Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Kant and Aesthetics

Rate this topic


Thomas M. Miovas Jr.

Recommended Posts

Yes, but notice how Rand's definition of art as "selective recreation of reality according to an artist's metaphysical value judgments" does not require objective intelligibility as a criterion.

Doesn't Rand's definition include the requirement of objective intelligibility? Didn't she intend objective intelligibility to be contained in her use of the term "re-creation of reality"? She said that art presents "a selective re-creation of reality in terms needed by man’s cognitive faculty, which includes his entity-perceiving senses," and that it "fulfills the function of bringing man’s concepts to the perceptual level of his consciousness and allowing him to grasp them directly, as if they were percepts." She meant that if something doesn't present likenesses of things from reality, it is not objectively intelligible, no?

If the world is mysterious, random and unintelligible to an artist and he produces a work embodying that attitude then that is an artwork.

It is not logical to conclude that artworks which do not have objectively intelligible subjects and meanings by Rand's standards, such as works of architecture, dance, abstract paintings, music, poetry and realistic still life paintings, embody the belief that "the world is mysterious, random and unintelligible."

And as an aside Rand does claim that music presents objectively intelligible products to the mind in the form of melodies.

Found-object art also presents "objectively intelligible products to the mind." Abstract art does also, in the form of shapes, colors, textures, patterns and relationships which are objectively intelligible. Rand demonstrated this herself when she objectively identified the smears of paint on canvases as being smears of paint! In other words, just because we can objectively perceive and identify the fact that a melody exists does not mean that we have objectively identified a subject or meaning in the melody as Rand requires.

I have not decided how to phrase it yet. It must be narrower and would support at least by implication the objective intelligibility requirement.

I think that the requirement of objective intelligibility is a mistake because it is meaningless without supporting definitions and standards, and there are no objective definitions and standards. When it comes to art, what does "intelligibility" mean? Does it mean that the artist's intended meaning must be successfully communicated? If so, to whom must it communicate? To one other person? To all others persons? To a certain percentage of other persons? How would you propose that we actually test an artwork's intelligibility? What objective standards and measures would you propose? How would you go about objectively determining that a work of art failed to be intelligible versus that certain viewers or listeners failed to understand it? There are no objective solutions to these questions.

Aesthetics will parallel the situation in ethics. In ethics any object whatsoever of an action to gain or keep it is a value, but in Objectivism a proper value is objectively pro-life (surviving and thriving). In aesthetics any work whatsoever which is a "selective recreation of reality according to an artist's metaphysical value judgments" is art, but it would be inadequate to merely specify that the better artworks are the pro-life artworks. Aesthetics is not ethics and so "pro-life" is the wrong criterion for good art, and that is the point of Rand's theorizing about the epistemological functions of art. Rand writes "The different branches of art serve to unify man’s consciousness and offer him a coherent view of existence. Whether that view is true or false is not an esthetic matter. The crucially esthetic matter is psycho-epistemological: the integration of a conceptual consciousness."

Okay, so it sounds as if your structure of definitions would look something like this:

General Definition:

"Art is a selective re-creation of reality based on an artist's metaphysical value-judgements."

This general category would not include any normative demands about intelligibility, and therefore would include architecture, abstract art, music, dance, poetry, performance art, etc.

The New, Narrower Subcategory Definition (just a preliminary definition for now, still needs tweaking, but I think we both get the gist):

"Art is a selective re-creation of reality based on an artist's metaphysical value-judgements, and it must present objectively intelligible subjects and meanings so as to reflect what Objectivism holds is mankind's proper method of epistemological functioning."

This category would include only artworks which have been scientifically shown to present objectively intelligible subjects and meanings based on some yet-to-be-identified standards. Under this definition, very little would qualify as art. Architecture, abstract art, music, dance, poetry, performance art, etc. would all most likely be out. If the typical Objectivist is representative of the type of person to whom art must be intelligible, then even quite a lot of realistic paintings won't qualify -- perhaps even most realistic paintings won't qualify. Only certain forms of literature and drama are likely to qualify. The New, Narrower Subcategory Definition would really serve not much of purpose other than to strip the concept of "art" down to reflect Rand's personal literary tastes.

J

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"If other, more "modern" artists have chosen to abstract different aspects of reality for similar consideration, such as line, shape, and color, do I have any good reason for dismissing that out of hand?"

Well, here's one: if a four-year old can do it, it isn't in the same category as what was, for centuries, considered a demanding profession that required prodigious quantities of natural talent and ability, plus long and disciplined training. A four-year old could paint a Jackson Pollock...

A four-year-old could not paint a Pollock. I've seen adult Objectivist artists who can't paint a Pollock. They've tried to mock Pollock and to show how easy it is, but they've failed because they lack his understanding of color usage and graphic rhythm.

...but only Velasquez could paint a Velasquez. If you look at a Velasquez and a Jackson Pollock and see them as equal but different examples of fine art, then you have already drunk the koolaid.

No, I think that if you believe that your own personal lack of response to one art form or another is the standard of objectivity and of psychological health, then you're the one who has "drunk the Kool-Aid."

And, using your method, it must be true that the abstract lines, shapes, colors and relationships in architecture can't possibly qualify as art next to a Velasquez painting. After all, a four-year-old playing with wooden blocks can create structures that are no less objectively intelligible as art than buildings created by adult architects.

The emperor is wearing no clothes -- modern "art" is simply the visual expression of pure relativism...

Any kid can invent a melody, and his melody would be no less objectively meaningful than those of adult composers. Music is therefore pure relativism by your standards.

...no standards, no skill or talent required, and a sad reliance on shock to get noticed.

The fact that you may be incapable of recognizing certain talents and skills doesn't mean they don't exist.

J

Edited by Jonathan13
Link to comment
Share on other sites

"A four-year-old could not paint a Pollock."

I've taught art from the fourth grade level to adults. I assure you, anyone can paint a Pollock.

"I've seen adult Objectivist artists who can't paint a Pollock."

Any names? I only know of one self-styled "Objectivist artist", and he hasn't tried to paint a Pollock.

"No, I think that if you believe that your own personal lack of response to one art form or another is the standard of objectivity and of psychological health, then you're the one who has "drunk the Kool-Aid."

I don't claim that my "personal lack of response" is the standard of objectivity and of psychological health. Straw man.

"And, using your method, it must be true that the abstract lines, shapes, colors and relationships in architecture can't possibly qualify as art next to a Velasquez painting. After all, a four-year-old playing with wooden blocks can create structures that are no less objectively intelligible as art than buildings created by adult architects."

"My method"? What is my "method"? As for the rest of your statement, different art forms have differing criteria.

"Any kid can invent a melody, and his melody would be no less objectively meaningful than those of adult composers. Music is therefore pure relativism by your standards."

I don't agre with your premises. A kid whistling a melody of his own making is hardly on the same level as a Mozart -- unless, of course, that kid happens to be as gifted as Mozart was. And I don't agree that music is pure relativism at all.

The fact that you may be incapable of recognizing certain talents and skills doesn't mean they don't exist.

I've been a painter all my life. I know talent when I see it, no matter what particular style or genre it is exhibited in. And I am also quite capable of recognizing crap and mediocrity as well -- and much of modern "art" is just that -- pretentious crap. I will say that some of it can be considered "decorative" -- one might buy and display it because it has colors that please one's taste or matches one's decor.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I haven't been following this thread too closely, but one reason I back out of the discussion is that I see a lot of rationalism involved in the arguments that smears on canvas are indeed art, even though they do not fulfill Ayn Rand's criteria; and then it is proposed that we need two definitions, one for art and one for smears. There is more to art than just a re-creation of reality according to an artist's metaphysical value judgements. Art must also be a projection of the world as it might be and ought to be, and it must be intelligible. And Miss Rand was quite clear in explicit statements about modern art and why it doesn't qualify, except, perhaps, that it is a concretization of the witch doctor's psycho-epistemology. But a lot of that garbage (garbage, not art) isn't even that. When Pollock drips paint onto a canvas like a drop cloth, he is not making a statement about anything. He's just spitting in the face of art and civilization.

I'll probably write an essay on this topic over the weekend, but Ayn Rand's Romantic Manifesto along with her novels is the Objectivist aesthetics; and since aesthetics is a major branch of philosophy, to reject her integration of art is to reject Objectivism.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay, so it sounds as if your structure of definitions would look something like this:

General Definition:

"Art is a selective re-creation of reality based on an artist's metaphysical value-judgements."

This general category would not include any normative demands about intelligibility, and therefore would include architecture, abstract art, music, dance, poetry, performance art, etc.

The New, Narrower Subcategory Definition (just a preliminary definition for now, still needs tweaking, but I think we both get the gist):

"Art is a selective re-creation of reality based on an artist's metaphysical value-judgements, and it must present objectively intelligible subjects and meanings so as to reflect what Objectivism holds is mankind's proper method of epistemological functioning."

I think it might be interesting and productive to compare Rand’s definition of Art with Kant’s. Kant spends a lot of time defining, comparing and contrasting the Beautiful and the Sublime, and the main examples used are a flower (Beautiful), the starry sky (mathematical Sublime), and a storm (dynamical Sublime). But none of these are Art, by his definition. His definition is primarily a negative one, Art is not nature, not science, and not handicraft. Maybe Jonathan has a positive definition that adds up all the characteristics he mentions into a genus differentia form.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've taught art from the fourth grade level to adults. I assure you, anyone can paint a Pollock.

Show me proof. Show me video footage of four-year-olds achieving the graphic rhythm of a Pollock.

Any names? I only know of one self-styled "Objectivist artist", and he hasn't tried to paint a Pollock.

Here's one example. He failed miserably in his attempt to show that "anyone can Pollock."

I'll post more examples if I find them.

I don't claim that my "personal lack of response" is the standard of objectivity and of psychological health. Straw man.

I didn't say that you made such a claim. I was only suggesting that you act as if your own personal lack of response to one art form or another is the standard of objectivity and psychological health.

I don't agre with your premises. A kid whistling a melody of his own making is hardly on the same level as a Mozart -- unless, of course, that kid happens to be as gifted as Mozart was. And I don't agree that music is pure relativism at all.

You don't agree with my premises? So then are you saying that if I were to post a variety of melodies, some of which were created by kids, and some of which were created by professional composers, and I were to give you no access to any "outside considerations" (such as the names of the pieces of music or the names of the composers, etc.), you believe that you'd be able to identify which melodies were created by the children and which were created by the adults, and you believe that you'd be able to identify the "artists' meanings" in adults' compositions?

I've been a painter all my life. I know talent when I see it, no matter what particular style or genre it is exhibited in. And I am also quite capable of recognizing crap and mediocrity as well -- and much of modern "art" is just that -- pretentious crap. I will say that some of it can be considered "decorative" -- one might buy and display it because it has colors that please one's taste or matches one's decor.

With your listing of your teaching and painting experience, it sounds as if you want to be taken as an authority.

I did a quick search here on OO to see if you've posted samples of your work. I didn't see any, but I did find this post of yours interesting:

I'd have to see your work and judge it equal to those artists before I can take your assertion seriously. I've been a painter for over 40 years: what are your qualifications?

I feel exactly the same way: I'd need to see your work before taking any of your assertions seriously. Let's see what you've got.

I've been a painter all my life. I know talent when I see it, no matter what particular style or genre it is exhibited in. And I am also quite capable of recognizing crap and mediocrity as well -- and much of modern "art" is just that -- pretentious crap. I will say that some of it can be considered "decorative" -- one might buy and display it because it has colors that please one's taste or matches one's decor.

The above is a good example of what I'm talking about when I say that "you act as if your own personal lack of response to one art form or another is the standard of objectivity and psychological health." Your attempt to universalize your own lack of response by stating how "one" will respond to a work of art is hilarious.

J

Edited by Jonathan13
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it might be interesting and productive to compare Rand’s definition of Art with Kant’s. Kant spends a lot of time defining, comparing and contrasting the Beautiful and the Sublime, and the main examples used are a flower (Beautiful), the starry sky (mathematical Sublime), and a storm (dynamical Sublime). But none of these are Art, by his definition. His definition is primarily a negative one, Art is not nature, not science, and not handicraft. Maybe Jonathan has a positive definition that adds up all the characteristics he mentions into a genus differentia form.

That's probably a bigger can of worms than I have time for at the moment. However this post, in which I quoted Kamhi, might be of interest to you. Here's Kamhi:

Immanuel Kant's influential Critique of Judgment tended to shift the focus of aesthetics to more general questions of beauty and taste, relating them not only to the fine arts but also to other artifacts and to Nature as well. In doing so, he pursued concerns that had occupied British philosophers such as Lord Shaftesbury, Frances Hutcheson, and David Hume. Kant's most frequently quoted aesthetic dicta -- regarding beauty's "purposiveness without purpose," its "freedom from a concept," and the "disinterestedness" of aesthetic judgments -- pertain to sections of the Critique dealing with beauty and taste in general, not with art per se. As Ted Cohen and Paul Guyer ([1982] 1989, 309-10) have observed, these sections "are directed at objects of nature [not art], and this has made it singularly difficult for contemporary theorists to assimilate Kant's work, for they have read these passages as it Kant was talking about art. Only very recently has the philosophy of art begun to ... integrate Kant's actual insights about art."

Often overlooked in philosophic discussions of aesthetics has been the fact that in the sections of the Critique (43-53) in which Kant deals specifically with the (fine) arts, he observes, in part, that the value of a work depends not simply on its "beauty" but on its presenting what he terms "aesthetic Ideas" ([1790] 1957, 392-94). He seems to mean by this expression something like perceptual embodiments of important concepts -- much as Rand ([1965b] 1975, 20) holds that, through the "selective re-creation of reality," art "brings man's concepts to the perceptual level of his consciousness and allows him to grasp them directly, as if they were percepts." In Kant's words:

by an aesthetical Idea I understand that representations of the Imagination which ... cannot be completely compassed ... by language ... [and] is the counterpart (pendant) of a rational Idea ... The Imagination (as a productive faculty of cognition) is very powerful in creating another nature, as it were, out of the material that actual nature gives it ... ,and by it we remould experience, always in accordance with analogical laws ... Such representations of the Imagination we may call Ideas, partly because they at least strive after something which lies beyond the bounds of experience, and so seek to approximate to presentation of concepts of Reason (intellectual Ideas), thus giving to the latter the appearance of objective reality.6 ([1790] 1957, 426)

Although Kant included both Nature and art in his aesthetic considerations in the Critique of Judgment, therefore, it is clear that he viewed the two spheres as governed by somewhat different principles. And contrary to the implications of his propositions regarding beauty in general, his view of art seems to have incorporated a cognitive function similar to that postulated by Baumgarten. Much like Rand, for example, Kant distinguishes (44) between merely "agreeable art" (she called it "decorative") -- which functioned on the level of immediate "sensations" -- and "fine art," which served to stimulate reflective thought. Such crucial distinctions have too often been ignored by both critics and aestheticians."

J

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Kant had no objective definition of art or anything at all. His ideas, if one wants to call them that, did not refer to the facts of reality. Everything in Kant comes down to subjective impressions, which leads to modern art. It was the lack of objective definitions and clearly identified objective criteria that lead to the modern art movement. Anything goes because no one can define art. Well, Ayn Rand did just that, and so the farce is over. Some people will be dragged kicking and screaming when their garbage is not considered art, but that is the way it goes.

By the way, there is another criteria for art that I forgot to mention in my last post, and that is that art must concretize an abstraction -- it must make an idea real on the perceptually given level. In fact, this is the primary purpose for art, due to the nature of man's consciousness. And this means that the meaning of the artwork must be fairly clear, up front, and out in the open. So that "statue" of the Warrior Shield does not qualify as art because there isn't anything objective about it (nothing clear to perception) that illustrates anything about any warriors. It doesn't convey anything about being a warrior in its shape and texture.

Regarding the visual arts such as painting, Miss Rand was very clear that paintings had to be paintings of objects because we observe the world in terms of entities and their attributes, and any conceptual meaning of the art work must be conveyed in the perceptually self-evident manner, which means it must be paintings of entities and their attributes arranged in such a way to convey the abstraction (the idea that is being conveyed).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Show me proof. Show me video footage of four-year-olds achieving the graphic rhythm of a Pollock."

I've never assigned any such project, so no video exists. My assertion is based on my considerable experience with teaching kids and adults, and their abilities -- granted, a variety of natural abilities exist, but if given a bit of guidance, I have no doubt that anyone could paint a Pollock.

"Here's one example. He failed miserably in his attempt to show that "anyone can Pollock."

So this guy is an Objectivist artist? Where does it state that? Anyway, I wouldn't say that he "failed miserably" -- far from it. It could be taken for a Pollock, especially one of his looser, dribblier works.

"I didn't say that you made such a claim. I was only suggesting that you act as if your own personal lack of response to one art form or another is the standard of objectivity and psychological health."

That's quite a stretch, especially given that I haven't posted that much on this subject. But yet you claim to have knowledge of how I act -- amazing!

"So then are you saying that if I were to post a variety of melodies, some of which were created by kids, and some of which were created by professional composers, and I were to give you no access to any "outside considerations" (such as the names of the pieces of music or the names of the composers, etc.), you believe that you'd be able to identify which melodies were created by the children and which were created by the adults...."

You need to pay attention to what I actually write. I did not make the distinction between children and adults, I made the distinction between a kid whistling a melody of his own making and a Mozart (unless, as I stated, the kid happened to be as gifted as Mozart). I have no doubt that some kid's melodies would be far preferable to than the "work" of some adult composers who operate on the same level as modern visual artists -- garbage, in other words (John Cage's 4'33", for example). With that exception aside, yes, I could tell the difference between a composition of some kid and a Mozart.

"and you believe that you'd be able to identify the "artists' meanings" in adults' compositions?"

Where do you get that from? I didn't claim any such thing.

"With your listing of your teaching and painting experience, it sounds as if you want to be taken as an authority."

Gee, ya think?? Honestly, it's a matter of common sense: if I want to know more about current trends and thinking in eye surgery, I regard the opinion of eye surgeons of more value than, say, a neighbor's whose field is mathematics. If I want informed opinions about playing music, I will ask a professional musician, not a wanna-be.

"I feel exactly the same way: I'd need to see your work before taking any of your assertions seriously. Let's see what you've got."

Sorry, but I don't have anything online. But to be frank, your opinion of my work would be of no importance to me whatsoever anyway, as anyone who regards Pollock as a serious, talented artist is one whose assessements are warped and worthless.

"The above is a good example of what I'm talking about when I say that "you act as if your own personal lack of response to one art form or another is the standard of objectivity and psychological health." Your attempt to universalize your own lack of response by stating how "one" will respond to a work of art is hilarious."

Whatever. Laugh away. Personally, I put more value on the opinions of those who are skilled in their fields, and I don't have any time for the musings of wanna-be artists and theorists. (To quote Leonardo da Vinci: "The supreme tragedy is when theory outstrips performance".)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here is an extended quote from Kant to back up my previous posting:

SS 38. Deduction of judgements of taste.

Admitting that in a pure judgement of taste the delight in the

object is connected with the mere estimate of its form, then what we

feel to be associated in the mind with the representation of the

object is nothing else than its subjective finality for judgement.

Since, now, in respect of the formal rules of estimating, apart from

all matter (whether sensation or concept), judgement can only be

directed to the subjective conditions of its employment in general

(which is not restricted to the particular mode of sense nor to a

particular concept of the understanding), and so can only be

directed to that subjective factor which we may presuppose in all

men (as requisite for a possible experience generally), it follows

that the accordance of a representation with these conditions of the

judgement must admit of being assumed valid a priori for every one. In

other words, we are warranted in exacting from every one the

pleasure or subjective finality of the representation in respect of

the relation of the cognitive faculties engaged in the estimate of a

sensible object in general*.

*In order to be justified in claiming universal agreement an

aesthetic judgement merely resting on subjective grounds, it is

sufficient to assume: (1) that the subjective conditions of this

faculty of aesthetic judgement are identical with all men in what

concerns the relation of the cognitive faculties, there brought into

action, with a view to a cognition in general. This must be true, as

otherwise men would be incapable of communicating their

representations or even their knowledge; (2) that the judgement has

paid regard merely to this relation (consequently merely to the formal

condition of the faculty of judgement), and is pure, i.e., is free

from confusion either with concepts of the object or sensations as

determining grounds. If any mistake is made in this latter point, this

only touches the incorrect application to a particular case of the

right which a law gives us, and does not do away with the right

generally.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

By the way, the continued attempts of 13 via whoever he is quoting to say there is a general agreement between Kant and Ayn Rand regarding the nature of art drops the entire context of Kant's version of ideas (that have nothing to do with reality) and Ayn Rand's objective approach to ideas and the observed nature of reality. To Kant, that which one observed is just a subjective impression, not an observation of existence qua Ayn Rand.

Added on edit: To Kant, an idea or a pure idea or pure reason doesn't have anything to do with that which we observe and does not come from that which we observe quite contrary to Ayn Rand. So, the ideas he might believe are expressed in pure art or his aesthetical ideas are not something like the painting of an apple concretizing the idea of the apple (the concept made physical) as Miss Rand explains it in The Romantic Manifesto. But, again,I must emphasize that Kant gives no references to the perceptually self-evident to clarify what the hell he is talking about.

Edited by Thomas M. Miovas Jr.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's the kicker and the real relationship between Kant's Critique of Judgement and modern art: If that which we observe with our senses is just a subjective experience (see above) then a painting of this subjective experience (the apple) is not an objective aesthetic painting. To be truly objective would require grasping reality other than how we observe it subjectively-- that is, a true art painting or a pure painting would have to be a painting of something *other than* that which we observe. And this is modern art.

Edited by Thomas M. Miovas Jr.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've never assigned any such project, so no video exists. My assertion is based on my considerable experience with teaching kids and adults, and their abilities -- granted, a variety of natural abilities exist, but if given a bit of guidance, I have no doubt that anyone could paint a Pollock.

That's what I thought. Your position is that you have no proof that four-year olds can create the equivalent of a Pollock, but that you should be taken as an authority because you assert, also without any proof, that you have "considerable experience."

So this guy is an Objectivist artist? Where does it state that?

http://rebirthofreas...rticles/Malcom/

He's also a member here at OO:

http://beta.objectiv...p?showuser=5060

Anyway, I wouldn't say that he "failed miserably" -- far from it. It could be taken for a Pollock, especially one of his looser, dribblier works.

It could be taken by you to be a Pollock, and by people who share your tastes and level of knowledge.

That's quite a stretch, especially given that I haven't posted that much on this subject. But yet you claim to have knowledge of how I act -- amazing!

Yeah, I have knowledge of how you act based on observing how you act. It's really not that amazing of a feat for me to have that knowledge.

Gee, ya think?? Honestly, it's a matter of common sense: if I want to know more about current trends and thinking in eye surgery, I regard the opinion of eye surgeons of more value than, say, a neighbor's whose field is mathematics. If I want informed opinions about playing music, I will ask a professional musician, not a wanna-be.

There are many professional artists, including artists who can paint very realistically, who disagree with your opinions about the level of talent required to create abstract art, so your position really comes down to your choosing to agree with those professionals who share your position. Not very objective or rational. It's what's known as confirmation bias.

Sorry, but I don't have anything online.

It's very easy these days to post images online. It should be extremely easy for a visual arts authority.

But to be frank, your opinion of my work would be of no importance to me whatsoever anyway, as anyone who regards Pollock as a serious, talented artist is one whose assessements are warped and worthless.

That sounds like a copout to me. I think you're bluffing. Are you afraid that posting samples of your work will reveal how little you know, and that I'll be able to point to your work and clearly identify, for all to see, the areas in which you lack knowledge?

Whatever. Laugh away. Personally, I put more value on the opinions of those who are skilled in their fields, and I don't have any time for the musings of wanna-be artists and theorists. (To quote Leonardo da Vinci: "The supreme tragedy is when theory outstrips performance".)

My, you're full of bluff and bluster! And you're projecting. You are the "wanna-be artist and theorist," not to mention a wanna-be authority.

Anyway, you can see samples of my work here (which were created using my "warped and worthless" aesthetic sensibilities):

http://www.objectivi...topic=1972&st=0

And here are a couple more:

http://farm1.staticf..._4908ddcffe.jpg

http://farm1.staticf..._84cde659b9.jpg

J

Link to comment
Share on other sites

By the way, the continued attempts of 13...

Thomas, you keep announcing that you're done and fed up and disgusted, yet you keep coming back with your wrongheaded interpretations of Kant. You're just not grasping anything. As I and others have observed, it's as if you need to believe in a demon. It's as if you believe that wishing Kant to be what you want him to be will make it true. Let it go, bud. Being as frantic as you are over Kant can't be good for you.

J

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Based on the few quotes that 13 has provided by Kamhi, I have to conclude that Kamhi is completely dishonest, a lier, and a cheat, who is dropping the context between Kant's philosophy and Ayn Rand's philosophy in order to present the conclusion that they really weren't saying anything different from one another. And 13, at the very least, has fallen for such pseudo-arguments. No, I don't care to discuss Kant or aesthetics with 13, but there still are some honest people on oo.net and those are the people I seek to reach.

Now, what is the difference between Kant and Ayn Rand in general and as these ideas relate to art?

Kant held that our perceptual experience of existence is mere subjective and stems from a priori ideas (innate ideas, ideas prior to experience and thinking) making our experience of existence mere subjective (stemming from the subject, the observer). In order to experience something beautiful in observation, like a sunset, Kant held that we have a prior aesthetical ideas that govern what we experience. He held that due to the fact that we can communicate the sunset with others that there is a type of universal subjectivity, but that matters of aesthetics is really just a subjective experience. Hence there is no objective criteria for that which is beautiful (objective here meaning apart from the subject, something from reality per se). Since there is no objective criteria for beauty as such in nature, then there is no objective criteria for things made by man, such as art. Hence, anything goes so long as the artist can claim to be objective apart from what we observe. That is, so long as the supposed artist is presenting something other than that which we observe, he can claim objectivity regarding his supposed artwork.

Ayn Rand is totally different. There are no a priori ideas. Man is born tabula rasa and has no innate ideas and one's ideas do not govern that which one observes. What we observe is not a subjective experience, but rather is objective, meaning that while it is true that we can see red because we have eyes and neurological optical pathways of a specific type, this does not make vision a subjective experience and what one observes is not conditioned or based upon a priori ideas. We observe that which exists and our experience of existence is objective precisely because we have the type of body that we have and are aware of existence via sense perception. Our ideas stem from or are created from thinking about that which we observe (there are no a priori ideas already there prior to experience). Hence, an objective idea is one that is based upon that which we observe, based upon existence, so long as one follows a rational epistemology -- based on the facts of reality in an mentally organized fashion based upon the observation of similarities. This gives rise to objective ideas in all areas of life, including art. She outlined her objective criteria for art in her The Romantic Manifesto and demonstrated her means of creating art in her novels. The primary purpose of art is to bring ideas down to the perceptually self-evident -- in other words, to give factual evidence for the idea in material form (i.e say a painting or a statue or a novel), which means that art must conform to both existence and the nature of human consciousness to be objective.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"That's what I thought. Your position is that you have no proof that four-year olds can create the equivalent of a Pollock, but that you should be taken as an authority because you assert, also without any proof, that you have "considerable experience."

Well, that's the Internet for you -- one can assert just about anything, and obviously there's no way to "prove" the truth of it. I can't "make" you believe what I'm saying, and if you want to believe that I'm just making up my experience, you go ahead. But there's no point in discussing anything with anyone who won't grant you the willingness to take you at your word.

"He's also a member here at OO":

Thanks for the links. I'm not at all familiar with the guy, or his work. By the way, I'm not an Objectivist -- I was only asking whether or not he was an Objectivist because you had used the term "Objectivist artists" and I didn't see that stated on the link you had initially provided.

"It could be taken by you to be a Pollock, and by people who share your tastes and level of knowledge."

Here you display a trait quite common amongst modern art apologists -- elitism. When a person states that the emperor is wearing no clothes, the typical response is to attack the person's ability to see and understand the garbage in question. And it works, most of the time -- no one wants to be considered a Philistine, and most people are intimidated by the so-called "experts" in the field of the arts. A person has to be brainwashed to believe that Pollock's work has any real value, or that one Pollock can be "better" than another Pollock. Or that similar scribblings by a four-year old can be shown to be far, far below whatever level Pollock is alleged to have achieved.

"It's really not that amazing of a feat for me to have that knowledge."

You know next to nothing about me.

"It's very easy these days to post images online. It should be extremely easy for a visual arts authority."

No doubt. However, I am a bit of a Luddite, nor have I had any need to post images online.

"That sounds like a copout to me. I think you're bluffing. Are you afraid that posting samples of your work will reveal how little you know, and that I'll be able to point to your work and clearly identify, for all to see, the areas in which you lack knowledge?"

No. And if you think Pollock's paintings have any worth, your ability to point out anything is questionable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

She outlined her objective criteria for art in her The Romantic Manifesto and demonstrated her means of creating art in her novels. The primary purpose of art is to bring ideas down to the perceptually self-evident -- in other words, to give factual evidence for the idea in material form (i.e say a painting or a statue or a novel), which means that art must conform to both existence and the nature of human consciousness to be objective.

Yes, Rand outlined her objective criteria for art, and then she proceeded to ignore those criteria and to contradict them by accepting forms such as music, dance and architecture as art. Those art forms do not meet her criteria. They "must be treated as a subjective matter" because they are largely subjective by their nature.

J

Edited by Jonathan13
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, that's the Internet for you -- one can assert just about anything, and obviously there's no way to "prove" the truth of it. I can't "make" you believe what I'm saying, and if you want to believe that I'm just making up my experience, you go ahead. But there's no point in discussing anything with anyone who won't grant you the willingness to take you at your word.

I don't think that you're "making up" your experience. I just think that you have an exaggerated appraisal of what that experience adds up to. You imagine that you're an authority. That's quite common in the arts, especially among teachers (what's the old saying? "Those who can, do, and those who can't, teach"?). People often have a very over-inflated opinion of their own abilities, tastes and jugdments. It's always interesting to see what happens when such people are challenged to back up their self-assessments with evidence.

Here you display a trait quite common amongst modern art apologists -- elitism.

You're posing was a visual arts authority while refusing to post samples of your work, and you have the gall to accuse me of elitism? Heh.

When a person states that the emperor is wearing no clothes, the typical response is to attack the person's ability to see and understand the garbage in question. And it works, most of the time -- no one wants to be considered a Philistine, and most people are intimidated by the so-called "experts" in the field of the arts.

Ah, so others are only so-called "experts," but you're the real deal?

Anyway, it's not an issue of intimidation. The fact that you may feel intimidated by others' ability to see in art what you can't, and by their attempts to explain to you what you're missing, doesn't mean that their intention is to intimidate you.

What Rand said about music is true of other abstract 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. He experiences it as an indivisible whole, he feels as if the magnificent exaltation were there, in the music, and he is helplessly bewildered when he discovers that some men do experience it and some do not."

So, you're not a brave hero who is pointing out that others are delusional and that the emperor has no clothes. Rather, you're an average person who doesn't respond to certain works of art, just as Rand describes some men as not responding to certain music. The only differences from Rand's statement are that I'm not "helplessly bewildered" that you don't experience what I do, and that you seem to be quite upset by the notion that someone might be able to experience what you can't.

A person has to be brainwashed to believe that Pollock's work has any real value, or that one Pollock can be "better" than another Pollock. Or that similar scribblings by a four-year old can be shown to be far, far below whatever level Pollock is alleged to have achieved.

You don't know what you're talking about.

You know next to nothing about me.

Indeed. But I do know, from reading what you've written here, that you're very emotionally invested in this issue, and that you're very upset about the idea of others having more knowledge and sensitivity to the visual arts than you do, and that you're so enraged by it that you have to accuse others of being "brainwashed" and such. Very defensive and angry.

No doubt. However, I am a bit of a Luddite, nor have I had any need to post images online.

Bluffing. I smell fear. Anyway, it doesn't really matter. I've called your bluff, you folded. So much for your claim of authority.

No. And if you think Pollock's paintings have any worth, your ability to point out anything is questionable.

Oh, trust me, I'd be able to give you quite a detailed and informed critique of your work. I suspect that in critiquing your work, I'd even be able to teach you several things that you're currently completely unaware of.

J

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anyway, you can see samples of my work here (which were created using my "warped and worthless" aesthetic sensibilities):

http://www.objectivi...topic=1972&st=0

And here are a couple more:

http://farm1.staticf..._4908ddcffe.jpg

http://farm1.staticf..._84cde659b9.jpg

Y'all know by now that I don't know much about art, but it ought to be said somewhere here that this is some striking and beautiful work, Jonathan. I had no idea.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anyway, you can see samples of my work here (which were created using my "warped and worthless" aesthetic sensibilities):

http://www.objectivi...topic=1972&st=0

And here are a couple more:

http://farm1.staticf..._4908ddcffe.jpg

http://farm1.staticf..._84cde659b9.jpg

J

If you can do artwork like those, which are extremely good, and yet defend someone like Pollock and other non-objective artists, then you are betraying your own talent. That someone has a subjective experience with regard to falsely called "abstract art" does not make it art. And, besides, Miss Rand was quite clear in The Romantic Manifest of why music, dance, and architecture is art.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you can do artwork like those, which are extremely good, and yet defend someone like Pollock and other non-objective artists, then you are betraying your own talent.

Ugh, you may as well deride Leonard Bernstein for giving lectures about Schoenberg, when he could have been writing more hits.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J2lxbOyTX9c

BTW I've told Jonathan before that in spite of spending a good amount of time in front of different Pollock's, for example at MOMA, that they do nothing for me, I don't get it, etc. It didn't seem to bug him in the least. If someone, particularly a non-musician, tells me Schoenberg's Survivor from Warsaw doesn't connect with them, it's no biggie in my book. If they start saying it's evil (or anything like that), my opinion of them has got to move at least one notch in the direction of dumbass.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ayn Rand made it very clear, both in Atlas Shrugged and in her other writings, that it was the rationally talented individuals who gave credence to the non-rational non-talented people who has made our culture such a mess that it is. No, I don't think Bernstein ought to give lectures on non-music for the sake of spreading the idea that it is really music, as if it just needs to be understood. It's rubbish and belongs in the ashcan. Music is a bit more difficult to talk about because there is no objective language to convey music. Right now, it is more of an individual experience thing, though obviously most people can tell when a piece of music is happy or sad or flowing well or stuccotic and meaningless noise. However, there is no such difficulty with the arts that are clearly done in a medium that can and ought to depict objects (entities and their attributes), such as paintings and sculpture. Visual atonality (an offense to the senses as Kant promotes) is not art. Yes, at times it can be used to convey confusion and formlessness and chaos, but these are not objects of existence as existence is totally causal.

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...