What Art Is: The Esthetic Theory Of Ayn Rand

[Michael Caution]

I recently emailed Diana Hsieh via NoodleFood about a question regarding Ayn Rand's aesthetic theory. Her is my email in full:

Dear Mrs. Hsieh,

First I'd like to commend you on maintaining a well written blog. It has provided tremendous value and insight into Objectivism which newcomers, like myself seek to find. As such, I was wondering if you might be able to shed some light onto the subject of aesthetics. I have just read Ayn Rand's Romantic Manifesto and found myself wishing she had only been able to elaborate more. She alluded to the fact that even she couldn't, at that time, abstract an entire objective criterion by which to judge the arts, though it would be possible (If I'm correct in my understanding). The book itself was an approach to the philosophy of literature and was therefore her main topic discussion of aesthetics.

Specifically, I was wondering if you had read Louis Torres and Michelle Marder Kamhi's What Art Is and if so what you had thought of it in it's analysis of Ayn Rand's theory on aesthetics. I ask this because I know that The Objectivist Center (TOC) promotes this book on their website and since you've written about your past connection with TOC I thought you might be able to provide some insight into it. I found the book myself out of curiosity since it dealt with Ayn Rand's theory of aesthetics and I was honestly blown away by Rand's straightforward approach to an area that is generally regarded as subjective/mystical that I wanted to read more on the subject. I've only been able to read a little of the Torres and Kamhi book because I got sidetracked and haven't gotten back to it.

Also, if you or your readers might know of any books on aesthetics that you could recommend that would be most helpful. Thank you.

So my question to anyone able to respond, is the Torres/Kamhi book a good scholarly analysis of Rand's aesthetics? Are there any inconsistencies in their philosophical approach?

[IAmMetaphysical]

I saw that book as well, and I was interested in it, but I only saw it in one location of barnes and noble and when I tried to get it at a different location they said it was out of print.

[Michael Caution]

Since by now I have read the Torres/Kamhi book, I wanted to at this time update my understanding/opinion of this book as it pertains to an honest scholarly approach to Ayn Rand's theory of aesthetics.

I probably should have done this immediately after I had read it but because it has been a while I can't really get into specifics about what the book says as I can't remember all the exact points it makes. I will say that most of it is essentially a rehash of The Romantic Manifesto only applying it to the evaluation of specific artists. Even there they don't go much into detail as that would just make the book even that much longer. Speaking of which, a good portion (over a third if I remember correctly) of the book length is devoted to endnotes that relate little to the book discussion and make several mention of themselves in the notes.

Where they do make criticism of Rand's ideas it is mainly on contradictory premises than what Rand actually stated. This happened severely times while I was reading the book and made me realize that this book should not be taken seriously as a scholarly work. It came more off as a pair of self-important hacks trying to inflate their own ideas, incoherent as they may be.

I wouldn't recommend What Art Is: The Esthetic Theory of Ayn Rand by Louis Torres and Michelle Marder Kamhi. Best stick with scholars who know what they're talking about like Dr. Peikoff, Dianne Durante, Tore Boeckmann, Shoshana Milgram, etc.

[IAmMetaphysical]

I agree, I bought it, read most of it and came the conculsion that the authors didn't know what they were talking about.