The Objectivist philosophy on art in a nutshell

[123Me]

Hi, I am looking for information by those who consider themselves to have a basic grasp of Objectivist philosophy, mainly aesthetics. 
My question involves all art, but without that option in the forum I figure that I should put it in the visual art spot.

So, my base assumption is that with Objectivism, there is a particular standard for art, namely, idealism if I remember reading right. Can someone please explain to me the concept of idealism in art, looking kind of for a "idealism in a nutshell" sort of deal?

Also if you feel like sharing further I have one more question: What would be the official stance on art that is more abstract, like a blob of colors that isn't supposed to necessarily be anything in particular, but is supposed to portray a feeling (for example) that the artist is trying to get across. 

Thank you
123Me

Edited May 7 by 123Me

[HowardRoarkSpaceDetective]

"Romantic Realism" is the term Rand used for her esthetic ideal. The "romantic" part is the idealism you speak of. The "realism" is that the art must be objective, that is, based on an objective morality and epistemology. Art represents the world as it should be, or at least that is the intent of art. It doesn't imply that the artist actually knows how the world should be, just that they have a moral standard they wish to convey. Romantic Realism is meant to apply to art that does, in fact, show the world as it really should be according to a rational philosophy. So Charles Dickens is art, but it isn't romantic realism -- nor is it moral.

A blob of colors conveys a feeling rather than a moral prescription, unless the moral prescription is to float around aimlessly and try to be poorly defined. That would be what Objectivists call "non-objective" art or "garbage". That said, it's not immoral to like a piece of non-objective art. Feeling a certain way is not subject to moral judgment. I personally love a lot of modern art (Futurism, for example), but I also have a history of rabid irrationality, and I'm beginning more and more to appreciate art that inspires rather than art that makes me feel better about being irrational. For example, I have more confidence than ever that Andy Warhol is a sham. Art that "turns a mirror to society" is often just art meant to make you feel bad for your own perverse enjoyment.

Another example is impressionism. I was floored when I discovered it because I thought, it do be like that sometimes, as far as feeling like reality was a blur. It's still beautiful in its own way, but it gives me vertigo now. 

Yet another angle on the subject: Rand really liked Vermeer. She said the content of his painting was immoral as it was simply a representation of the mundane -- the world as it is rather than as it should be -- but his style pointed to Vermeer having a rational epistemology because he chose to represent things in such a realistic and definite way visually. To what extent this assessment is fair I don't know, but her point was that it's not all or nothing in that sense. Another example is Dali's Corpus Hypercubus. It's a magnificent work, and Rand said it was one of her favorites (she said that Dali's psychology was depraved but that Corpus was the best portrayal of man-worship she'd ever seen, or something like that). When you see it, you'll be surprised she could like it at all given its content. But it floored me too and still does.

[Boydstun]

@123Me I want in my next post to reply to your inquiry and add to what HRSD said. In the present post, I want to leave a list of works so far in print concerning Objectivist Esthetics. Rand developed this theory mainly in the 1960's. It is part of the Objectivist philosophy. The theory, that is—not Rand's trials at applying it to creative works other than her own. Galt's Speech contains the essentials of Objectivism (plus other things), and that was in 1957. So, while the Objectivist Esthetics is part of Objectivism, it is not part of the essentials of that philosophy. An Objectivist is one who is in agreement with the essentials (which would include its logical fundamental elements as well as straightforward implications of them, such as opposition to military conscription, and momentous implications of them widely recognized as demarcating the philosophy, such as atheism and ethical egoism). 

 

Rand’s Texts on Her Esthetics 

1971. The Romantic Manifesto. Signet. 

Chapters 1–4

1.   The Psycho-Epistemology of Art (1965)

2.   Philosophy and Sense of Life (1966)

3.   Art and Sense of Life (1966)

4.   Art and Cognition (1971)  

 

Books or Chapters about Rand’s Esthetics 

Peikoff, L. 1991. Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand. Dutton. 

Chapter 12 Art 

I.    Art as a Concretization of Metaphysics  . . . . . . . . . . . . . 414 

II.   Romantic Literature as Illustrating Role of Φ in Art  . . . 428 

III. Esthetic Value as Objective . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 438 

  

Torres, L., and M. Kamhi 2000. What Art Is. Open Court. 

  

Sciabarra, C.M., editor, 2004. Ayn Rand and Art: A Symposium. Dedicated issue of The Journal of Ayn Rand Studies 2(2).

 

Part VI of the Blackwell Companion to Ayn Rand:

The Objectivist Esthetics: Art and the Needs of a Conceptual Consciousness (Harry Binswanger)

Rand’s Literary Romanticism (Tore Boeckmann)

 

Mayhew, R., forthcoming. Ayn Rand as Aristotelian: Literary Esthetics. In Ayn Rand and Aristotole. J. Lennox and G. Salmieri, editors.

 

Papers pertaining to Rand’s Esthetics 

Sures, M.A. 1969. Metaphysics in Marble. The Objectivist (Feb-Mar).

Seddon, F. 1984. On the Randian Definition of Art. The Free Philosopher Quarterly 2(2):33–36. 

Husted, J. 1984. Art, Analogy, and Access to the “Sense of Life” The Free Philosopher Quarterly 2(4):106–8. 

Reedstrom, K. 1995. What Is Art? Is Ayn Rand’s Definition Enough? Full Context (June):9–11. 

Bissell, R. 1999. Music and Perceptual Cognition. Journal of Ayn Rand Studies 1(1):59–86.

Kamhi, M., and L. Torres 2000. Critical Neglect of Ayn Rand’s Theory of Art. Journal of Ayn Rand Studies 2(1):1–46. 

Bissell, R. 2004. Art as Microcosm. Journal of Ayn Rand Studies 5(2):307–63. 

Minsaas, K. 2005. Mimesis and Expressivism in Rand’s Theory of Art. Journal of Ayn Rand Studies 2(1):19–56. 

Mayhew, R. 2005. Ayn Rand as Aristotelian: Literary Esthetics. Delivered December 29th at the Ayn Rand Society in New York. 

 

Rand’s essay “Art and Cognition” includes the topic of music. Concerning this portion of Rand’s esthetics, in 1995 Marsha Enright contributed the following paper to Objectivity (V2N3:117–47).

Con Molto Sentimento 

  I.    Briefly, Theories of Music’s Nature  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119 

II.   Neuropsychological Data on Language and Music . . . 125 

III.  Neuropsychological Data on Emotions . . . . . . . . . . . . 128 

IV.  Beyond Neuropsychology to Music as Art . . . . . . . . . 135 

V.    Future Research  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 143 

SUBJECT INDEX for “Con Molto Sentimento” 

ABSTRACTION; and Concrete Rendition 136, 138 / ART; and Deep Truth 136; Psychological Need for 136 / BRAIN; Cerebral Lateralization of 126–30, 144, 146–47; Information Processing by 126–31 / EMOTIONS 146; and Music 117–20, 122–25, 128–34; and Sociability 124–25; 131–33 / EVIDENCE; Scientific 126–30 / EXPERIMENTS; in Musical Experience 120–23 / EXPLANATION; Scientific 120–24 / HYPTHETICO-DEDUCTIVE METHOD 117–18, 120–23 / INTELLIGENCE; and Musical Cognition 139 / LANGUAGE; and Music 119–20, 125–28; Semantics and Syntax of 119, 126; Sounds 119, 126, 131, 146 / MIND; Abstractive 133–35 / MUSIC 117–47; v. Bird Song 146 / NEURONAL MEDIATION; of Language 126–27, 146–47; of Music 126–27, 130, 141; of Perception 126–27 / OBJECTIVISM 117–18; 135–43 / SUBCONSCIOUS; Preconscious Part of 147; and Thought 147 / SYMBOLS; Iconic 121, 123, 133–34, 136–37, 142–43 / THOUGHT; Inventive 133–35, 143

 

In 1997 Roger Bissell contributed the following paper on Rand’s esthetics to Objectivity (V2N5:33–65).

The Essence of Art  

I.    The Two Valid Concepts of Art . . . . . . . . 33 

II.   Art as a Tool of Cognition . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 

III.  Cognitive Economy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 

IV.  Art, Nature, and Reality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46 

V.   An Invalid Category: Fine Art  . . . . . . . . . 54 

SUBJECT INDEX for “The Essence of Art” 

ABSTRACTION; Conceptual 37–46; and Concrete Rendition 34, 37–46; Emotional 37 / ACTION; and Contradiction 56 / ANALOGY 34–35 / ART 33–65; Essence in 34, 52–53; Fine 54–62; as Microcosm 34, 48–49, 51, 54, 62; and Possibility 47–49; Psychological Need for 41–42, 45–46; without Reference 49, 53–54; Unity in 34, 46 / ASSOCIATION; v. Representation 39–40 / CONCEPTS; and Language 39, 42–44; and Mental Economy 41–42 / CONSCIOUSNESS; Intentionality of 37–38 / DEATH 35; and Possibility of Art 35–37 / EXPLANATION; Unity of 48–49 / IMAGES; v. Concepts 40; v. Percepts 34–35, 52–53 / INFORMATION; Conceptual 41–42 / INTROSPECTION 38 / LIFE; of Organisms 35; and Thought 35–36; Unity in a 35 / LOGIC; as Ideal Reasoning 56 / MIND; Abstractive 34, 37–38, 40–42; Constructive 34–54 / MUSIC 33, 49, 53, 59, 63 / OBJECTIVISM 34–39, 45–46, 50–54, 55–56, 61–63 / PERCEPTION; Existent and Content of 37; Recognition in 40–41 / PHILOSOPHY 45 / REASON; Integrating Perceptions 36–38 / SYMBOLS; Esthetic 40–46; Iconic 37–44; Lexical 37–44 / THOUGHT; Comprehensive 34–41; Discursive 39–44; Inventive 33–35, 46–54 / UNITY; of World v. of Mind 49 / VALUE; Artistic Embodiment of 34, 45–46, 49, 52; Cognitive Instrumental 35–46; Esthetic 51–52; Metaphysical 34–35; Moral 45 

 

Edited May 14 by Boydstun

[Boydstun]

In the preceding post, I should have included:

Rand, A. 1958 [2000]. Lectures on Fiction Writing. In The Art of Fiction. T. Boeckmann, editor. Penguin.

 

Rand specified a function of art beyond its beckon of experience and contemplation for its own sake. Art has integral place in the realm of life functions (cf. Greater Hippias 295c–e on the fine). In its selective re-creations of reality, according to Rand, art isolates and integrates aspects of reality to yield a new concrete that can serve certain functions for the human psyche (1965a, 16).

The highest goal Rand had in her novels was the portrayal of ideal men. The experience of meeting those characters in the stories is an end in itself. She aimed for a story offering an experience worth living through for its own sake, and she aimed for protagonists to be a pleasure to contemplate for their own sake (Rand 1963, 37). That kind of contemplation, in all art, serves a human need, the need for moments sensing as complete the life-long struggle for achievement of values (41). Notice that the concept of contemplation here is broad enough to include rapture, esthetic rapture (cf. Crowther 2007, 35–36).

There is that Randian integration in the esthetic experience of art. However, there are other kinds of contemplation of art for its own sake besides that one, I should say, important and lovely as that one is.

American Heritage Dictionary defines art as “the conscious production or arrangement of sounds, colors, forms, movements, or other elements in a manner that affects the sense of beauty; specifically, the production of the beautiful in a graphic or plastic medium.” The types after the semicolon are the specific types most typically meant when the term is used in the general sense of art preceding the semicolon. This dictionary has nine other senses in which art is used, but the one quoted here is the one pertinent to this discussion.

On Rand’s definition, art is “a selective re-creation of reality according to an artist’s metaphysical value judgments” (1965a, 16). I am not persuaded that all art under the dictionary definition I just quoted nor that all of what should be grouped under art is captured by Rand’s theoretical explanatory definition. Her definition holds for a major subclass of art.

We are able to sense the feelings indicated in a great variety of created illusions, or re-creations of reality. One would expect the same for artists, and some artists might have considerable success in expressing a sense of life not their own. It is only a slight modification, a slight broadening of Rand’s definition to say art is a selective re-creation of reality according to metaphysical value-judgments, therewith leaving in suspension how much they are favored by the artist, if at all.

Rand observed that “every religion has a mythology—a dramatized concretization of its moral code embodied in the figures of men who are its ultimate product” (1965a, 16). Such characters and their associated deeds and ordeals, when visualized in a drawing or painting or sculpture, I should say and likely Rand would say, do not bring a moral sense of life to the artwork by their iconographical status. The means of sense of life, including moral sense of life, in a work of art are from other elements in the work, not iconography.

In Rand’s “For the New Intellectual” (1960), she had conceived of human consciousness as preserving some continuity and as demanding “a certain degree of integration, whether a man seeks it or not” (18). Philosophy should formulate “an integrated view of man, of existence, of the universe” (22). “Man needs an integrated view of life, a philosophy, whether he is aware of his need or not” (18). Rand saw art as addressing a related need for integration. “Art is a concretization of metaphysics” (Rand 1965a, 16). It provides the power to summon in a full, perceptually conscious focus, a condensation of the chains of abstract concepts forming man’s “fundamental view of himself and of his relationships to reality” (16). 

Rand elaborated further what she meant by a sense of life. It is a person’s “generalized feeling about existence, an implicit metaphysics with the compelling motivational power of a constant, basic emotion—an emotion which is part of all his other emotions and underlies all his experiences” (1966a, 17). This generalized feeling she took to be the result of a subconscious integration summing the history of one’s psychological activities, one’s reactions and conclusions. This conception of sense of life is an extension of her earlier notion that human consciousness preserves willy-nilly some continuity and demands a certain degree of integration (1961, 18).

Rand found metaphysical, cognitive, and evaluative linkages in art. Her final characterization of their assembly was under her concept of a metaphysical value-judgment.

Rand’s explications of sense of life and metaphysical value-judgments are in terms of metaphysics that bears on human life and the role and character of values in it. She said that a sense of life sums up one’s view of man’s relationship to existence. That suggests that when she said this subconsciously integrated appraisal that is sense of life includes appraisal of the nature of reality, she was confining the metaphysical appraisal to implications for moral, human life. That would include some notion of the intelligibility or lack thereof in existence in general and in living existence in particular.

It is, I think, overly restrictive to confine the metaphysical in art to man’s relationship to reality, that is, to Rand’s metaphysical value-judgments. That said, Rand’s house of metaphysical value-judgments itself need not be so restrictive as one might first think from her list of metaphysical value-questions. For example, to ask whether the universe is intelligible is also to ask whether existence is one and interconnected within itself and whether a negative judgment on that question-couple leaves existence intelligible and, if so, differently so than were existence truly one and highly interconnected. This would seem to be an expansion of Rand’s list of questions, remaining within her conception, because the judgments the question and its subsidiaries invite are metaphysical and bear on basic human purposes.

Rand’s compact definition of art is intended to cover arts literary and visual (and more). When she says these works are re-creations of reality, one needs to remember two things implicit in that conception: imagination and stylization. An artist stylizes reality in his re-creations. In that, re-creations are his (his/her) integration of facts and his metaphysical evaluations, and these are set concrete in his selection of theme and subject, brushstroke and word, and indeed in all his craft with elements of the medium (Rand 1966a, 35; 1971, 1011–12).

I should stress that one might concur with Rand’s definition of art, yet one might disagree with Rand’s analysis of various artworks within that framework.

In her 1963, Rand characterized misery, disease, disaster, and evil as negatives in human existence and “not proper subjects of contemplation for contemplation’s sake. In art, and in literature, these negatives are worth re-creating only in relation to some positive, as a foil, as a contrast, as a means of stressing the positive—but not as an end in themselves” (38).

Within Géricault’s The Raft of the Medusa, one sees people who have already died, people in despair, and people with hope, waving to get the attention of a very distant ship. This painting fits squarely within what Rand described as having a subject containing negatives of human existence, yet also a positive in contrast, and worthy of contemplation for contemplation’s sake.

When it comes to the great negatives in life, I have some reservations concerning Rand’s idea that negatives are unworthy as whole subjects of a work of art. Sometimes there is widespread common background of the beholders, who know the subject is from a larger story with its road to a positive; such would be a painting showing only that the dead Jesus is being taken down from the cross. War scenes as subjects of artworks, containing no positive aspects in the subject, may have viewers who know some history from which the scene is taken and some evaluation of that history, possibly positive. On the other hand, a war scene—say, a massacre—as subject of a painting, might be effective in inducing the horribleness of such an event to a viewer and nothing more than that horror. I would not want to contemplate that painting so much that I put it on the living room wall opposite me just now, in place of the triptych of Monet’s water lilies spanning that wall. However, the well-executed massacre painting might be worth my contemplation in a memorial museum of the event or in an art museum, where one passes from one feeling of life to another.

Rand was aiming for what has been called a “‘wrapper definition’ that attempts to cover the entire extension of a concept,” rather than only “an evaluative characterization of what the best forms of art aspire to be like” (Stroud 2011, 5). Rand took up the challenge of showing literary and nonliterary art-forms to be distinctive and explicable under a definition, her definition of art, which is, we recall: “a selective re-creation of reality according to an artist’s metaphysical value-judgments.” In the course of her examinations of various art-forms, we learn more about what she means by re-creation of reality in the way of art. For poetry without story or characterization—say, Rossetti’s Silent Noon—Rand does not take up the challenge of articulating how such poetry differs from so-called mood studies, thence, with that difference, how such poetry is art.

The poem Silent Noon has a scene and an event. (The idea microcosm comes quickly to mind; see Bissell 1997; 2004.) In this poem, existence and human act are told of. They are re-creations of reality and the basic draw of the consciousness aroused in the readers. Imagined perceptions and induced feelings are aroused by what is said in the poem and how it is said, all well integrated. I don’t have an example of what Rand was calling literary mood studies, so I don’t know how it might differ from this sort of poem. Do such mood studies concretize a theme, but without re-creation of reality, without any showing of existence and purpose driving consciousness?

This much is clear by Rand and satisfactory by me: an artistic selective re-creation is a re-integration, and for all art, not only literary, there will be a theme. For arts not literary, the theme will not be so fully expressed in words as in the medium, but it is there and is the large integrator.

@123Me, Rand thought that Romantic art is the main source of a moral sense of life in the child and adolescent. “Please note that art is not his only source of morality, but of a moral sense of life. This requires careful differentiation. // A ‘sense of life’ is a pre-conceptual equivalent of metaphysics—an emotional, subconsciously integrated appraisal of man’s nature and the nature of reality, summing up one’s view of man’s relationship to existence. Morality is an abstract, conceptual code of values and principles.” (Rand 1965b, 10)

Having moral content was not a requirement in Rand’s view for something to be art. A Rothko would fall short in whatever are the ways “mood studies” would fall short, under Rand’s theory, I suggest.

In “The Psycho-Epistemology of Art,” Rand wrote that art fulfills a need for end-in-itself concretization of metaphysical value-judgments. That is consonant with her idea, stated earlier in “The Goal of My Writing,” that the function of art is to supply moments of sensing as complete the life-long struggle for achievement of values. In the later essay “Psycho-Epistemology of Art,” Rand was not broadening her view of what is “the” function of art; she was only articulating more of the means by which it fulfills that function (see also Rand 1966a, 34, 36–37, and 1971, 1009). In Rand’s view, there are other enjoyments in art besides fulfillment of that function, but no other function (1966a, 39).

About psycho-epistemology: Rand and her circle had been using the term to refer to an individual’s characteristic method of awareness. Is the time scope of his outlook brief or long? Is his concern only with what is physically present? Does he recoil into his emotions in the face of his physical life and need for action? How far does he integrate his perceptions into conceptions? Is his thinking a means of perceiving reality or justifying escape from reality? (Rand 1960, 14, 19, 21). Art performs the psycho-epistemological function, in Rand’s view, of converting metaphysical abstractions “into the equivalent of concretes, into specific entities open to man’s direct perception” (1965a). Rand held art to be a need of human consciousness.

As an adult, I produced only one sort of artistic creation, and that was composition of poetry. From that, I accede, at least in the realm of those creations, that I have a sense of life and that it is singular. This seems correct, even though I wrote quite a variety of poems. I’ll try to add an example at the end of this post. (The painting, so suited to the poem, is detail of a Bierstadt.) I would be hard put, however, to state what is that sense of life.

Importance is the concept Rand took to be key in formation of a sense of life. She then restricted importance to a fundamental view of human nature. A sense of life becomes an emotional summation reflecting answers on basic questions of human nature read as applying to oneself. Such questions would be whether the universe is knowable, whether man has the power of choice, and whether man can achieve his goals (Rand 1966b, 19). In development of one’s sense of life in childhood and adolescence, Rand was thinking of more particular forms or ramifications of those broad questions in application to oneself. Later the broad questions themselves can be formulated and generalized to human kind, not only oneself.

Importance as Rand’s criterion of esthetic abstraction is a salient criterion in such abstraction, but the broader criteria of significance and meaningfulness also sort the esthetic from the purely cognitive and normative types of abstraction. To two overly narrow restrictions in Rand’s esthetics—function of art and criterion of esthetic abstraction—I should add a third. Rand’s range of philosophical issues going into the makeup of all the facets of one’s sense of life might well be too limited.

The fundamental importance-questions whose emotional answers are vested in a sense of life were the same as Rand had listed the previous year in spelling out what are metaphysical value-judgments. Those questions had been:

“Is the universe intelligible to man, or unintelligible and unknowable? Can man find happiness on earth, or is he doomed to frustration and despair? Does man have the power of choice, the power to choose his goals and to achieve them, the power to direct the course of his life—or is he the helpless plaything of forces beyond his control, which determine his fate? Is man, by nature, to be valued as good, or to be despised as evil?” (1965a, 16)

That last question would seem at first blush to be a normative question, rather than a metaphysical one. I suggest, however, that it is a question for (i) the metaphysics of life and value in general, to which, as metaphysical fact, man is no alien and (ii) for the metaphysics of mind joining (i) (see also Peikoff 1991, 189–93).

 

Edited May 14 by Boydstun

[Boydstun]

References for the Preceding Post

Bissell, R. 1997. The Essence of Art. Objectivity 2(5):33–65.

——. 2004. Art as Microcosm. Journal of Ayn Rand Studies 5(2):307–63. 

Crowther, P. 2007. Defining Art, Creating the Canon. Oxford.

Peikoff, L. 1991. Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand. Dutton.

Plato c. 428–348 B.C. Plato – Complete Works. J. M. Cooper, editor. 1997. Hackett.

Rand, A. 1960. For the New Intellectual. Title essay. Signet.

——. 1961. The Objectivist Ethics. In The Virtue of Selfishness. Signet.

——. 1963. The Goal of My Writing. The Objectivist Newsletter (ON) 2(10):37–40, 2(11):41–42.

——. 1965a. The Psycho-Epistemology of Art. ON 4(4):15–16, 18.

——. 1965b. Art and Moral Treason. ON 4(3):9–10, 12–14.

——. 1966a. Art and Sense of Life. The Objectivist (O) 5(Mar):33–40.

——. 1965b. Art and Moral Treason. ON 4(3):9–10, 12–14.

——. 1971. Art and Cognition I. O 10(Apr):1009–17.

Stroud, S. R. 2011. John Dewey and the Artful Life. Penn State.

[KyaryPamyu]

3 hours ago, Boydstun said:

In her 1963, Rand characterized misery, disease, disaster, and evil as negatives in human existence and “not proper subjects of contemplation for contemplation’s sake. In art, and in literature, these negatives are worth re-creating only in relation to some positive. . . but not as an end in themselves” (38).

It makes absolutely no difference whether suffering is the statistical norm or not. Suppose that everyone on Earth was happy, except for one unfortunate fellow who suffered from fibromyalgia. What would that individual think if someone showed him the following quote?

"Pain, suffering, failure do not have metaphysical significance—they do not reveal the nature of reality. Ayn Rand’s heroes, accordingly, refuse to take pain seriously, i.e., metaphysically." (Leonard Peikoff, The Philosophy of Objectivism lecture series, Lecture 8 )

I suspect he would not care, even in the slightest, about pain's "metaphysical significance", because his own daily fare is nothing but chronic widespread pain, constant fatigue, headaches, abdominal cramps and depression.

I am of the opinion that it's up to individuals to determine the "proper" subjects for their contemplation. The fibromyalgia patient would have every right in the world to create or contemplate artworks that are focused exclusively on life's negatives.

This is a very rich topic. Consider, for example, Schenk's Anguish (1878):

If we only take the sheep into consideration, then perhaps this painting is tragic without any positive foil or contrast. But if we also factor in the crows, the painting seems to illustrate something deeper about Nature, namely that the tragedy of some individuals often coincides with the fortune of others.

Whether man is king over creation or not, he is still product of Nature and lives in its bosom. Even if no humans are present in this painting, we cannot help but draw some metaphysical import from it.

Now, consider Hebbel's Schlafen, Schlafen:

To sleep, to sleep and only sleep
And never wake and have no dreams!
The bitter woes that made me weep
but half-remembered fading gleams.
So I, when echoes of life’s fullness
Reverberate down where I lie,
Deeper infold myself in stillness,
Tighter shut the weary eye.

(Translated by Sean Thompson)

I'd argue that this poem's subject of contemplation is sleep's ability to "release" us from life's tribulations. Is that a "positive"? Yes, but only by the standard of the poem's own gloomy worldview.

If a particular artist's worldview is geared toward a "positive" outlook, then of course he should only deal with negatives "as a means of stressing the positive". But for everyone else, that principle is invalid are irrelevant.

Edited May 14 by KyaryPamyu

[Boydstun]

KyaryPamyu, thank you for these good objections an angles. The dark paintings of Ivan Albright may have been triggered by what he witnessed in WWI. We don't really know.

In connection with your hypothetical suffering person, I naturally thought of the actual artist Nietzsche. He suffered so horribly physically all the years he was producing Daybreak, Gay Science, Zarathustra, and beyond, yet his works seem more like motion upward beyond his daily suffering. I'd conclude at least that one's condition and life course does not necessarily settle what from the creator will be important to communicate.

[Boydstun]

I remarked:

Quote

For poetry without story or characterization—say, Rossetti’s Silent Noon—Rand does not take up the challenge of articulating how such poetry differs from so-called mood-studies, thence, with that difference, how such poetry is art.

I should have mentioned right after that sentence:

Quote

Mood-studies are described by Rand as literature possessing only style, conveying only mood, which she dismisses as finger-exercises, not art (1968, 503).

Rand, A. 1968. Basic Principles of Literature. O 7(Aug):497–504.

[HowardRoarkSpaceDetective]

@123Me In case you don't have enough to do already, I would recommend "The Simplest Thing in the World" for a brief, entertaining look at Ayn Rand's view of creativity. It's a short story about a novel writer and can also be found in the Romantic Manifesto.

On 5/14/2024 at 11:55 AM, Boydstun said:

When it comes to the great negatives in life, I have some reservations concerning Rand’s idea that negatives are unworthy as whole subjects of a work of art. Sometimes there is widespread common background of the beholders, who know the subject is from a larger story with its road to a positive; such would be a painting showing only that the dead Jesus is being taken down from the cross. War scenes as subjects of artworks, containing no positive aspects in the subject, may have viewers who know some history from which the scene is taken and some evaluation of that history, possibly positive. On the other hand, a war scene—say, a massacre—as subject of a painting, might be effective in inducing the horribleness of such an event to a viewer and nothing more than that horror. I would not want to contemplate that painting so much that I put it on the living room wall opposite me just now, in place of the triptych of Monet’s water lilies spanning that wall. However, the well-executed massacre painting might be worth my contemplation in a memorial museum of the event or in an art museum, where one passes from one feeling of life to another.

This is very well-put. As I understand it, emotions play a role in maintaining context, and this is necessary for art to work. That said...

On 5/14/2024 at 3:36 PM, KyaryPamyu said:

I am of the opinion that it's up to individuals to determine the "proper" subjects for their contemplation.

I do wonder often about the "journalistic" or "you're not alone" or "it do be like that" function of what is debatably art. In my most subjectivist days, I resonated deeply both with Kandinsky and Bacon. I'm still astonished at how instant a connection I had with the first Rothko I saw; very personal. There's still an enormous degree of catharsis that comes from such art that I think goes beyond escapism and more resembles empathy, which is another highly conditional (read: contextual) good.