Objectivism, Alleged Repression and Art
Tony Donadio
Just a quick lunchbreak post. I found this websearching earlier. I've only
had a chance to skim a few paragraphs but it looks to be very thorough,
interesting, and relevant to the above discussion.
http://www.escapingamerica.com/e_rand1_1.htm
Here is the section I found google searching, after a search of the
Objectivism Research CD showed no articles by Rand denouncing Beethoven:
http://www.escapingamerica.com/e_rand2_1.htm
<Quote:>
Ms. Branden claims that Rand later began to demand agreement "even in areas
of subjective [sic] preference," if not explicitly, then implicitly (P.A.R.,
p. 268). Nathaniel Branden confirms that from the very beginning of his
relationship with Rand, it was clear that Rand attached a deep significance
to a person's esthetic tastes.
If someone expressed an artistic value not shared by Rand, she might
actually say things like: "not my kind of person," or "not my sense of life"
(J.D., p. 348). Rand once even said of a student who enjoyed Mozart and
Beethoven, "That's why there will always be a wall between us. Our souls are
essentially different." (J.D., p. 241; cf. P.A.R., p. 268.)
The fascist implications are obvious.
Both Brandens tell us that many of Rand's students found themselves becoming
comprehensive repressors, smothering their "true selves" in an effort to be
properly "Objectivist." (J.D., p. 252; P.A.R., p. 243.)
If so, was this Rand's fault? If, as they say, they knew from the outset
that Rand attached significance to these matters, then was it not for them
to be honest about their own feelings, rather than smile and nod their
agreement? Whatever psychological label they place on it, the effect on Rand
was dishonesty. If they deceived themselves, they surely also by their own
admission systematically deceived Rand, as well.
Notice, too, that, as in the case of the Mozart lover, such differences did
not cause a "break." They apparently did not even cause the moral
condemnation for which Rand was allegedly famous. According to the Brandens'
own reports, the only quoted reaction Rand had was one of personal dislike,
"not my kind of person," and such. Why did the Brandens feel the need to
repress? Simply in order to be regarded by Rand as "one of her kind of
people" and in order to claim to Rand that they shared with her a certain
spiritual affinity.
This cannot be ascribed to any "authoritarian" tendencies of Rand, but
rather to the dishonest and sycophantic tendencies of the Brandens with
which we are now all too familiar.
An entirely different account of how Rand approached esthetic differences is
given by Mary Ann Sures in her memoir, Facets of Ayn Rand (2001, Ayn Rand
Institute Press). Mrs. Sures relates that she liked a certain painting by
Cezanne but "couldn't put [her] finger" on what she liked about it. So she
asked Rand, who she knew definitely did not like Cezanne. Mrs. Sures tells
us that this is what happened:
[Rand] asked me if I could tell her why I liked it. I don't remember all
that I said. I recall talking about two things: the secluded, peaceful
setting, and the sharp contrast between the sunlight and shade in the
painting what [Rand] called 'stylized sunlight.' [Rand] said she could
understand why I was responding to that aspect of it...
The value of that discussion was her stress on the importance of
understanding the reasons behind artistic preferences. Doing so puts you in
touch with yourself, and you identify your basic values in the process.
(F.O.A.R., pp. 81-82.)
So, as the Brandens and their friends were suppressing their true selves in
order to impress Rand as being "her kind of person," Mrs. Sures, not trying
to impress, was actually discovering her true self and not resenting Rand
in the process.
<Unquote>
Atlas Shrugged
someone asked her a question about her opinion of Beethoven. She responded
by stating that she thought his sense of life was malevolent. She didn't go
into any detail; just gave a direct answer with no elaboration. (I was
present when she gave that answer.)
Paul
taxslave
news:x6Gl9.23245$9d3.7...@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net...
> All,
>
> Just a quick lunchbreak post. I found this websearching earlier. I've only
> had a chance to skim a few paragraphs but it looks to be very thorough,
> interesting, and relevant to the above discussion.
>
> http://www.escapingamerica.com/e_rand1_1.htm
>
> Here is the section I found google searching, after a search of the
> Objectivism Research CD showed no articles by Rand denouncing Beethoven:
>
> http://www.escapingamerica.com/e_rand2_1.htm
CHARLES NOVINS:
Here's a quote from the author of the links you cite to:
"....Leonard Peikoff, who is more openly and honestly devoted to the
discovery of the truth than anyone else I have ever met."
It doesn't bother me - at all - that the guy respects Peikoff, but in a
discussion of the Brandens and their integrity, or lack therof, this comment
disqualifies him instantly.
Malenor
asp
Navigator: Where would you disagree with Ayn Rand's judgments about artists
and artworks?
York: I'll give a couple of examples. I don't think Rand understood
Impressionism well at all. If I recall correctly, she called it "silly
dots," and I think that characterization is itself silly, even if she meant
it to characterize Pointillism rather than Impressionism. Serious
Impressionists, understandably rebelling against France's
government-controlled Academic school, were working out on canvas many
alternative possibilities to the (by then formulized) Western canon of art.
Some were also aesthetically exploring David Hume's philosophy-right or
wrong-of sense perceptions, which in turn was a response to John Locke's
philosophy. Others were trying to incorporate into their work some of the
new scientific knowledge about the way the human eye mixes colors. Still
others were exploring rhythm, emotions, and mood, trying to incorporate
those attributes more directly into their work via brushstroke and color.
And even more were simply experimenting with paint that had, at the time,
become available in tubes, meaning they could paint en plein air, directly
from nature to canvas with fresh "impressions" and sunlight.
In short, new ideas were flowing from everywhere. Just think, for example,
of how Monet, who became such a leader during that period, altered his work
so significantly after being exposed to Japanese art. It should be noted,
too, that all of the best painters of this time were well schooled and
skilled in the established Western art traditions, so they had a solid
technical base for their experimentation. Whether or not their
experimentations were always successful is another question-as usual, some
were better and more serious than others. Nevertheless, it was an immensely
fertile period aesthetically and ideationally, as new worlds opened up
philosophically, scientifically, and geographically.
I agree with Rand that the modernists became thorough nihilists-though even
then, some of them were pictorially powerful because they were grounded in
the Western artistic techniques. But I find it unfortunate that she seemed
to slight the Impressionists. I think that Rand (especially in the field of
aesthetics) tended to oversimplify certain things that seemed very clear to
her on generalized or limited terms, even when she was not objectively
supported by facts that someone more familiar with those subjects would have
known.
Navigator: How about Rand's famous tastes in music?
York: Well, another example of my differences with Rand is her off-hand
denunciation of Beethoven. To be fair, if I remember correctly (I was in the
audience), she said only that his "sense of life" was the opposite of hers.
O.K. But I was still astounded at her words because I could only think that
she must never have heard his very romantic quartettes.
In any case, Beethoven was one of the greatest composers ever-I think of him
in the same category as Shakespeare-because of his range. He explored and
expressed a wide spectrum of subject matter; he was not limited; he explored
life as he knew it, and in the process he opened provocative avenues into
romanticism and tragedy (as musical art forms) and love and anger (as
emotions expressed through music) that were profound and profoundly
beautiful. Would we denounce the value of the Greek playwrights because they
didn't project our "sense of life" in their tragedies?
Here again (in my view) her term "sense of life" as a primary aesthetic
judgment is asked to bear too much evaluative weight. Like every other art,
music has an objective aesthetic "language" of its own and can be enjoyed
and "felt" (depending on how well you understand the "language") via its
integration of melody, harmony, rhythm, and so forth, all of which are
arranged to express the intent of the composer. Given the delicious and
seemingly infinite complexities of music, I feel that many of Rand's
writings on music were both too far-reaching and too closely subjective at
the same time, sometimes taking on moral rather than aesthetic overtones.
Navigator: To the end of her days, apparently, Ayn Rand loved light
classical music, such as French operettas, more than she liked the works of
heavyweight composers. Would you say, "That's a valid taste"? Or would you
say that such a person was missing out on something important?
York: I would say "both."
Tom S.
"taxslave" <taxs...@free-market.net> wrote in message
news:boJl9.22397$q42.1...@bin3.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com...
Why?
Tom Scheeler
--
"The greatest dangers to liberty, lurk in
insidious encroachment by men of zeal,
well-meaning but without understanding."
-- Justice Louis Brandeis, Olmstead case, 1928,
taxslave
In Branden vs. Peikoff controversy, author, purporting to be objective,
states:
> > "....Leonard Peikoff...is more openly and honestly devoted to the
discovery of the truth than anyone else I have ever met."
I suggest this destroys the author's credibility. Tom then asks...
"Tom S." <sn...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:03Kl9.128947$Pf7.5...@news1.west.cox.net...
> Why?
CHARLES NOVINS:
Tom, is that a trick question? Are you joking? What?
Tom S.
> CHARLES NOVINS:
> In Branden vs. Peikoff controversy, author, purporting to be objective,
> states:
>
> > > "....Leonard Peikoff...is more openly and honestly devoted to the
> discovery of the truth than anyone else I have ever met."
>
> I suggest this destroys the author's credibility. Tom then asks...
>
>
> CHARLES NOVINS:
> Tom, is that a trick question? Are you joking? What?
No.
Tom Scheeler
--
"The budget should be balanced, the Treasury
should be refilled, public debt should be reduced,
the arrogance of officialdom should be tempered
and controlled, and the assistance to foreign
lands should be curtailed lest Rome become
bankrupt. People must again learn to work, instead
of living on public assistance." --Cicero, 63 BC
Acar
"Tony Donadio" <tdon...@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:x6Gl9.23245$9d3.7...@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net...
> (Quoting)
> [Rand] asked me if I could tell her why I liked it. I don't remember
all
> that I said. I recall talking about two things: the secluded, peaceful
> setting, and the sharp contrast between the sunlight and shade in the
> painting what [Rand] called 'stylized sunlight.' [Rand] said she could
> understand why I was responding to that aspect of it...
>
In the first place the lady did not fully understand why she liked the
painting. She came up with objective criteria which are found in common in
many art works, presumably including some that she would not like as much..
Thus the exchange is a meaningless ritual of attaching artificial
significance to replies extracted by interrogation. Secondly all was well
because Rand approved. We have been exposed to accounts of instances in
which Rand has not approved of the reasons given. Although not in art, we
all remember the Milton Friedman redness. Former members of the collective
have written here that their personal relationships and literary tastes have
not met with equal agreement, after similar exchanges.
The point is not whether Rand did this or that. The point is that the
Objectivist definition of art is prescriptive with implications about what
is good art and bad art. Not that there is anything wrong with that except
if the claim is that the criteria should be objective.
Tony Donadio
"Acar" <g...@d-g-s.com> wrote in message
news:RI1m9.22562$Cz.31...@twister.neo.rr.com...
> Thus the exchange is a meaningless ritual of attaching artificial
> significance to replies extracted by interrogation. Secondly all
> was well because Rand approved. We have been exposed to
> accounts of instances in which Rand has not approved of the
> reasons given.
You're completely missing the point, which is what the story alleges about
the *circumstances* under which Rand "disapproved" of peoples' opinions of
art.
But so what if Ayn Rand disapproved of someone's opinions of art or the
reasons offered for it? Or of opinions on any other issue, for that matter?
If you honestly disagree, then have a spine and say so -- and deal like an
adult with the fact that she might have a different view of whether your
disagreement is honest or legitimate. The history of the Objectivist
movement is replete with examples of people repeatedly arguing with Rand
over such issues and nevertheless keeping their friendships with her,
despite whatever temporary anger or frustration she might have shown in
response at the time. Leonard Peikoff was foremost among them, even by the
Brandens' own accounts, and she ended up making him her heir. From all
accounts he always displayed *honesty* in questioning her ideas -- instead
of sycophantically parroting what they thought she wanted to hear while
keeping their "true feelings and thoughts" to themselves for fear of earning
her disapproval, as the Brandens did. Yet now we see the purveyors of the
myth of the Objectivist cult depicting a man who became honestly convinced
of her ideas through years of questioning as a "cult leader," while lauding
the ones who drank cool-aid of their own brewing as paragons of objectivity.
Amazing.
In any event, since you've volunteered the allegation that "there are
accounts of instances in which Rand has not approved of the reasons given"
for artistic opinions, ones which you think provide a relevant contrast to
Ms. Sures' story, then you won't mind if I ask you to put up and present a
few of them. I suspect that they won't stand critical scrutiny, and that you
will probably respond by arguing, as you hint below, that *any* artistic
opinion offered as objective to be somehow and self-evidently heinous. But
do tell.
> The point is not whether Rand did this or that.
I agree.
> The point is that the Objectivist definition of art is
> prescriptive with implications about what is good art
> and bad art. Not that there is anything wrong with that
> except if the claim is that the criteria should be objective.
What is wrong with the idea that there should be objective criteria in
evaluating art? I'm still waiting for you to explain your views in this
area.
Acar
>
> What is wrong with the idea that there should be objective criteria in
> evaluating art?
Everything. There is the objeective and the subjective. The subjective is
not a branch of the objective, by which the subjective may be objectivized.
Reason is the organizer and facilitator of the subjective, not viceversa.
The role of reason is to organize and effectively achieve the objectives of
our emotions. This should not be misunderstood and misrpresented as
supediting emotions to reason (in principle) or as emotions being secondary
by-products of reasoning patterns. Emotions set the great objectives and
reason provides the strategy and tactics. The brain is the handy-man of the
heart. The heart doesn't tell the mind everything that it knows.
Subjectivity is the essence of freedom and individuality. Setting rigid
external standards is contra-natura. It stifles individuality and curtails
freedom.
Fred Weiss
"Acar" <g...@d-g-s.com> wrote in message
news:DRmm9.25808$Cz.36...@twister.neo.rr.com...
This is remarkable. You have brilliantly captured the essence of the
philosophy that was at the root of Naziism.
Fred Weiss
Atlas Shrugged
"Fred Weiss" <pape...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:and6km$evk$1...@slb5.atl.mindspring.net...
Very good observation, Fred.
Paul
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
Malenor
"Fred Weiss" <pape...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:and6km$evk$1...@slb5.atl.mindspring.net...
>
> This is remarkable. You have brilliantly captured the essence of the
> philosophy that was at the root of Naziism.
>
> Fred Weiss
>
Only because Objectivism did not arrive on the scene first.
Malenor
"Atlas Shrugged" <nos...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:Wiqm9.351450$216.14...@bin4.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com...
> Very good observation, Fred.
>
Good doggie, goooood doggie!
Fred Weiss
"Malenor" <mal...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:Iitm9.3890$OB5.3...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
But, Malenoid, your hero - the father of German philosophy - DID arrive on
the scene first and was the source of it.
Fred Weiss
Acar
"Fred Weiss" <pape...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:and6km$evk$1...@slb5.atl.mindspring.net...
>
>
That is just plain silly. It is true in your life. Life, liberty and the
pursuit of happiness are reducible to emotional needs.
x
x
x
x
Malenor
> your hero - the father of German philosophy - DID arrive on
> the scene first and was the source of it.
>
I'm trying to think who "the father of German philosophy" might be...
Malenor
> That is just plain silly. It is true in your life. Life, liberty and the
> pursuit of happiness are reducible to emotional needs.
>
Very good observation, Acar.
Acar
Just ask the Count of Montecristo, or the guy who wants to be Chairman of
the Department, or the the one that just wants to provide for his family, or
the one who wants to set a record or the one who just wants to get respect,
etc. etc. Why does Fred want to achieve?