that architecure is "primarily utilitarian," and that it is therefore impeded from conveying the aesthetic meaning that she had spent decades believing that it had, what does it say about her ability to distinguish between subjectivity and objectivity in aesthetics?

J

[Jonathan13]

Not to derail the discussion but I have to stop you there. I honestly don’t see anything in Atlas Shrugged that I would consider formless. Even the wide raging fear or threat that the heroes experience at times has an identity to it and the novel is the process of identifying it properly then overcoming it.

The notion of "formlessness" in the Sublime is not an attempt to claim that things have no form or identity, but that they present themselves as boundless, even if they are not. In other words, we are limited to perceiving only parts of the phenomenon in question at one time, and we cannot percieve the whole. We can, however, use our ability to reason, and to "get our minds around" our inability to perceive the whole, and to therefore recognize that it has a whole with a specific identity. The pleasure we derive from using our reason and from understanding that there is a whole is what Kant credits as being a cause of our experiencing the pleasure of the Sublime.

In other words, the grounds on which you attempt to oppose the idea of "formlessness" being the stimuli of the Sublimity are actually inadvertently grounds to support it: your use of reason to understand that phenomena which appear to be formless and infinite are actually limited and have a specific identity is exactly what happens when one is experiencing Kantian Sublimity.

J

[Jonathan13]

By the way, I think it's hilarious that Thomas is falsely asserting that Kant says that beauty has no emotional reaction attached to it, yet it is Objectivism which states that "emotions are not tools of cognition" and that they are "not a valid criterion of esthetic judgment," and that Thomas was insisting earlier that there has been too much focus on emotion in aesthetics in this discussion!

J

[Jonathan13]

For those of you defending the Kantian position on art...

Who has been "defending" Kant's position on art? I don't know about others here, but I've merely been explaining his views on certain aesthetic subjects which you've been distorting.

I'm also curious as to why you're so interested in attacking Kant through your misinterpretations rather than addressing Rand's errors and contradictions, which was the original purpose of this thread (which was split off by a moderator from a previous thread in which you challenged people to make their case for any errors that they believed existed in Objectivism -- which I've done). Misinterpreting and attacking Kant isn't an effective distraction. Hating on Kant doesn't do anything to address Objectivism's errors.

J