Music: The Greatest Art form and the least proper form of Art accordin

[Jonathan13]

"What is true of literature and drama's clear intelligibility and communicative nature has never been true of any of the other art forms."

The reason I think it's not true is because abstract thought in general that isn't linguistic is often, from my experience, is often explained in metaphorical terms. Now, I'd take your point as right in the sense music and abstract art *cannot* be put into the same terms as literature. Similarly, principles of mathematics are a lot more sensible without using any linguistic type of semantics! So, as long as the discussion is in terms of how you react, music is all subjective. If music makes you think of happy memories, that's really irrelevant, and if that's the only meaning music has, well, it's subjective and against what Rand argued for regarding literature. My point is that a case for music as objective and art as communicating can be made, provided that it goes along with principles much like math. Just because people talk about music in especially subjective *terms* doesn't necessarily mean there isn't objectivity people just don't know how to describe. That's the best I can say now given my limited music theory knowledge.

 

The problem is that metaphorical content is open to different interpretations. "Angela was fire; she was flame," could be taken to have any number of meanings, good and/or bad.

 

 

Those quotes are interesting - I'm going to guess the first two are Rand, the last three are someone evaluating abstract art?

 

The first of the five was me quoting myself describing the effects and meanings of two abstract paintings. The second and third quotes are Rand's descriptions, from The Fountainhead, of specific works of Roark's architecture. Certain people have expressed incredulity and ridicule at my identifying human traits in abstract forms, yet they seem to believe that Rand's doing exactly the same thing is perfectly reasonable, natural, and not deserving of incredulity or ridicule. 

 

You didn't say they all were quotes by one person. I rather like the next to last one, I evaluated a piece of artwork in a similar way for a college assignment several years ago. It was for a Japanese woodblock print, so it wasn't even abstract, but it could have been.

 

That quote that you like is from Kandinsky (I like it too, and think that it's very objective in its approach). The Objectivish artist Michael Newberry made some of the same observations (without knowing that Kandinsky had made them previously) in an essay on spatial depth, and Newberry even took the idea a little further in recognizing the importance that context plays in the approach and retreat of colors (that blue, for example, only recedes against the normal natural environment of a blue sky, but not against a different colored background).

 

 

In general I don't agree entirely with Rand on art. I think she was onto something though, so to speak. As I said before, concretization of abstraction is a fundamental point of art, and I'm not aware of anyone besides Rand who made that point.

 

Kant made the same point. 

 

From Guyer's Kant:

 

Quote

...Kant now emphasizes that we are sensuous as well as rational creatures, and therefore need sensuous as well as rational presentation and confirmation of the conditions of the possibility of morality. He explicitly acknowledges this three years after the Critique of the Power of Judgment, when in Religion within the Boundaries of Mere Reason he asserts "the natural need of all human beings to demand for even the highest concepts and grounds of reason something that the senses can hold on to, some confirmation from experience or the like" (RBMR, 6:109). In Kant's mind, the deepest connection between aesthetic and teleological experience and judgment is that both give us sensuous images of morality and a feeling of its achievability that can supplement and strengthen our purely — but also merely — rational insight into its demands and the possibility of our fulfilling them.

...Kant's interest in aesthetic phenomena is precisely his view that the freedom of the imagination that we experience in our encounter with beautiful objects can give us a feeling of the reality of the freedom of the will that we can only postulate within purely moral reasoning, and the natural existence of beauty can give us a feeling that nature is hospitable to the achievement of our moral goals as well, again something we can only postulate in the moral theory of the highest good — aesthetic feelings with an emotional impact that can support the effect of pure reason upon our sensible side.

 

J

[StrictlyLogical]

If you're looking for intrinsic meaning, you're not gonna find it. Anywhere. Not in language, not in paintings, not in anything. It's all "extrinsic associations". That's the whole point of Rand's idea of art: if a painting doesn't reference external reality, it's meaningless. (she takes it further and says that if a painting/decoration references something vague and as simple as pretty vs. blech, i.e. "oh, that looks nice", that's not good enough)

 

 

The crux of the misunderstanding here is due to the fact that I am stating: music has NO external conceptual referent, while at the same time ASKING you about the meaning of music... the implication I am making is that either Music has intrinsic meaning (which it can't) or it is meaningless, which is in fact my allegation. 

 

Such a question "If Music has no conceptual referent(s) at all what can it possibly mean?" is thus somewhat unfair.  

 

Clearly your position is that music can and does (if proper music) have conceptual referents.

 

 

Neither of us is an intrinsicist.

 

 

 

 

I never suggested that music has intrinsic meaning. There is no such thing as intrinsic meaning. Music, like everything else that associates things with meaning, is a means of communicating references (which are to things external to the sound itself). Music does it more directly than other forms of communication, because you don't have to decipher the association, it reaches you on a perceptual level, and the references are more epistemological (it references thought processes and emotions) than references to objects, like painting. But it still is, obviously, association, not intrinsic meaning. Nostalgic/sad/angry/uplifting/convoluted/free-flowing etc. music isn't nostalgic because God intended, it's nostalgic because of some kind of indirect association. We don't happen to understand how it works (because it's not a straight up associations like language), we just realize that it does.

 

 

You state that music's referents are more "epistemological" (thought and emotion) than painting's referents (and I lump drama, literature, dance, mime, music with lyrics, movies as well) which are objects and I will paraphrase, or external concrete's.  You then mention "indirect association" and a list of possible effects "Nostalgic/sad/angry/uplifting/convoluted/free-flowing".

 

Here Music achieves X (Nostalgic/sad/angry/uplifting/convoluted/free-flowing) through the auditory system and makes no use of or requires no reference to objects and concrete existents.

 

Can you reconcile this with the USE of different perceptual/sensory systems to achieve the same effect?  This would need to be "indirect" because these other systems are not the same as the music pathway.  So for example, if a writer, puts words together NOT to convey concrete ideas, or concepts, or events or anything in particular (in fact using NO SENTENCES) but to evoke (possibly via the subconscious... via "associations") a sense of sadness?  It may take the form of a rambling poem, with words repeated, stuck in at awkward times, reminding one of pain, and loss, and disorientation.  Such a things does ALL that music does (general association with thought or emotion) through a different pathway.  I submit that Music and this string of words meant to cause a subconscious association and a feeling, with no real concrete existents or conceptual meaning (no sentences whatever), must be treated equally in view of the definition of Art according to Objectivism. 

 

 

If these are not to be treated equally on what "principle" or "reason" do we distinguish them?  What distinguishing attributes or qualities in the works or the effects caused by the works are we to treat as fundamental essentials which makes the difference?

[Jonathan13]

The crux of the misunderstanding here is due to the fact that I am stating: music has NO external conceptual referent, while at the same time ASKING you about the meaning of music... the implication I am making is that either Music has intrinsic meaning (which it can't) or it is meaningless, which is in fact my allegation.

Such a question "If Music has no conceptual referent(s) at all what can it possibly mean?" is thus somewhat unfair.

Clearly your position is that music can and does (if proper music) have conceptual referents.

I think that's a correct statement of Nicky's position. He seems to believe that any emotion that he experiences while listening to music is the referent, even if no one else experiences the same emotion.

I would suspect that Nicky would also take the standard student-of-Objectivism position that the emotions evoked in him while listening to a piece of music are the correct ones, and that anyone who disagrees is wrong, including the composer. If the composer claims to have intended to express something other than what Nicky experienced, then the composer must necessarily be either a bad composer, delusional, unaware of his true sense of life and unintentionally revealing it through Nicky's interpretations, or evil. Or some combination of all of the above.

 

If these are not to be treated equally on what "principle" or "reason" do we distinguish them?

The operating "principal" and "reason" at work here appears to be that certain people do not experience a "general association with thought or emotion" in certain works of art, or in certain entire categories of art, and they arbitrarily declare that, therefore, no one else can either, or that anyone who claims to be making such associations is psychological deficient and/or evil.

 

What distinguishing attributes or qualities in the works or the effects caused by the works are we to treat as fundamental essentials which makes the difference?

The distinguishing attribute and fundamental essential appears to be that certain people cannot believe, and will not believe, that others can have knowledge and aesthetic sensitivities/experiences that they lack. They refuse to believe that others can experience certain abstract art forms as being as meaningful and emotionally fulfilling as Rand believed the abstract art forms of music, architecture and dance to be.

J

[Nicky]

It's not how proof works. See, the idea isn't to assert something without proof and then claim that the assertion is true unless others disprove it.

Read the thread again.

[Nicky]

Strictly Logical and Jonathan, sorry, but your latest posts just contain way too many straw men for me to bother continuing with this. Perhaps in the future, you should stop rephrasing everything someone says before responding to it. Or find someone patient enough to not be annoyed by the tactic. I'm out.

[New Buddha]

New Buddha you clearly seem to understand pure Music AS SUCH.  If you are familiar also with the Objectivist treatment of Aesthetics, what is your opinion regarding whether or not Music per se, falls within the general/universal concept of Art According to Objectivism?

 

 

I disagree with many of the positions that Objectivism holds regarding aesthetics.  But I also realize that the format of this forum makes it almost impossible to have in-depth discussions regarding those disagreements.

[Eiuol]

But I also realize that the format of this forum makes it almost impossible to have in-depth discussions regarding those disagreements.

Depends in what sense you mean that. It's not a philosophy free for all, but it is fair and relevant to discuss your thoughts regarding aesthetics. Although, it is a thin line and other places online are more catered to philosophy in general. Similarly, many philosophers, like Aristotle, can be talked about without being dismissive while applying your thoughts to that philosophizing in terms of existing problems and unique insights.

[StrictlyLogical]

Strictly Logical and Jonathan, sorry, but your latest posts just contain way too many straw men for me to bother continuing with this. Perhaps in the future, you should stop rephrasing everything someone says before responding to it. Or find someone patient enough to not be annoyed by the tactic. I'm out.

 

I am disappointed you would simply lump me in with any other forum member.  I am not a member of any clique, subgroup, commune, or gang.  I addressed you individually as an individual.

 

 

Secondly, I am disappointed you would accuse me of adopting a "tactic" as though my statements were disingenuous or intended to deceive. 

I find that insulting and disrespectful and in fact not consonant with reality: I was respectfully engaging in an exchange of ideas.

 

 

This is below the threshold of normal forum etiquette, and certainly below what I would expect from an Objectivist.

 

 

 

UPDATE:  Everyone, I have received no PMs regarding EITHER the example piece of music I suggested, or the video posted/linked to by Nicky.

 

If I get 4 or more responses in re. either of them I will let everyone know the results.  

[StrictlyLogical]

Do post it. I found an example of the Bach piece mentioned above, and listened to a few minutes. Sounded cheery, but a bit confused... somehow, I associate with speeded up Chaplin movie. I'm similarly curious about your example.

 

A speeded up Chaplin movie?....  Yikes.   I am glad Bach does NOT do for me what it does for you!

[StrictlyLogical]

Okay, but you still need to explain "meaningless" better. You already said a Mandelbrodt set reminds you of Bach's work. Doesn't that imply that there is meaning exactly to the degree a pattern is being concretized? That is an argument *for* music as meaningful. Paintings are like "nothing else", not any more than a guitar sounds like a person crying. Meaning and intelligibility aren't purely about specifically what you experience daily. There is even re-creation of reality in the sense reality is *re*presented. So if you want to say Objectivism implicitly denies music as art, get more specific about "meaningless". That somewhat goes to you too, Jonathan. Why doesn't music present intelligible subjects? That is, why is it that you think music has no intelligible subject?

 

By "meaningless" I mean in a general sense, bear with my expressions/words which may not serve adequately to describe it:

 

Not representing or referring to anything external to itself.  By this I mean the music CAN refer to itself in a sense with recursion, repetition, fugue like alteration etc. but CANNOT refer to any external existent. 

 

Words have referents, in fact words are useless in absence of referents, it is their sole purpose.  A "word" without a definition/meaning is just set of letters.  The sounds and letter sequences of words in another language or prior to anyone's learning of the word mean and DO NOTHING to a perceiver of it.  ONLY once the perceiver/audience of the word is given a definition. TOLD what to associate with the word is there any meaning or referent attached to the word.  Now when the word is perceived the perceiver/audience UNDERSTANDS the meaning and moreover can react from that understanding to have emotion, ideas, thoughts etc.  The word VIA its definition can convey meaning to a perceiver. 

 

Music on the other hand "directly" causes sensations, emotions.  There is no need for a perceiver/audience to be TOLD how to interpret music (in fact this would likely undermine/taint pure music's effect as music) in order to enjoy or experience the sensations and emotions caused by it.  There are no hard and fast objective standard/translator for music, i.e. no dictionary or TOME which would dictate "a rising progression of tones having interval X MEANS ascension in spiritual purity", or  "a repeated rising progression of tones having interval Y and falling back once every 4 tones MEANS diligently overcoming an obstacle toward achievement".  There simply is no dictated norm, or accepted set of rules for what music means because MUSIC IS NOT MEANT to convey meaning.  Since music is not already in the form of how we perceive reality, as an audio recording of a busy street or as a painting of a landscape do, IF Music was MEANT to convey meaning, being a creation of man, someone would have to supply the definitions, i.e. there would be some accepted guide for "communicating" meaning, conveying specific referents, with use of specific musical formalisms/patterns.  No such thing exists.  ALL we are left with is the direct effect Music has on the psyche.  At most general feelings or mental moods are directly created and thus the author is limited (in intent) as to what can be invoked in the audience.  Please note, when I say music conveys emotion or mental states, I do not mean it is "referring" to mental states or emotions, i.e the music is NOT "saying" happiness or sadness, it is directly CAUSING happiness or sadness. 

 

 

This direct causation is not "meaning" in the sense that a symbol, word, picture, sentence etc. can mean something by referring to that something.

 

 

As for anyone claiming that Music CAN convey specific meaning like "a delicious slice of beef" all I can say is that I am aware of no science and personally have no experience to verify this statement, which falls within what I must identify as the "Arbitrary".

[Jonathan13]

This is below the threshold of normal forum etiquette, and certainly below what I would expect from an Objectivist.

A dozen years ago, I would have thought it to be been beneath what I would have expected from an Objectivist.

 

UPDATE:  Everyone, I have received no PMs regarding EITHER the example piece of music I suggested, or the video posted/linked to by Nicky.

 

If I get 4 or more responses in re. either of them I will let everyone know the results.

I just wanted to point out that, in the context of this discussion, no answers to your challenge are the same as wrong answers.

Anyway, I'm going to try the same experiment with architecture and dance, and perhaps several other art forms, including realistic figurative paintings, poems and short stories. But with a twist. I've got a fun little mischievous idea.

J

[Ninth Doctor]

I also realize that the format of this forum makes it almost impossible to have in-depth discussions regarding those disagreements.

It needn't be, but I have yet to see a conversation about this among Objectivists get off the ground. Now that Nicky has bowed out (victorious as ever) who knows, maybe this thread will be the one. Notice that as great a communicator as Bernstein was, it takes him a couple hours, with a piano in reach, just to demonstrate the science that's relevant and then get a working thesis across. From there to show how a musical metaphor can be identified takes him many more hours. All of which serves, at most, to demonstrate that the 'meaning' of some music can be identified, dare one say 'objectively'. And even then, without extra-musical references it's often all but impossible to prove a specific meaning. For example, the climax of one of my favorite pieces is at 7:45 here (start at least a minute or two earlier):

I once came across a listener who claimed that this moment depicts the “tearing of the temple veil” from the Gospels. But Bruckner provided no program for this symphony, so how can one ever prove this? I happen to like the reference, and knowing that Bruckner was very religious it has a certain plausibility, but that's all. As opposed to the system developed by Wagner, as used in Der Ring Des Nibelungen, where the natural overtones of the harmonic series are the basis of a 'Nature' motif, from which many subsidiary motifs are derived, dovetailing with the plot while providing an independent layer of meaning. With Wagner you can demonstrate that the 'Gold' motif derives from 'Nature', and that the 'Ring' motif is 'Gold' switched from major to minor, and if you listened to the Bernstein lecture you know the reasons that that's going to sound like a bad thing happening (hear 14:40 vs. 21:50).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z-BrwJH3ypk

[Jonathan13]

It needn't be, but I have yet to see a conversation about this among Objectivists get off the ground. Now that Nicky has bowed out (victorious as ever) who knows, maybe this thread will be the one. Notice that as great a communicator as Bernstein was, it takes him a couple hours, with a piano in reach, just to demonstrate the science that's relevant and then get a working thesis across. From there to show how a musical metaphor can be identified takes him many more hours. All of which serves, at most, to demonstrate that the 'meaning' of some music can be identified, dare one say 'objectively'. And even then, without extra-musical references it's often all but impossible to prove a specific meaning.

I've seen the Bernstein lectures in the past, and I should watch them again, but, despite all of the value that they offer, Bernstein concludes, if I recall correctly, that we have no way of knowing if our interpretations of works of music and the emotions that they evoke in us are the meanings and emotions that their composers intended or felt when creating it. That is, unless we ask the composers, or if they left behind detailed descriptions of their intended meanings. And in most cases, we can't ask them, and they left behind no such descriptions. And most composers wouldn't want to answer such questions because they didn't follow anything resembling Rand's theory of literature when creating music.

J

[Ninth Doctor]

Bernstein concludes, if I recall correctly, that we have no way of knowing if our interpretations of works of music and the emotions that they evoke in us are the meanings and emotions that their composers intended or felt when creating it.

I think that he establishes that it can be done, though by no means with any or every piece of music. The title of one of the lectures is telling: The Delights and Dangers of Ambiguity.

Moving on, I wonder if anyone would dispute that there is such a thing as a wrong interpretation of a piece of music. For example if I said that Purcell’s Funeral Music for Queen Mary sounds ‘sprightly’.

[StrictlyLogical]

We all (mostly) know that which would constitute what is unquestionably considered Art according to Objectivism. We can acknowledge (from this thread) that there is some question regarding pure Music as such and its status as Art according to Objectivism.

 

New Question:

 

What minimum additional material A with pure music (PM), in a composite work of art: X = A + PM, would be required to enable one to say unquestioningly and without debate, that X could meet all the requirements of Art according to Objectivism.

 

I.e. What form could A possibly take, enabling it to have enough content needed to be sufficient?  Lyrics, title, movement descriptions, liner notes?  I think it is clear that for a movie X, the remainder (X-PM) is often more than enough (i.e. not only a minimum) to make the movie capable of being Art.

[New Buddha]

Moving on, I wonder if anyone would dispute that there is such a thing as a wrong interpretation of a piece of music. For example if I said that Purcell’s Funeral Music for Queen Mary sounds ‘sprightly’.

 

Ninth, are you familiar with Shostakovich's 5th, and the story behind it?  After reading his book "Testimony", my understanding of it changed greatly.

 

That would truly be a great piece to have people listen to wrt trying to understand the composers own meaning behind a work of art.

[Jonathan13]

I think that he establishes that it can be done, though by no means with any or every piece of music. The title of one of the lectures is telling: The Delights and Dangers of Ambiguity.

Moving on, I wonder if anyone would dispute that there is such a thing as a wrong interpretation of a piece of music. For example if I said that Purcell’s Funeral Music for Queen Mary sounds ‘sprightly’.

 

Similarly, would anyone dispute that there is such a thing as a wrong interpretation of abstract visuals?

 

For example if I said that his image looks "sprightly":

 

 

 

Or this one "reserved," "grim" or "funereal":

 

J

[Ninth Doctor]

Ninth, are you familiar with Shostakovich's 5th, and the story behind it?

Sure of course, the “Soviet Artist’s reply to just criticism”. That's a case where the performer's interpretation can make a big difference. I'm thinking specifically of how to view the very end, where a May Day Parade is supposedly being portrayed. Mravinsky (who conducted the premiere) keeps it solemn and one doesn't necessarily detect the irony, the sense that in defeat Shostakovich managed to still insert a 'fuck you' that would barely fly under the radar:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JczZsLIDFO8

Bernstein quickens it and the impression that someone's getting clubbed over the head in all this empty victory nonsense comes through:

But if you were living in the Soviet Union it might be that you wouldn't need the irony highlighted for you...it's an interesting topic. If you read his biography and conclude he was just a coward it's worth referring to Ayn Rand's comments here:

They were only a year apart, and lived in St. Petersburg at the same time.

So yeah, I love the piece but wasn't thinking of using it as an example here. BTW If you're not familiar with his 2nd Piano Trio I suggest making a beeline for it. Here's a particularly great version:

http://www.amazon.com/Dvorak-Shostakovich-Rachmaninov/dp/B000TGVJWS/ref=sr_1_5?ie=UTF8&qid=1376610074&sr=8-5&keywords=shostakovich+eroica

It was written during the siege of Leningrad. It's incredibly powerful.

Edited August 15, 2013 by Ninth Doctor

[Ninth Doctor]

Similarly, would anyone dispute that there is such a thing as a wrong interpretation of abstract visuals?

I won't, but we're already pretty much on the same page. You probably already see what I'm driving at, but FYI I'm not going to have time to write much until Sunday, and may not feel like it when the day comes.

[New Buddha]

I certainly hope there was nothing in what I wrote that would lead you to believe that I thought Shos. was a coward.  I love his music, and that a man could survive the worst of Stalinist repression and still create some of the most beautiful music in the 20th Century tells me all I really need to know. 

 

It's not the ending that gets me.  It's the final, slow statement of the violins - before the loud conclusion.  They melt me every time....

 

The reason the piece is important to any discussion regarding the importance of understanding the intent of the composer,  is that very few would actually catch the "fuck you".

[Ninth Doctor]

I certainly hope there was nothing in what I wrote that would lead you to believe that I thought Shos. was a coward.

You didn't say it, but I would. However I don't hold it against him, he was what he had to be in order to survive. Plenty of others ended up in Siberia or dead in a ditch.

The reason the piece is important to any discussion regarding the importance of understanding the intent of the composer,  is that very few would actually catch the "fuck you".

What's fascinating is that there's good reason to think many did. And that there was what amounted to a mass conspiracy of silence.

[New Buddha]

What's fascinating is that there's good reason to think many did. And that there was what amounted to a mass conspiracy of silence.

 The "many" that I'm interested in, are the ones on this post that think understanding an artists intent is relevant to experiencing art.  It is not.  Many on this post could listen to Shos's 5th and not catch the F* You at the end -- thinking that it is an entirely heroic ending.

[Ninth Doctor]

The "many" that I'm interested in, are the ones on this post that think understanding an artists intent is relevant to experiencing art.  It is not.

I don't think anyone has claimed that. What's at issue is whether music has, or can have, objectively identifiable meaning. I'm saying that some does, and I'm building a case with illustrative examples. The goal is to reconcile music with Rand's esthetic theory. The composer's intent is something that could settle the question.

Here's a hypothetical that I think would seal the deal: imagine that Richard Strauss, having written Don Quixote, named it 'Tone Poem #1', provided no explanation of what it's about, but wrote out the full detailed program and put it in a time capsule to be opened in 50 years. It's a challenge. Critics come up with different interpretations, one gets it right from the get-go, noting that the cello represents the Don, the bass clarinet is Sancho Panza, the part with the wind machine is the battle with the windmills and so on. Another thinks Strauss has adapted Robinson Crusoe, with cello being Robinson, the bass clarinet is Friday, and the wind machine is the storm that lands Crusoe on the island. These two critics battle it out and the one who had it right wins; the consensus emerges that Tone Poem #1 is about Don Quixote and that critic #2 is a dolt.

Too bad there's been no such experiment, at least there hasn't been to my knowledge. And no, I wouldn't bet my bottom dollar that it would work, though I was planning to make the case that one could identify, without a program, that the finale of Mahler's 2nd depicts Judgement Day from the book of Revelation. From there to segue, via reference to The Name of the Rose, to Umberto Eco's view of “The Open Work”, and how well that accounts for music...well let's just wait and see how in the mood for writing I am come Sunday morning. Oh, and about Rand's definition of art, 'Procrustean Bed' is, I think, an apt metaphor.

[New Buddha]

Ninth,

I would say that the only

 

What's at issue is whether music has, or can have, objectively identifiable meaning. I'm saying that some does, and I'm building a case with illustrative examples. The goal is to reconcile music with Rand's esthetic theory. The composer's intent is something that could settle the question.

 

Ninth,

I absolutely believe that music can have objectively identifiable meaning.  But here's the rub...  It only needs to have objectively identifiable meaning to ME.  Whether you and I agree on the meaning of a given work, or whether our meaning coincides with that of the composer, is irrelevant.

 

Think about it.  This is true for all knowledge.  The only one you need to be concerned about is yourself - consensus is not a pre-request for determining if the knowledge you hold is objective or not.  Suppose for example a composer wrote a piece stating that it's about one thing, but in fact lied about it - taking the true story to his grave.  Would that make your interpretation less objective?  No.  We don't have to reach a consensus with every person  in the world to validate our knowledge.  Nor does the fact that many might say they agree with you have any bearing on the objectivity of your knowledge.  Maybe some are lying?  My knowledge needs only to be internally consistent and free of known contradictions for me to state that it is objective.  That's all I'm concerned about, all I can ever be certain of and all I can ever control.  As another example, suppose a young child forms an opinion about a Wagner opera, but doesn't really follows the story behind it, doesn't understand the mythology behind the piece or the context in which Wagner composed it.  Does that mean the child's opinion is incorrect - to that child?  Or that the child's opinion is "wrong" and of lesser value than yours or mine or Wagners?  I love the cantatas of Bach, and only loosely follow the text, but that doesn't mean that the conclusions I form about the piece are not objective, and that I can appreciate the voice as an instrument without speaking German.

Edited August 17, 2013 by New Buddha

[Ninth Doctor]

It only needs to have objectively identifiable meaning to ME.

Sounds to me like you're not interested in discussing Objectivist esthetics, and that's fine. This thread is one of many critiquing Rand's theory. If you'd rather talk about Shostakovich by all means start another thread and, being a fan myself, I'll probably contribute.