Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Romantic Realism vs Socialist Realism

Rate this topic


Kate87

Recommended Posts

And there are also ancient works of art which show working class people heroically struggling in the name of the state. The fact that they are coincidentally fully consistent with socialist realism doesn't make them socialist realism.

No, there aren't. But if there were, than that's exactly what that would make them.

Would you mind providing some quotes and cites?

I don't plan on doing that. It would probably be a pain in the ass.

Edited by Nicky
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, there aren't.

So, now you're claiming that you've studied the history of art to the point of knowing with absolute certainty that there are no ancient works of art, none whatsoever, which show working class people struggling in the name of the state?

If you know art history well enough to make such a claim, then I'd assume that you must have some degrees in art and art history. From which institutions did you earn your degrees?

But if there were, than that's exactly what that would make them.

Heh. Okay, then socialist realism has been around much longer than romantic realism, and it therefore cannot be an imitation of romantic realism. QED.

I don't plan on doing that. It would probably be a pain in the ass.

Then it has not been shown to be true that Rand called Les Miserable a romantic realist novel.

J

Edited by Jonathan13
Link to comment
Share on other sites

But I am not interested in the propaganda aspect. All three are identical in visual artistic essentials. Why? And what does this say about Rand's definition of art?

They are forms of realism, which means they are representative and emphasize humans rather than objects. Here is David's Oath of the Horatii, which is in the neo-classical style and also a form of realism. All of these forms of realism are holdovers or remnants of the European Enlightenment period.

dav_oath.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, now you're claiming that you've studied the history of art to the point of knowing with absolute certainty that there are no ancient works of art, none whatsoever, which show working class people struggling in the name of the state?

If you know art history well enough to make such a claim, then I'd assume that you must have some degrees in art and art history. From which institutions did you earn your degrees?

I graduated the IID.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They are forms of realism, which means they are representative and emphasize humans rather than objects. Here is David'sOath of the Horatii, which is in the neo-classical style and also a form of realism. All of these forms of realism are holdovers or remnants of the European Enlightenment period.

dav_oath.jpg

200px-Students_pledging_allegiance_to_the_American_flag_with_the_Bellamy_salute.jpg

@Kate87 Bless you for pointing out the obvious and being insistent about it. It's remarkable that this is the first time (recorded) that this issue has been discussed in this forum. I am certain it's not the first time it has been discussed among Objectivists and Ayn Rand fans in the last 60 years.

@Grames. Thanks for the first correct and honest answer.

The resistance to this obviously legitimate question is probably explained because Objectivism does have some aspects or veins that can be rightly compared to Socialism and Fascism, and until Grames replied everyone was too unsecure of Objectivism to be able to defend it.

In the Oath of the Horatii we see each Horace saluting standing up with their palm down, and their arm bend up high and straight.

This is the Roman Salute or Ave (hail) which contrasts to the Asian and Christian bow, the lowering of the head and facing up of the palms, as in asking for pity or pardon (demonstrating submission and humility). Because of some random historical and cultural factors these last generations conjure up German Nazi imagery when witnessing this salute, but the salute itself is not more German than American, with its origin being Rome and its ultimate expansion the whole World. It is, again, simply the opposite of the bow or kowtow.

And wasn't standing up instead of kneeling or bowing, the essence of what Ayn Rand built in her Heroes?

I'd say this posture is what Fascism, Objectivism and Utopian Socialism have in common. Being irrationally defensive on the question of being influenced by Nietzsche is another thing the three philosophies have in common.

But why is this style of art conjures up images of Socialist or Fascist art as much as the Hail?

Probably because it's evolution was stunted (or spared) by the prohibition of experimentation with surrealism and abstract art , and other 'returns to the primitive' that Einstein and the Theory of Relativity allowed for.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hmm.. this is what I got from a google images search:

Socialist realism: Women are dressed conservatively (as peasants), working side by side with men, caring for the ill, and smiling.. Children are held by Stalin, presenting him with flowers, holding umbrellas for workers, riding bikes, laughing and looking happy.. Men look dedicated to their jobs, completely absorbed in work, dressed in soldiers uniforms, saluting.

Romantic realism: Women are often naked and in provocative poses, wearing bit hats, much more feminine looking.. Landscapes are detailed and dreamy.. Children and women are lying around, reading, picking flowers, laying in boats, eating fresh fruit, taking baths.

Socialist art seems to depit people working toiling together, whereas romantic art shows people who are relaxed, half naked, and lazing around in the sunshine.

Edited by mdegges
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the Oath of the Horatii we see each Horace saluting standing up with their palm down, and their arm bend up high and straight.

This is the Roman Salute or Ave (hail) which contrasts to the Asian and Christian bow

The Oath of the Horatii is a French painting from the 18th century. There is no such thing as the Roman Salute, it's a made up thing, part of Nazi mythology.

The Romans did not greet each other in that way. There is no mention or depictions of such greetings anywhere in the vast Roman literature and art.

In the Oath of the Horatii we see each Horace saluting standing up with their palm down, and their arm bend up high and straight.

This is the Roman Salute or Ave (hail) which contrasts to the Asian and Christian bow, the lowering of the head and facing up of the palms, as in asking for pity or pardon (demonstrating submission and humility).

Asians don't bow with their palms facing up. They bow with their palms at their side or in their lap (women).

And bowing was just as much a custom in Europe as it was in Asia. Not a religious custom either (that's kneeling).

Being irrationally defensive on the question of being influenced by Nietzsche is another thing the three philosophies have in common.

In what specific way is Objectivism influenced by Nietzsche?

Edited by Nicky
Link to comment
Share on other sites

200px-Students_pledging_allegiance_to_the_American_flag_with_the_Bellamy_salute.jpg

@Kate87 Bless you for pointing out the obvious and being insistent about it. It's remarkable that this is the first time (recorded) that this issue has been discussed in this forum. I am certain it's not the first time it has been discussed among Objectivists and Ayn Rand fans in the last 60 years.

@Grames. Thanks for the first correct and honest answer.

The resistance to this obviously legitimate question is probably explained because Objectivism does have some aspects or veins that can be rightly compared to Socialism and Fascism, and until Grames replied everyone was too unsecure of Objectivism to be able to defend it.

In the Oath of the Horatii we see each Horace saluting standing up with their palm down, and their arm bend up high and straight.

This is the Roman Salute or Ave (hail) which contrasts to the Asian and Christian bow, the lowering of the head and facing up of the palms, as in asking for pity or pardon (demonstrating submission and humility). Because of some random historical and cultural factors these last generations conjure up German Nazi imagery when witnessing this salute, but the salute itself is not more German than American, with its origin being Rome and its ultimate expansion the whole World. It is, again, simply the opposite of the bow or kowtow.

And wasn't standing up instead of kneeling or bowing, the essence of what Ayn Rand built in her Heroes?

I'd say this posture is what Fascism, Objectivism and Utopian Socialism have in common. Being irrationally defensive on the question of being influenced by Nietzsche is another thing the three philosophies have in common.

But why is this style of art conjures up images of Socialist or Fascist art as much as the Hail?

Probably because it's evolution was stunted (or spared) by the prohibition of experimentation with surrealism and abstract art , and other 'returns to the primitive' that Einstein and the Theory of Relativity allowed for.

I’ve read it three times and I’m coming up boxcars on what I’m supposedly evading or how Nietzsche’s work is essential to or a precondition for the three mentioned philosophies. What am I missing here?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

. . .

Artworks don't necessarily qualify as "romantic realism" under Objectivism's usage of the term just because an artist says that his art is "romantic realism." I think it's highly unlikely that Rand would agree that the samples that you posted above are examples of what she meant by the term. I think she'd call them something like "false romanticism," "fantasy symbolism" or "propagandistic heroism."

True.

Helmholtz writes in On the Sensations of Tone:

Beauty is subject to laws and rules dependent on the nature of human intelligence. . . . Art works with design, but the work of art ought to have the appearance of being undesigned, and must be judged on that ground. Art creates as imagination pictures, regularly without conscious law, designedly without conscious aim. A work, known and acknowledged as the product of mere intelligence, will never be accepted as a work of art, however perfect be its adaptation to its end. Whenever we see that conscious reflection has acted in the arrangement of the whole, we find it poor.

So fühlt man Absicht und man ist verstimmt.

(We feel the purpose, and it jars upon us.)

[Goethe’s Tasso, Act 2, Scene 1]

And yet we require every work of art to be reasonable, and we show this by subjecting it to a critical examination, and by seeking to enhance our enjoyment and our interest in it by tracing out the suitability, connection, and equilibrium of all its separate parts. . . . Our endeavor to comprehend the beauty of such a work by critical examination, in which we partly succeed, shows that we assume a certain adaptation to reason in works of art, which may possibly rise to a conscious understanding, although such understanding is neither necessary for the invention nor for the enjoyment of the beautiful. . . .

. . .

We feel that those intellectual powers which were at work in the artist, are far above our conscious mental action, and that were it even possible at all, infinite time, meditation, and labor would have been necessary to attain by conscious thought that degree of order, connection, and equilibrium of all parts and all internal relations, which the artist had accomplished under the sole guidance of tact and taste, and which we have in turn to appreciate and comprehend by our own tact and taste, long before we begin a critical analysis of the work.

. . .

Herein is manifestly the cause of that moral elevation and feeling of ecstatic satisfaction which is called forth by thorough absorption in genuine and lofty works of art. We learn from them to feel that even in the obscure depths of a healthy and harmoniously developed human mind, which are at least for the present inaccessible to analysis by conscious thought, there slumbers a germ of order that is capable of rich intellectual cultivation, and we learn to recognize and admire in the work of art, though drafted in unimportant material, the picture of a similar arrangement of the universe, governed by law and reason in all its parts. The contemplation of a real work of art awakens our confidence in the originally healthy nature of the human mind, when uncribbed, unharassed, unobscured, and unfalsified. (366­–67, Dover edition)

Wow.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think we are getting somewhere with this now. From http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/nietzsche,_friedrich.html

But, as a poet, he projects at times (not consistently) a magnificent feeling for man’s greatness, expressed in emotional, not intellectual, terms.

I think emotionally, Objectivism has a similar feeling of the ideal man as fascism. This shows up in the similar artistic styles. Nietzsche was clearly against socialism and equality, but emotionally the socialist also feels the potential of workers as being ideal men. I think what Objectivism ultimately has in common with socialism and fascism is that it believes in an idealistic utopia full of ideal men.

Edited by Kate87
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think we are getting somewhere with this now. From http://aynrandlexico..._friedrich.html

I think emotionally, Objectivism has a similar feeling of the ideal man as fascism. This shows up in the similar artistic styles. Nietzsche was clearly against socialism and equality, but emotionally the socialist also feels the potential of workers as being ideal men. I think what Objectivism ultimately has in common with socialism and fascism is that it believes in an idealistic utopia full of ideal men.

You're wrong. Objectivism believes in moral men, but it doesn't believe in any kind of a utopia. Capitalism doesn't have to be filled with ideal men to work. All that's needed is for the state to leave moral men, and even immoral men to the extent that they don't violate rights, alone.

And Objectivism defines the ideal man in a very different way than mainstream philosophers. Your idea of the ideal man is likely much closer to fascism's and socialism's than mine.

I think emotionally, Objectivism has a similar feeling of the ideal man as fascism.

Objectivism is a system of ideas, not emotions. "emotionally", it has absolutely nothing. Talking aobut what Objectivism has "emotionally" is utter nonsense. Everything in Objectivism is about NOT relying on emotions for your ideas.

Edited by Nicky
Link to comment
Share on other sites

200px-Students_pledging_allegiance_to_the_American_flag_with_the_Bellamy_salute.jpg

. . .

@Grames. Thanks for the first correct and honest answer.

You are welcome. But it is just the obvious answer to an obvious question. There are infinite ways to be non-representational in art, and in contrast to them all representational art is going to seem similar.

Here is another similarity: fascists and socialists want their art to inspire and motivate the masses. Ayn Rand appeals to the masses directly in both her fiction and nonfiction. Her fiction sells and her nonfiction is purposely not academic in style. Rand succeeds by writing with drama and clarity. The visual styles which are the subject of this thread can also be described as dramatic and clear.

I got to reading around about the "Roman" salute because Nicky and you made me curious. So here is the rest of the story, with links.

In the Oath of the Horatii we see each Horace saluting standing up with their palm down, and their arm bend up high and straight.

This is the Roman Salute or Ave (hail) which contrasts to the Asian and Christian bow, the lowering of the head and facing up of the palms, as in asking for pity or pardon (demonstrating submission and humility). Because of some random historical and cultural factors these last generations conjure up German Nazi imagery when witnessing this salute, but the salute itself is not more German than American, with its origin being Rome and its ultimate expansion the whole World. It is, again, simply the opposite of the bow or kowtow.

Actually there are several sources (Curry, Winkler (exerpts), notes and references of the Wikipedia article Roman Salute) who make the case in great detail that Jacques-Louis David's use of this salute in three paintings is its modern origin, and that it was never an ancient custom of the Romans or of anyone else. After the horrors of the French Revolution and then Bonaparte's conquest of Europe and overthrow, and considering how David was intimately associated with both the Revolution and Napoleon there was no way the fascists organizing between the First and Second World Wars would have looked back to him for inspiration. Instead what happened was that neo-classicism came to America, an America that had no or little art scene of its own and no great revulsion for the distant Napoleon.

In the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries America seemed to go mad in its obsession with collectivism and

nationalism. That was when America destroyed its educational system by socializing it. The Bellamy family had a lot to do with getting the Pledge of Allegiance established in the new government schools complete with the so-called "Roman" salute. Socialists of the nationalist variation (as opposed to the internationalists) re-imported the "Roman" salute to Europe after being exposed to it in America. President FDR signed a new law in only 1942 that officially changed the salute made during the Pledge of Allegiance away the fascist-like stiff arm into the current hand over the heart pose.

Being irrationally defensive on the question of being influenced by Nietzsche is another thing the three philosophies have in common.

Ayn Rand was definitely influenced by Nietzsche, her mature philosophy named Objectivism much less so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Objectivism believes in moral men, but it doesn't believe in any kind of a utopia.

"...She rejects the morality of traditional utopias, as well as the cynicism of those who reject idealism as such. Ayn Rand offers both a moral and practical utopia that enshrines rational selfishness, individualism, and laissez-faire capitalism." -Richard Salsman

And Objectivism defines the ideal man in a very different way than mainstream philosophers.

Yes, but to clarify: "Rand's self-declared purpose in writing fiction was to project an "ideal man"—a man who perseveres to achieve his values, even when his ability and independence leads to conflict with others." -Wiki

Objectivism is a system of ideas, not emotions. "emotionally", it has absolutely nothing. Talking aobut what Objectivism has "emotionally" is utter nonsense. Everything in Objectivism is about NOT relying on emotions for your ideas.

Again, to clarify: "Objectivism is far from being cold and calculating. It is sometimes perceived that way because it emphasizes the supremacy of reason as the basis of all human action. The common view of reason is that it is not compatible with emotion, but the Objectivist view of emotions does not support any such dichotomy. Emotions are rational, if based on consistent values.

"Objectivism advocates happiness as the ultimate aspiration for every individual. In Rand's own words, her philosophy is "the concept of man as a heroic being, with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life..." (Atlas Shrugged, appendix). Happiness does not refer to a hedonistic distortion, but a long range happiness based on rationality, morality, integrity and productivity. " -Atlas Society

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"...She rejects the morality of traditional utopias, as well as the cynicism of those who reject idealism as such. Ayn Rand offers both a moral and practical utopia that enshrines rational selfishness, individualism, and laissez-faire capitalism." -Richard Salsman

He's wrong to call Capitalism a moral and practical utopia. Utopia means perfection, the absence of both mistakes and evil. In Capitalism most people, be it private individuals or government officials, would not be morally perfect, and no one's private and professional actions would be perfect. Neither private individuals, nor private enterprises, nor the government would be perfect, or expected to be perfect. Not morally, and certainly not practically. There would still be both evil and errors in the world.

The whole point of advocating for Capitalism is that utopias cannot and need not exist, and that it's fine for men to be imperfect, and interact in imperfect ways, as long as they cannot systematically and as accepted practice force the consequences of their mistakes or evasions on others. The argument for Capitalism does not deny the unavoidable flaws in any society composed of large groups of people.

Capitalism is the system that aims to minimize the consequences of flaws, by attempting to avoid their propagation through tyrannical societal mechanisms, not eliminate flaws. Capitalism promises neither the elimination of moral flaws, nor of errors in judgment ( be it private or government errors).

Again, to clarify: "Objectivism is far from being cold and calculating.

I'll say it again: the ideas in the philosophy of Objectivism, including the parts that describe emotions, including the parts that approve of emotions, are in no way affected by emotions. Ayn Rand deliberately and purposefully excluded everything except Reason as a method for understanding reality and composing a philosophy.

She was plenty emotional and passionate about her work and purpose, but the contents of her philosophy are the embodiment of the expression "cold and calculating". They are just as calculating and divorced from emotion as the work of a mathematician or physicist.

To think that that's somehow a negative is to not understand that reality is unaffected by our emotions, and therefor our study of reality, in all areas, must be unaffected too.

Edited by Nicky
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't believe he's implying that all people living in a capitalistic society would be morally perfect, just that laissez-faire capitalism is the most ideal economic system compared to all others.

She was plenty emotional and passionate about her work and purpose, but the contents of her philosophy are the embodiment of the expression "cold and calculating". They are just as calculating and divorced from emotion as the work of a mathematician or physicist.

My point was just that Objectivism doesn't teach us we can't trust our emotions, as you claimed earlier. It teaches us that there isn't a dichotomy between emotions and reason, where one is bad and the other is good. Both can be good. To use a quote from Rand herself, "Emotions are the automatic results of man’s value judgments integrated by his subconscious; emotions are estimates of that which furthers man’s values or threatens them, that which is for him or against him—lightning calculators giving him the sum of his profit or loss." There's always a reason why you feel a certain way. If you're depressed or elated, there's a reason, a cause. By understanding our emotional responses we can understand why we're attracted to certain people, why we're interested in pursuing a certain field of work, etc. They can let us know when what we're doing is 'right' or 'wrong.'

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are welcome. But it is just the obvious answer to an obvious question. There are infinite ways to be non-representational in art, and in contrast to them all representational art is going to seem similar.

Here is another similarity: fascists and socialists want their art to inspire and motivate the masses. Ayn Rand appeals to the masses directly in both her fiction and nonfiction. Her fiction sells and her nonfiction is purposely not academic in style. Rand succeeds by writing with drama and clarity. The visual styles which are the subject of this thread can also be described as dramatic and clear.

I got to reading around about the "Roman" salute because Nicky and you made me curious. So here is the rest of the story, with links.

Actually there are several sources (Curry, Winkler (exerpts), notes and references of the Wikipedia article Roman Salute) who make the case in great detail that Jacques-Louis David's use of this salute in three paintings is its modern origin, and that it was never an ancient custom of the Romans or of anyone else. After the horrors of the French Revolution and then Bonaparte's conquest of Europe and overthrow, and considering how David was intimately associated with both the Revolution and Napoleon there was no way the fascists organizing between the First and Second World Wars would have looked back to him for inspiration. Instead what happened was that neo-classicism came to America, an America that had no or little art scene of its own and no great revulsion for the distant Napoleon.

In the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries America seemed to go mad in its obsession with collectivism and

nationalism. That was when America destroyed its educational system by socializing it. The Bellamy family had a lot to do with getting the Pledge of Allegiance established in the new government schools complete with the so-called "Roman" salute. Socialists of the nationalist variation (as opposed to the internationalists) re-imported the "Roman" salute to Europe after being exposed to it in America. President FDR signed a new law in only 1942 that officially changed the salute made during the Pledge of Allegiance away the fascist-like stiff arm into the current hand over the heart pose.

Ayn Rand was definitely influenced by Nietzsche, her mature philosophy named Objectivism much less so.

on Ayn/Nietz: EXACTLY! Thanks that's all I meant. She tells us the story of her influence AND rejection in one of her collection of essays, I don't dare say which, but I remember it vividly.

I've read Rex Curry and his (cute) attack on the Bellamy Bros. I like Rex Curry for the same reason I like that proswastika dotorg site: because they both debunk (in opposite ways) a couple of symbols hijacked by the XXc most spectacular event.

I actually hate that event because it blatantly defined the new totems and taboos of the age of the masses.

This is the propaganda inspired by and paid for the conclusion of the event in question. Aren't half, maybe 3/4 of those pictures even more revolting than the dullest Socialist Art?

four+freedoms.jpg

so I guess you are correct. In an age of incipient non representational art, representational art is going to look 'alike'. But, let's not stop there, it wouldn't be fair to the sculptures she liked, and the architecture she liked.

Some of the paintings she very much liked were non representational although not abstract either (she had symbolic capability, enough to be a great poet)

But back to the coincidences: Why?

Pre Revolutionary Socialism believed in standing up to the elements and constrains of nature, and create a new civilization after the revolution.

(Italian) Fascism believed in standing up, together as a nation, and together with our guests and distant cousins, and revive the greatest and most universal civilization that ever existed until the USA in 1943.

Austrian and Spanish Fascism was tranquil Christo Fascism and so didn't believe in anything new

German National Socialism believed in standing up, together as a nation, against their enemies and against nature (the only worthy foe) and create a new German Century. A new, improved version of Rome, with universal pretensions but exclusive admission (this one wouldn't fly).

So all these turn of the century 'philosophies' and their appendixes, fervently believed in an ideal with certainty, much like their art tried to represent reality with certainty.

In contrast to the Relativistic World that eventually 'won' and found it useless, redundant or wasteful to accomplish such an easy or obvious feat as recreating reality with certainty. What certainty since we don't believe in any certainty? And what ideal since following idealism makes you a bigot?

So that's what The Romantic Manifesto has in common with any ideal from the times of the Belle Epoque.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

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...