Does Rand's Aesthetics Differ from Soviet "Art"?

Aesthetics
21

volco

Post Modern Art considers that Art, after being liberated from its religious patrons, with Van Gogh being the martyr of the orphaned transitional generation, has saturated its universe. Technology, prosperity and outright Relativism have rendered ‘obsolete’ the fine arts (since to the Materialistic mind no image could be finer than a photograph), and now art has to find a new purpose.

By their own admission they consider we are at the very early stages of a new era, of Art 2.0. So even by their own admission this art represents a return to the primitive. The New Primitive.

Which is to my point , those who try and define art today, reject Rand’s view of art. The objective concept of art is seemingly not even considered by such notions as Post Mod, or any other school of art. They consider such things as art, they use the same term but do not objectively define it, where as I believe Rand did. The conceptual consciousness of man is universal , so too should be the concept of art, no ?

And while Kristo’s works may be a boon to local material makers and dyers, I can’t see it as ‘art’.

22

I agree, as I said ‘this can be seen as the obliteration of art’. And we could end it there, Ayn Rand made some good points in The Romantic Manifesto. She indeed defined art.

If you are curious however, even to the point of giving them, and yourself, the benefit of the doubt, about Andy Warhol and Kristo and Koons, then you might find a different rationale to it. They destroy the concept of art in order to ‘open it’. And these are the results.

I do wonder why people are so much more judgmental, a great thing, when it comes to visual arts, but so libertine when it comes to music, a sphere where, by the standards of this forum’s threads on music: EVERYTHING goes.

The Emperor’s New Clothes are still in place and highly regarded in the world of visual arts. Somewhat in literary arts, and not even imagined in the musical arts.

Of course those arts all differ in one fundamental attribute: TECHNIQUE

Even a culture that had spitted the atom without becoming culturally relativistic would still have to face the challenges and opportunities of making visual arts with new technology, new non traditional techniques, and unprecedented wealth.

From the distance of time, the Sistine Chapel looks very fine and subtle in its magnificence. When it was built and painted however, far from subtlety, it constituted an opportunity to demonstrate the most spectacular and advanced special effects of the time, such as painting two bright contrasting colors and knowing it will look like a carefully shaded degradé from below.

Now visual arts have been challenged by animation and cinema, and the better results are making us wait…

The conceptual consciousness of man is universal , so too should be the concept of art, no ?

Yes. Evidence of this is how East Asians are currently mastering the Classical European composers, or how Western Youth embraces Anime.

Or do you mean something else?

23

As to music appreciation I agree, it seems to be the medium in which subjectivity plays the largest role. Perhaps it shouldn’t even be in the category of art, unless it can be shown that tonal appreciation of a piece of music(fake concept here, more like the idea we all hear the same thing ,everytime) actually evokes the same idea universally.

24

Of course those arts all differ in one fundamental attribute: TECHNIQUE

Even a culture that had spitted the atom without becoming culturally relativistic would still have to face the challenges and opportunities of making visual arts with new technology, new non traditional techniques, and unprecedented wealth.

From the distance of time, the Sistine Chapel looks very fine and subtle in its magnificence. When it was built and painted however, far from subtlety, it constituted an opportunity to demonstrate the most spectacular and advanced special effects of the time, such as painting two bright contrasting colors and knowing it will look like a carefully shaded degradé from below.

.

I think tenique or use of the medium is definately an aspect of a work that can be appreciated almost for its own sake. One of Koos’ works is styled to look like giant Hulk mylar balloons, his use of technique , his physical manipulation of the metal and his use of color, certainly produce an object that appears to have the characteristics of mylar balloons when they are actually solid metal objects, but technique does not define a piece as art.

Though the specific work I am thinking about is way more thematic then other pieces of his that I am familiar with.

25

Perhaps it shouldn’t be (and indeed it isn’t) in the category of “Fine” Arts, you mean? Because music is the primal, most universal (check what universal means to you), form of art. Ayn Rand was explicit about its power and the problem with Subjectivity it poises, both in her writings (not only The Romantic Manifesto, but the Foreign Music in ‘We The Living’ and in Atlas) and in her personal life (Mozart!)

I would personally prefer it if I saw Gratitude by Danielle Anjou in a fountain at the steps of the skyscraper HQ of a major bank. But Aragne Rouge which I like, opened a door when one is more likely to see another metal balloon dog instead.

/ re technique and medium:

That is a point in itself. New techniques have created new media. As I said, or I say more concretely now, Film is the natural heir to visual art. That doesn’t close the market of new media, it simply proves that a pandora box has been opened.

Fine arts have not disappeared (as evidence by Quent Cordair) in the New World, but they seem to be very devalued, (a fantastic buying opportunity no doubt!) in the face of all this shooters who think theirs will constitute one of the many new standards.

Andy Warhol achieved that in life. I could begin to explain it, maybe in a separate thread, why Andy Warhol is not valueless but by your explanation of Koons, it seems you already know.

26

/ re technique and medium:

That is a point in itself. New techniques have created new media. As I said, or I say more concretely now, Film is the natural heir to visual art.

It is more than the heir to visual art, it has so many aspects of other ‘fine’ arts, literature(dialouge), scenery and lighting the techniques of visual art, the musical score. Film is an incredible media(medium?) for art in the Randian sense.

27

When first reading Rand’s nonfiction, I remember being suprised at the idea that ‘art’ needed a definition. After reading The Romantic Manifesto, I felt I had ‘got it’.I think I can appreciate the difference between Greek sculpture and say soup cans a la Warhol. The former being what Rand considered works of art by her definition, while the latter would fall into the catagory of creative decoration.

How did you come to the conclusion that Warhol’s images of soup cans do not qualify as art by the Objectivist definition? Objectivism defines art as “a re-creation of reality according to an artist’s metaphysical value-judgments.” Images of cans of soup are re-creations of things in reality, and no less so than any object in any still life which Objectivism accepts as art. They are stylized representations. They essentialize cans of soup in the same way that Rand described a painting of an apple essentializing the apple. The style that Warhol used presents the objects not as they are in reality, but as they “might or ought to be.” They are stylisitically perfected and essentialized for the purpose of the expression of “metaphysical values.”

I think the highest paid artist currently is Koos(?) , whose works include oversized metallic sculptures in the shape of balloon creatures. If my understanding of what Rand meant is correct, this shows how culturally ingrained irrationality is yes?

No. How could anyone believe that a re-creation of one object, such as an apple or a flower, is a valid work of art, but that the re-creation of another object, such as a balloon, is not a valid work of art?

Those sculptures may be very innovative works of decoration , but other than the idea of whimsy, they connote no abstractions that can be thematically concretised and contemplated by the viewer of the work.

Who is “the viewer”? You? How did you determine that the works “connote no abstractions”? The fact that you are incapable of identifying meaning in a work of art does not mean that that inability is true of everyone. I and many other people don’t have such limitations. We can identify abstractions in stylistic re-creations of balloons just easily as we can identify them is re-creations of apples, and just as easily as Rand identified them in re-creations of apples.

J

28

As to music appreciation I agree, it seems to be the medium in which subjectivity plays the largest role. Perhaps it shouldn’t even be in the category of art, unless it can be shown that tonal appreciation of a piece of music(fake concept here, more like the idea we all hear the same thing ,everytime) actually evokes the same idea universally.

Music does not meet Rand’s definition and criteria of art. Nor does architecture or dance. And if we go by Objectivists’ ability to accurately identify “artist’s meanings” in works of art (including Objectivists who teach art history and art appreciation courses), many novels and realistic paintings with obvious, overt narrative don’t qualify either.

J

29

Who is “the viewer”? You? How did you determine that the works “connote no abstractions”? The fact that you are incapable of identifying meaning in a work of art does not mean that that inability is true of everyone. I and many other people don’t have such limitations. We can identify abstractions in stylistic re-creations of balloons just easily as we can identify them is re-creations of apples, and just as easily as Rand identified them in apples.

J

I did qualify that all comments about art or fine art, are coming from a very limited knowledge or perhaps skill in appreciating art.

As to Koos’ works, the big magenta bunny looks like a balloon animal a clown would make at a child’s party, what image does it evoke for you ?

30

As a further qualification,I incorrectly posted in this thread, as I meant to comment on the other similar thread, but since a conversation between volco and myself followed I didn’t try and correct the mistake.

I think there is a distinction between Romantic art and non Romantic art. I see where perhaps I am blurring the lines and adding confusion. I have always understand Rand’s definition of Romantic art to include the idea that the theme of a work must be based on the concretisation of an abstraction , to bring a concept to the perceptual level, i think was how she described it. Leaving the concept of art to be more broadly interperated.

31

How did you come to the conclusion that Warhol’s images of soup cans do not qualify as art by the Objectivist definition? Objectivism defines art as “a re-creation of reality according to an artist’s metaphysical value-judgments.” Images of cans of soup are re-creations of things in reality, and no less so than any object in any still life which Objectivism accepts as art. They are stylized representations. They essentialize cans of soup in the same way that Rand described a painting of an apple essentializing the apple. The style that Warhol used presents the objects not as they are in reality, but as they “might or ought to be.” They are stylisitically perfected and essentialized for the purpose of the expression of “metaphysical values.”

No. How could anyone believe that a re-creation of one object, such as an apple or a flower, is a valid work of art, but that the re-creation of another object, such as a balloon, is not a valid work of art?

Who is “the viewer”? You? How did you determine that the works “connote no abstractions”? The fact that you are incapable of identifying meaning in a work of art does not mean that that inability is true of everyone. I and many other people don’t have such limitations. We can identify abstractions in stylistic re-creations of balloons just easily as we can identify them is re-creations of apples, and just as easily as Rand identified them in re-creations of apples.

J

Actually the more I think about, i was wrong to qualify my statements concerning art appreciation. One does not need a specialised knowledge to apprehend or appreciate a work of art. There is nothing in Rand’s definition to suggest it , nor does she state it in any of her subsequent writing on the subject.

Someone who can see in a piece the" art" that is not apparent to the casual observer is coming from some position of pretense.

32

J

Torres & Kamhi,

What Art Is:The Esthetic Theory of Ayn Rand , chapter 6 discusses Rand’s definition and contrasts that with the nonessential definitions of art as provided by the ‘artworld’ in the mid 20th century, the era that labeled such works as soup cans as art , when in fact they are not

33

I think there is a distinction between Romantic art and non Romantic art.

Rand’s distinction between the essence of Romantic art and of non-Romantic art was that Romantic art presents a view of mankind as possessing and exercising volition, where non-Romantic art does not.

I see where perhaps I am blurring the lines and adding confusion. I have always understand Rand’s definition of Romantic art to include the idea that the theme of a work must be based on the concretisation of an abstraction, to bring a concept to the perceptual level, i think was how she described it.

What you just described is not Rand’s concept of “Romantic art,” but her concept of “art” (including non-Romantic art).

Leaving the concept of art to be more broadly interperated.

No. She did not leave the concept of art to be more broadly interpreted. There was no room in her stated criteria for anything which did not concretize abstractions on a perceptual level. Her position was that that which ceases to present an intelligible subject and meaning ceases to be art.

J

34

No. She did not leave the concept of art to be more broadly interpreted. There was no room in her stated criteria for anything which did not concretize abstractions on a perceptual level. Her position was that that which ceases to present an intelligible subject and meaning ceases to be art.

J

Based on that criteria then, recreation of the visual image of cans does not concretise any intelligible abstraction, therefore is not art.

Unless commercial billboards are considered to be art.

35

Actually the more I think about, i was wrong to qualify my statements concerning art appreciation. One does not need a specialised knowledge to apprehend or appreciate a work of art.

How do you define “specialized knowledge”? I’ve seen thousands of people directly view and respond to Vermeer’s paintings. I’ve never seen any of them taking Rand’s position on Vermeer. The “casual observer” does not agree with her that his work is naturalism. So, are you suggesting that these people, who saw and identified much more in Vermeer’s art than Rand did, must have had some sort of “specialised knowledge”? Or is it possible that, in some areas, Rand was perhaps a bit lacking in knowledge or abilities than the average “casual observer”?

How do you define “casual observer”? I’ve visited a lot of galleries and museums, and I’ve seen many casual observers very easily identifying subjects and meanings in art forms that Objectivism states are not valid art forms.

In contrast, here’s a post of mine from last year in which I asked people to follow Objectivism’s aesthetic requirements and identify the subjects and artist’s meanings in realist paintings. No one was able to do so. By your standards of determining what is or is not art by using the casual observer’s abilities to find meaning, those realistic still lifes would not qualify!

There is nothing in Rand’s definition to suggest it , nor does she state it in any of her subsequent writing on the subject. Someone who can see in a piece the" art" that is not apparent to the casual observer is coming from some position of pretense.

So, are you saying that Rand was coming from the position of pretense when classifying architecture, music and dance as valid art forms? After all, she could not objectively identify “artist’s meanings” in those art forms. She said that architecture “does not re-create reality,” that music doesn’t currently have an objective “coneptual vocabulary” and must therefore be treated as a subjective matter. She never objectively identified subjects and artist’s meanings in any real works of architecture, music or dance without having access to outside considerations. Are you saying that Objectivism’ acceptance of those art forms as valid is pure pretension?

J

36

Torres & Kamhi,

What Art Is:The Esthetic Theory of Ayn Rand , chapter 6 discusses Rand’s definition and contrasts that with the nonessential definitions of art as provided by the ‘artworld’ in the mid 20th century, the era that labeled such works as soup cans as art , when in fact they are not

Are you appealing to authority? If so, I don’t accept Kamhi and Torres as authorities, or anyone else. I only accept meritorious arguments.

Why do you believe that images of soup cans cannot be art according to Objectivism? Rand explained how a painting of an apple can qualify as art. Do you not grasp that the same principles apply to every other type of object, including soup cans?

Are there any other objects that you think could not possibly qualify as art if re-created in a painting? Is there a method or principle in action behind your opinions, or are certain paintings of certain objects just arbitrarily deemed to be non-art? Perhaps a still life painting of a bowl of carrots is legitimately art but a tin of carrots is somehow magically not legitimate art? Please help me to understand. I’m seeing no rhyme or reason to your ideas.

J

37

Based on that criteria then, recreation of the visual image of cans does not concretise any intelligible abstraction, therefore is not art.

Unless commercial billboards are considered to be art.

But you haven’t shown that images of soup cans don’t concretise intelligible abstractions. All you’ve shown is that you are apparently incapable of identifying intelligible abstractions in images of soup cans. You’ve begun with the assumption that you are a “casual observer.” But we haven’t objectively tested and proved that you are. For all we know, you may be much less than a “casual observer” – you might have difficulty with visual phenomena and its means of conveying intellectual and emotional content. So, we can’t just accept your rating or grading yourself, or your attempt to establish your own reactions to art, or lack thereof, as the naturally assumed standard of normalcy.

J

38

Are you appealing to authority? If so, I don’t accept Kamhi and Torres as authorities, or anyone else. I only accept meritorious arguments.

Why do you believe that images of soup cans cannot be art according to Objectivism? ideas.

J

you could google the chapter and see whether or not you think their points are valid, it seems they consider what I believe is your jusification for labeling art as an arguement from authority.

39

But you haven’t shown that images of soup cans don’t concretise intelligible abstractions. All you’ve shown is that you are apparently incapable of identifying intelligible abstractions in images of soup cans. You’ve begun with the assumption that you are a “casual observer.” But we haven’t objectively tested and proved that you are. For all we know, you may be much less than a “casual observer” – you might have difficulty with visual phenomena and its means of conveying intellectual and emotional content. So, we can’t just accept your rating or grading yourself, or your attempt to establish your own reactions to art, or lack thereof, as the naturally assumed standard of normalcy.

J

you have not shown that the soup cans are ‘art’, how is it I should prove a negative

40

J

I just scanned over the recommend post from last year, and basically I like Grames better than I thought I did.