The Zeroeth Law of Esthetics
Mar...@lara.pathlink.com
drift is a fact of life.)
(1) The esthetics discussion was mired on Rand's definition of art as "a
selective recreation of reality according to the artist's value judgements."
What is not? I mean, how I perform my job at the office is just exactly that.
Moving paper or data is the symbolic manipulation of constructs that represent
objects. If I do it well or poorly, sharply or vaguely, heroically or
despondently, in accordance with or in negation of my professed beliefs, is my
choice. Life is Art. Therefore, Rand's definition is so broad that it cannot
differentiate Art from Everything Else.
(2) The discussion was almost exclusively about MUSEUMS AND GALLERIES. This is
a very small part of Art, very sterile and artificial, typical of Rand's
preference for "the leisure of the theory class" that sets college professors
above mere mortals. In terms of this discussion the prejudice (heck, HATRED)
that academic artists have for commercial art reinforces that of the galler
y and
museum crowd. Look -- I mean LOOK -- at cars, or better still AIRPLANES.
Almost anything will fly if you push it hard enough. Look at jet fighter p
lanes
-- the epitome of utilitarian construction, nothing wasted, nothing wanting --
and SEE the differences in lines between and among American, European, and
Asian
designers. You can spot a Russian plane every time. Those objects are the
lowest form of commercial art. Then LISTEN to a radio commercial. Not a
Rachmaninoff Concerto, but still, a selective ordering of events. Most radio
commercials are painful. Some are not. I have a stack of 3.5-inch floppies
here right now. They have pleasing colors. The incuse logos show the
characteristics of any art. The way it works, where the holes are for the
reader, how big, what shape, it is not just a matter of pure utility, but of
pleasing design that satisfies the user as well as the creator. Here in this
office we have team-spirit banners (corporations are communism). The typography
alone is art and the words are only half the message.
(3) Cooking is an art. Apparently, Rand never got passed beef stew. Myself, I
do not like food. I prefer vitamin pills and water. But if we have to have
food, it should taste interesting and be presented with style. I think I cook a
pretty mean skillet for someone who resents the necessity. According to Rand's
definition of Art and the imposed restrictions to galleries and museums, there
is no difference between chicken kiev and a plucked bird on a spit over an open
fire, between a chef's Greek salad and an hour of foraging among the flowers.
Why have popcorn? Why cook it with chili or curry?
(4) Textile arts? Rand seemed aware of fashions in her books. She declaimed
against the midi-skirt. Yet in her books, often the only people dressed well
were bad guys. (Gail Wynand might have been the sole exception.) Last year, I
spent an hour picking out a new briefcase. Price was a factor, of course. (I
kept it under $129.) Utility was a factor, of course. (Phone pocket, business
card slots, partitions for keeping papers separate.) But finally, it came down
to STYLE. I stood in front of the 3-view mirror in Wilson Leather and LOOK
ED at
myself carrying the briefcase. It had to be the right size for me, and the
right color (black) for my suits (black and gray).
... and some people have to go to a museum to see art ...
(Coming next time: haircuts.)
Darcy
news:<9iccs...@drn.newsguy.com>...
> (1) The esthetics discussion was mired on Rand's definition of art as "a
> selective recreation of reality according to the artist's value judgements."
> What is not? I mean, how I perform my job at the office is just exactly
> that.
> Moving paper or data is the symbolic manipulation of constructs that repr
> esent
> objects. If I do it well or poorly, sharply or vaguely, heroically or
> despondently, in accordance with or in negation of my professed beliefs,
> is my
> choice. Life is Art. Therefore, Rand's definition is so broad that it cannot
> differentiate Art from Everything Else.
>
Well, if a sheath of paper lands on your desk, and you read and sign
off on the proposal, that's reality -- not a recreation of it. So
it's not art. Unless you're doing a performance piece titled "The
Rational Man Pushing Paper."
There's a difference between art and the artistic. But since I don't
agree with Ayn Rand's definition of art and I don't have an alternate
definition, I'll leave that proof to the others.
> (3) Cooking is an art. Apparently, Rand never got passed beef stew.
I've always wondered if Ayn Rand was a bad cook. In Atlas, when Dagny
cooks for Galt, she thinks something along the lines of how pleasant
it can be to cook for a man occasionally, but not as some wretched
duty -- something about a kitchen full of bad odors and slimy
peelings.
Yuck! When I cook, my kitchen smells wonderful. And what on earth
peels off slimy? :)
> (Coming next time: haircuts.)
How about jewelry too?
Ian Campbell
<Mar...@lara.pathlink.com>; "Michael E." <mer...@well.com> wrote in
message news:9iccs...@drn.newsguy.com...
> (Rational Television became Esthetics 101 and that's fine, I suppose.
Topic
> drift is a fact of life.)
>
> (1) The esthetics discussion was mired on Rand's definition of art as "a
> selective recreation of reality according to the artist's value
judgements."
> What is not? I mean, how I perform my job at the office is just exactly
that.
> Moving paper or data is the symbolic manipulation of constructs that
represent
> objects. If I do it well or poorly, sharply or vaguely, heroically or
> despondently, in accordance with or in negation of my professed beliefs,
is my
> choice. Life is Art. Therefore, Rand's definition is so broad that it
cannot
> differentiate Art from Everything Else.
I don't think your (counter) example could be called a recreation. It is
only, as you say, a manuipulation. The difference as I see it is that a
recreation (mw dictionary: to create again; especially: to form anew in the
imagination) means a copy has been made, whereas a manuipulation is a simple
change to the object without copying it.
I don't think shuffling the paper is art, but painting a picture of the
paper on the desk is. Where the values come in is in what you choose to
include or omit in the picture - not so much in how heroically you perform
your brush strokes etc. This is the importance of "selective" in the
definition.
For example if asked to paint a person, do you paint their best side or
their worst side - do you make them look heroic or depraved. The selections
you make reveal how you see the world.
I think Rand also thought this could be used as a gauge of your mental
health. People who always produce art which is depressing and black are
selectively seeing the world that way. In her opinion this is not just an
artist's choice but actually a faulty human being (not being objective = bad
mental health).
I agree with you about the planes - a lot of stuff can be considered art. I
think Rand knew this too - don't forget Howard Roark's buildings.
IC
Maro...@lara.pathlink.com
>Well, if a sheath of paper lands on your desk, and you read and sign
>off on the proposal, that's reality -- not a recreation of it. So
>it's not art. Unless you're doing a performance piece titled "The
>Rational Man Pushing Paper."
I can keep my desk messy or neat. It can be functionally neat or obsessively
neat. It can be in seeming disorder to an outsider or complete chaos to me
. In
any case, how approach my life, my work, is my STYLE of work, my life STYLE, my
life qua art. My life is not "all of reality" but my SELECTIVE recreation of
some subset of reality.
Again, cooking, we both agree is an ART. You do not cook all possible foods at
once. You selectively decide which combinations will not only taste good but
also LOOK good together, even match the plates and cups, a little yellow sprig
of a twist here to offset the yellow there,...
(Maybe Rand ate something we do not know about, like sea anemone or something
that peeled up slimy. Maybe she did not like the way cucumbers feel when they
are peeled. Anyway, Rand clearly did not see cooking as an ART.)
Jewelry is obviously an artform and one not greatly appreciated. We might put a
(as in ONE) ancient Roman brooch in a museum but that's about it. There is not
much theory on good versus bad jewelry. Personally, I hate the middle-sized
one-carat diamonds up on tall settings to show off the stone. The purpose is
seems only to be to flash a beacon at the world to elicite envy. Good jewelry
accents the body shapes and colors of the person who wears it. Some people look
better in silver than in gold. My wife has green eyes. I give her emerald
s and
jade and malachite. This all seems obvious to me. There must be more I am not
perceiving in this. I do not personally wear much: a simple gold wedding band
and a silver ring to keep it on, the ring, set with tourquoise was a gift from
my wife. I lost my watch last week and have replaced it. That's it.
R Lawrence
>I can keep my desk messy or neat. It can be functionally neat or
>obsessively neat. It can be in seeming disorder to an outsider or
>complete chaos to me.. In any case, how approach my life, my work, is my
>STYLE of work, my life STYLE, my life qua art. My life is not "all of
>reality" but my SELECTIVE recreation of some subset of reality.
"Your life" is the original reality, not a recreation of it, selective or
otherwise. When you place materials on your desk, you are not seeking to
recreate some other part of reality according to your metaphysical value
judgements. In short, you aren't engaged in art. Whether you place items
for purely functional reasons -- whatever your office function is -- or
because you have some obsession with putting things in a particular order
is not relevant.
>Again, cooking, we both agree is an ART.
Too bad it isn't one at all. I suppose one could incorporate cooking into
art in some bizarre way, such as making a sculpture out of food, but even
then the cooking per se would not be art.
>Jewelry is obviously an artform and one not greatly appreciated.
Jewelry is not art.
--
Richard Lawrence <RL0...@yahoo.com>
Visit the Objectivism Reference Center: http://www.objectivism.addr.com/
Robert J. Kolker
R Lawrence wrote:
>
> >Jewelry is obviously an artform and one not greatly appreciated.
>
> Jewelry is not art.
It surely is. Some Jewlery is beautifully and cunningly wrought.
The work of clever hands, a good eye and a sense of form.
You are dead wrong.
Bob Kolker
Robert J. Kolker
R Lawrence wrote:
>
> Jewelry is not art.
Jewlery making is as much art as sculptoring
with which it has much in common
You don't think cutting a brilliant diamond
out of a dull looking rock is not art? Or
making the setting? Or making body ornaments
to complement the beauty of the wearer?
If anything cutting a brilliant stone, by striking
on the fault lines requires greater skill than
making a statue from limstone or granite. It is
an excercise in physics as much as it is rock
cutting.
Bob Kolker
R Lawrence
>R Lawrence wrote:
>>>Jewelry is obviously an artform and one not greatly appreciated.
>>
>>Jewelry is not art.
>
>It surely is. Some Jewlery is beautifully and cunningly wrought.
>The work of clever hands, a good eye and a sense of form.
None of these things make something art.
Perhaps you would like to offer your own formal definition of what art is?
R Lawrence
>You don't think cutting a brilliant diamond
>out of a dull looking rock is not art? Or
>making the setting? Or making body ornaments
>to complement the beauty of the wearer?
This is all craft, and it makes a ring a work of art no more than a manhole
cover is.
Robert J. Kolker
R Lawrence wrote:
> >It surely is. Some Jewlery is beautifully and cunningly wrought.
> >The work of clever hands, a good eye and a sense of form.
>
> None of these things make something art.
>
> Perhaps you would like to offer your own formal definition of what art is?
Making pretty stuff to please the eye and the heart. It requires an
objective grasp of the medium and material, and doing it makes
the spirit soar. So it is both objective and subjective at the same time.
Bob Kolker
Robert J. Kolker
R Lawrence wrote:
> "Robert J. Kolker" <bobk...@mediaone.net> wrote:
>
>
> This is all craft, and it makes a ring a work of art no more than a manhole
> cover is.
A well designed man-hole cover IS a work of art.
It serves a useful purpose AND it please the eye and the mind.
Methinks you are a phillistine.
Bob Kolker
Acar
>
>"Robert J. Kolker" <bobk...@mediaone.net> wrote:
>
>>You don't think cutting a brilliant diamond
>>out of a dull looking rock is not art? Or
>>making the setting? Or making body ornaments
>>to complement the beauty of the wearer?
>
>This is all craft, and it makes a ring a work of art no more than a manhole
>cover is.
I'm not entirely clear about how architecture is a selective recreation of
reality.
Carmichael
Robert J. Kolker
Acar wrote:
>
> I'm not entirely clear about how architecture is a selective recreation of
> reality.
On what two Tablets of Stone is it Inscribed that Art is a selctive
recreation of reality? Why can't art be something that amuses the
mind and the eye (or even touch)? Something pretty and requiring
skill to create. Why isn't that art? This Randian dictum completely
overlooks many activities that are aesthetic in nature and intent
and has nothing to do with "re-creating" reality, which cannot be
done. Reality is what is. It cannot be re-created. It can only be
re-presented.
Rand who never painted a picture, nor hewed a statue from the
living rock or poured a mould is hardly the last word on what
is and is not art. She was a reasonably successful word-smith
and that is the length of breadth of her authority as a definer of
Art.
Bob Kolker
R Lawrence
>R Lawrence wrote:
>>Perhaps you would like to offer your own formal definition of what art is?
>
>Making pretty stuff to please the eye and the heart.
I comb my hair to make it pleasing to the eye, but I don't consider that to
be a work of art.
I don't think you are offering a very useful definition. Not only does it
make all sorts of things art that are not often considered such -- an
elegant manhole cover design, for example, as you have already admitted --
but it also does not allow for the possibility that a work of art can be
ugly, which is sometimes the case. You appear to be equating all man-made
beauty with art.
Acar
A normal reply does not help me :). I was looking for the Objectivist reply
. Art
of course is not a selective recreation of reality. That is a doctrinaire e
dict.
It is often a recreation of fantasy. Any human construction that stongly ap
peals
to some esthetic sense is art. If it so appeals to enough people over a long
enough period of time it is good art. So we don't know yet if any contemporary
art is good art. It is art only in the sense that it intends to be, and it
appeals to contemporary esthetic values. Never underestimate the crucial ro
le of
consensus in identifying human values.
Carmichael
Robert J. Kolker
R Lawrence wrote:
> but it also does not allow for the possibility that a work of art can be
> ugly, which is sometimes the case. You appear to be equating all man-made
> beauty with art.
Just about. Art is , well....., artificial. There is nothing "real" about it.
All art is man made. People have been doodling, painting, daubing,
sawing, scraping, busting rocks, making mud pies to please themselves
for 10,000 years. I guess that that is art. Art does not have to be
exaulted to be art. It can merely be pleasing and entertaining. Making
art is a subspecies of play. A form of amusement and lightning the
spirit. The idea that art * must * be profound and give Great Philosphical
Insights is a characteristic you have imposed on art. Other people do
art for less exaulted reasons.
I bet you think the cave paintings in France is just ice age
graffiti.
Bob Kolker
R Lawrence
>> I'm not entirely clear about how architecture is a selective recreation of
>> reality.
It isn't, and therefore isn't an art -- any inconsistent comments to the
contrary by Ayn Rand notwithstanding.
>On what two Tablets of Stone is it Inscribed that Art is a selctive
>recreation of reality? Why can't art be something that amuses the
>mind and the eye (or even touch)? Something pretty and requiring
>skill to create. Why isn't that art?
You can call such things "art" if you wish, but your definition would be
inconsistent with historical usage and would designate as "art" all sorts
of things that most people would not call by that term.
Rand's definition, in contrast, includes those things traditionally
considered works of art while excluding those things traditionally
considered to be crafts or functional items. Her defintion is not
uncontroversial -- it would exclude a variety of modern works that some
people call "art" -- but what you are suggesting isn't even a good first
pass.
> This Randian dictum completely
>overlooks many activities that are aesthetic in nature and intent
>and has nothing to do with "re-creating" reality, which cannot be
>done. Reality is what is. It cannot be re-created. It can only be
>re-presented.
You are equivocating. Under the usage of "create" that you are following,
nothing can be created, since matter/energy can only be manipulated, not
brought into existence de novo. This is not what words like "create,"
"creation," "creativity," and "re-create" mean in the context of art, so
your criticism is ill founded.
>Rand who never painted a picture, nor hewed a statue from the
>living rock or poured a mould is hardly the last word on what
>is and is not art. She was a reasonably successful word-smith
>and that is the length of breadth of her authority as a definer of
>Art.
Good definitions are not a question of "authority," and no one in this
conversation has claimed Rand's authority as the deciding factor. Your
indignation is misplaced.
--
R Lawrence
>Methinks you are a phillistine.
Should I cringe in terror that you will hurl another ad hominem at me?
R Lawrence
>>but it also does not allow for the possibility that a work of art can be
>>ugly, which is sometimes the case. You appear to be equating all man-made
>>beauty with art.
>
>Just about. Art is , well....., artificial. There is nothing "real" about it.
>All art is man made.
Duh. But not everything man-made -- or even man-made and beautiful -- is
art.
> People have been doodling, painting, daubing,
>sawing, scraping, busting rocks, making mud pies to please themselves
>for 10,000 years. I guess that that is art. Art does not have to be
>exaulted to be art. It can merely be pleasing and entertaining. Making
>art is a subspecies of play. A form of amusement and lightning the
>spirit. The idea that art * must * be profound and give Great Philosphical
>Insights is a characteristic you have imposed on art.
I don't know when I supposedly made this imposition. I have said nothing
about profundity or philosophical insights. You are making up straw men.
Robert J. Kolker
R Lawrence wrote:
>
> Good definitions are not a question of "authority," and no one in this
> conversation has claimed Rand's authority as the deciding factor. Your
> indignation is misplaced.
Her definition is bad. It represents her particular opinion of what
art is. Why is her definition right, and mine wrong? The answer
is there is no answer. One defines a term, then sticks to the usage
specified. If you don't like my definition of art, then use another.
One is as good (or as bad) as another.
There is nothing in the realm of fact that singles out Rand's definition
as superior.
Bob Kolker
Acar
>
>"Robert J. Kolker" <bobk...@mediaone.net> wrote:
>>Acar wrote:
>
>>> I'm not entirely clear about how architecture is a selective recreation of
>>> reality.
>
>It isn't, and therefore isn't an art -- any inconsistent comments to the
>contrary by Ayn Rand notwithstanding.
Thank you for your reply. As Baboo Butt said to Seinfeld: You are a very nice
man.
On the one hand you call Bob's inclusions unconventional which they are not and
on the other you exclude architecture while still affirming that the alleged
definition conforms to traditional concepts. There goes the Taj Mahal.
Carmichael
R Lawrence
>>Good definitions are not a question of "authority," and no one in this
>>conversation has claimed Rand's authority as the deciding factor. Your
>>indignation is misplaced.
>
>Her definition is bad. It represents her particular opinion of what
>art is. Why is her definition right, and mine wrong? The answer
>is there is no answer.
The answer is: 1) her definition fits traditional and contemporary usage
better then yours; 2) hers is more useful for evaluating the role of art in
human life; 3) hers enables the evaluation of good art vs. bad art. You can
define a word any way you like, but her definition is a lot more useful
than yours.
> One defines a term, then sticks to the usage
>specified. If you don't like my definition of art, then use another.
I already do.
>One is as good (or as bad) as another.
Then why did you contradict me when I said that jewelry is not art? It
isn't, by the definition I am using. For you to use another definition to
say I am mistaken is simply equivocation. If my definition is just as good
as yours, then you have nothing to say to me on this issue.
Robert J. Kolker
R Lawrence wrote:
> human life; 3) hers enables the evaluation of good art vs. bad art. You can
> define a word any way you like, but her definition is a lot more useful
> than yours.
Nonsense! Good art is art you like. Bad art is art you don't like.
There is no objective criterion of goodness in the graphic arts.
In the practical arts, fulfillment of function is the figure of merit.
In the real world a fancy manhole cover, must cover the hole.
All else is secondary.
Matters of beauty apart from function are purely subjective.
Bob Kolker
Acar
>
>"Robert J. Kolker" <bobk...@mediaone.net> wrote:
>>R Lawrence wrote:
>
>>>Good definitions are not a question of "authority," and no one in this
>>>conversation has claimed Rand's authority as the deciding factor. Your
>>>indignation is misplaced.
>>
>>Her definition is bad. It represents her particular opinion of what
>>art is. Why is her definition right, and mine wrong? The answer
>>is there is no answer.
>
>The answer is: 1) her definition fits traditional and contemporary usage
>better then yours;
I disagree.
>2) hers is more useful for evaluating the role of art in
>human life;
I disagree.
>3) hers enables the evaluation of good art vs. bad art.
I agree that it so intends. However Betsy Speicher, Fred Weiss and if I rem
ember
correctly Dean Sandin disagree.
>You can
>define a word any way you like, but her definition is a lot more useful
>than yours.
I disagree.
>> One defines a term, then sticks to the usage
>>specified. If you don't like my definition of art, then use another.
>
>I already do.
>
>>One is as good (or as bad) as another.
I disagree with Bob.
I hope that this matter is now settled.
Carmichael
>Then why did you contradict me when I said that jewelry is not art? It
>isn't, by the definition I am using. For you to use another definition to
>say I am mistaken is simply equivocation. If my definition is just as good
>as yours, then you have nothing to say to me on this issue.
>
>--
>Richard Lawrence <RL0...@yahoo.com>
>Visit the Objectivism Reference Center: http://www.objectivism.addr.com/
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
R Lawrence
>>human life; 3) hers enables the evaluation of good art vs. bad art. You can
>>define a word any way you like, but her definition is a lot more useful
>>than yours.
>
>Nonsense! Good art is art you like. Bad art is art you don't like.
>There is no objective criterion of goodness in the graphic arts.
By your theory of art, of course not. This merely shows off one of the
deficiencies of your position.
@unknownsite
>There is no objective criterion of goodness in the graphic arts.
Ya sure? Maybe start with a definition of art. Something about
"selective recreation of reality according to the artist's values".
Is it not possible to *objectively* judge values? Is it not true that
values are good or bad according to whether they enhance life or destroy
life?
--
Jerry Story
Robert J. Kolker
"()" wrote:
> >Nonsense! Good art is art you like. Bad art is art you don't like.
> >There is no objective criterion of goodness in the graphic arts.
>
> Ya sure? Maybe start with a definition of art. Something about
> "selective recreation of reality according to the artist's values".
1. Reality cannot be recreated, it can only be represented.
2. Art (the product) is something that makes the artist happy
This is subjective clean through from one end to the other.
3. Art (the commidity) is something that made the customer happy
Unless the art is functional (has an instrumental use) its goodness
or badness results from a subjective judgement.
Since reality cannot be recreated, the question is what is the
artists purpose in his representation. If the artists sets out to
project a dislike of reality then he makes ugly stuff that produces
discomfort and loathing in the viewer. If the artist succeeds in
this end, from the p.o.v. of his purpose he has done well.
If the artist wants to capture a spirit of beauty and wonder in
his work, then to the extent that the viewers (or consumers) of
his art attain this spirit, the artist has succeeded.
In either case the success is the production of the subjective state
in the viewer/consumer that the artist wished to acheive.
As I said, subjective, non-quantifiable from one end to to the
other.
The speed of an auto can be measured objectively, the goodness
of art cannot, unless it has a quantifiable instrumental purpose.
Of what use is the statue of David? It is to big to be a paper weight
and too small to be a light house.
Bob Kolker
Robert J. Kolker
R Lawrence wrote:
> By your theory of art, of course not. This merely shows off one of the
> deficiencies of your position.
Nothing defective at all. I recognize that art is a form of play that
satisfies both the artist and the consumer. Since the product generally
does not have an instrumental functional use, there is no quantitative
way of measuring its "goodness". In the non instrumental, non
functional case it is subjective clean through.
Frankly I find Rembrandt's portraits to be defective. I could have done
much better with a camera and in much less time. If the purpose
of Rembrandt was to make a recognizeable representation of
human beings, his work is not nearly is as good as a camera, which
would have handle the light levels much better also. By "good" I
mean accurate. On what other basis should his portaits be judged?
On a scale of accuracy. My Polaroid is +10 and Rembrandt is 6.5
at best. Do you like my objective judgements? Or are you going to
tell me there is another issue or factor involved other than accuracy
of representation.
Bob Kolker
Eudaimonus
"R Lawrence" <RL0...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:ieX77.23691$Gj5.14...@typhoon.san.rr.com...
> "Robert J. Kolker" <bobk...@mediaone.net> wrote:
>
> >You don't think cutting a brilliant diamond
> >out of a dull looking rock is not art? Or
> >making the setting? Or making body ornaments
> >to complement the beauty of the wearer?
>
> This is all craft, and it makes a ring a work of art no more than a
manhole
> cover is.
One of the older meanings of the word 'art' is 'craft', from which is
derived the word 'artifice'.
Robert J. Kolker
R Lawrence wrote:
> This is all craft, and it makes a ring a work of art no more than a manhole
> cover is.
A decorative manhole cover is as much a work of art as
Michaelangelo's - David - and a lot more useful. David is
to big to be a paperweight and too small to be a lighthouse.
Think of a manhole cover with Archemedian spirals cut in
the metal, cleverly carved to catch the light of the sun twinkling
from behind the clouds. Why can't municipal craft be beautiful
as well? How many children passing the manhole covers will
be intrigued by a pair of orthagonal Archemedian spirals.
Perhaps some will be inspired to become mathematicians.
Bob Kolker
Eudaimonus
> "Robert J. Kolker" <bobk...@mediaone.net> wrote:
> >On what two Tablets of Stone is it Inscribed that Art is a selctive
> >recreation of reality? Why can't art be something that amuses the
> >mind and the eye (or even touch)? Something pretty and requiring
> >skill to create. Why isn't that art?
> You can call such things "art" if you wish, but your definition would be
> inconsistent with historical usage and would designate as "art" all sorts
> of things that most people would not call by that term.
The Blacksmith and the Artist
Reflect it in their art
Forge their creativity
Closer to the Heart
(Added note : quibling over definitions is about as usefull as spitting into
the wind)
David Buchner
> I don't think you are offering a very useful definition. Not only does it
> make all sorts of things art that are not often considered such -- an
> elegant manhole cover design, for example, as you have already admitted --
I'm still quite new to this Objectivist view of art. Before, I would
have had no hesitation whatsoever, to say "Yeah, sure, a manhole cover
is art too!" And still I wonder: why not? Doesn't the way the person
doing that casting (or however manhole covers are made) chooses to make
it, reflect something of his values? Doesn't it at the very least say
something about his values that he chooses to make a manhole cover
interesting beyond its basic function of covering a manhole? I have a
friend who makes cast iron art, depicting ears of corn and fossils and
things - these great big heavy lovely things. Does where the object is
displayed determine whether or not it's art? Or does something cease to
be art if it has a useful purpose?
--
David
Buc...@wcta.net Osage MN USA
Robert J. Kolker
David Buchner wrote:
>
> I'm still quite new to this Objectivist view of art. Before, I would
> have had no hesitation whatsoever, to say "Yeah, sure, a manhole cover
> is art too!" And still I wonder: why not? Doesn't the way the person
> doing that casting (or however manhole covers are made) chooses to make
> it, reflect something of his values? Doesn't it at the very least say
> something about his values that he chooses to make a manhole cover
> interesting beyond its basic function of covering a manhole? I have a
> friend who makes cast iron art, depicting ears of corn and fossils and
> things - these great big heavy lovely things. Does where the object is
> displayed determine whether or not it's art? Or does something cease to
> be art if it has a useful purpose?
Sounds like art to me. People whose eyes are still filled with fairy
dust from reading A.R's novels in which she * depicts * artists
have an idee' fixee' about is and is not art. I see nothing wrong
with combining the utilitarian (or functional) with the aesthetically
pleasing. Pleasing the eye and spirit of the consumer/beholder of
art is the length and breadth of its goodness. Second to that is
giving the consumer/beholder a new way of looking at things.
Neither of these attributes have an objective basis.
Bob Kolker
R Lawrence
>One of the older meanings of the word 'art' is 'craft', from which is
>derived the word 'artifice'.
I'm not sure what the point of this comment is. Like many words, 'art' has
multiple meanings. We already have enough equivocation in this thread
without adding to it.
Robert J. Kolker
R Lawrence wrote:
> Eudaimonus <jws...@soltec.net> wrote:
>
> >One of the older meanings of the word 'art' is 'craft', from which is
> >derived the word 'artifice'.
>
> I'm not sure what the point of this comment is. Like many words, 'art' has
> multiple meanings. We already have enough equivocation in this thread
> without adding to it.
So why is one meaning better than another?
Shouldn't the meaning be made explicit, or
at least be fitted to the context of discussion.
In particular why is Rand's definition of art
(which appears in no dictionary btw) be
considered correct?
Bob Kolker
R Lawrence
>>By your theory of art, of course not. This merely shows off one of the
>>deficiencies of your position.
>
>Nothing defective at all. I recognize that art is a form of play that
>satisfies both the artist and the consumer.
You tell me that my definition and yours are equally good, so I'm sticking
with mine. You are apparently sticking with yours. That leaves us no basis
for discussion of a common subject, since we are talking about two
different things when we say 'art'.
R Lawrence
>Think of a manhole cover with Archemedian spirals cut in
>the metal, cleverly carved to catch the light of the sun twinkling
>from behind the clouds. Why can't municipal craft be beautiful
>as well?
I never said it couldn't be. My theory does not require that art be
beautiful in order to qualify as art. But it also doesn't put every
beautiful thing under the heading 'art'. The manhole cover you describe
sounds like a fine-looking craft item: functional but ornamented in a
pleasing way. It still isn't art.
R Lawrence
>Shouldn't the meaning be made explicit, or
>at least be fitted to the context of discussion.
I made my meaning explicit. You still insist on responding as if I was
using your meaning. You have exhibited similar behavior on other topics in
the past (notably with regard to ethics), and there is no point in trying
to discuss with you when you do it.
R Lawrence
>I'm still quite new to this Objectivist view of art. Before, I would
>have had no hesitation whatsoever, to say "Yeah, sure, a manhole cover
>is art too!" And still I wonder: why not? Doesn't the way the person
>doing that casting (or however manhole covers are made) chooses to make
>it, reflect something of his values? Doesn't it at the very least say
>something about his values that he chooses to make a manhole cover
>interesting beyond its basic function of covering a manhole?
Rand's definition of art is: "Art is a selective re-creation of reality
according to an artist's metaphysical value-judgments."[1] A manhole cover
fails this definition by not being a selective recreation of reality and by
being designed based on a functional purpose (it cover the manhole) rather
than based on the artist's metaphysical value judgements.
The manhole cover is a good test because it is a classic non-esthetic item.
If this type of object is "art," then all man-made objects are "art" and
the term ceases to have significance. Applying your suggestion about the
design "reflect[ing] something of his values," if the designer makes a
crappy, uninteresting manhole cover, that also "reflect[s] something of his
values" in the broad sense that you are using. So if that were enough to
make it art, all man-made objects would be art. All work product can be
held to "reflect" one's values in some tenuous way. This is what is called
an "overly broad" definition: it includes a bunch of referents that are not
called 'art' by most users of the term. In this case, it would include
every man-made object, since all man-made objects are designed based in
some way on the values of the designer.
Rand avoids this problem by requiring that all art fall into the genus of
being a "selective re-creation of reality." Objects that do not attempt to
re-create some other part of reality (which includes the vast majority of
everyday objects) do not qualify as art.
Another common way to narrow the definition is to limit the term 'art' to
items that are "beautiful" or aesthetically pleasing. For example, Mr.
Kolker's initial definition was "pretty stuff to please the eye and
heart."[2] The problem run into with this type of definition is that there
are items generally recognized as "art" that are ugly, often intentionally
so. For example, I have a book reproducing a variety of medieval depictions
of hell, demons and such, which are quite grotesque. Everyone seems to
consider these to be art -- indeed, it is hard to say what they would be
called if they were not so classified -- but a standard of beauty would
exclude them. Mr. Kolker has already implicitly recognized this problem by
subtly changing his definition in more recent posts to say that art has to
"satisfy" rather than "please" or be "pretty."
Rand avoids this problem with her definition. If the artist's "metaphysical
value judgements" lead him to the depiction of ugliness, his work still
qualifies as art.
> I have a
>friend who makes cast iron art, depicting ears of corn and fossils and
>things - these great big heavy lovely things.
OK. The fact that a sculpture is made out of cast iron does not make it
cease to be a sculpture. I don't personally find corn to be a very
inspiring object of contemplation, but that in itself does not disqualify
something as being art.
Note that by Mr. Kolker's subjective definition of 'art', such an object
would *not* be art for me, because it fails to "satisfy" me. But it might
be art for someone else. Mr. Kolker notwithstanding, Rand's definition has
the advantage of being objective. One can use it to determine whether an
object is art or not, regardless of what one thinks of that object
otherwise.
> Does where the object is
>displayed determine whether or not it's art?
Where it is displayed, no. Whether it has a purpose other than display,
yes. See below for more detail.
> Or does something cease to
>be art if it has a useful purpose?
According to Rand, "The commercial art work in ads (or posters or postage
stamps) is frequently done by real artists and has greater esthetic value
than many paintings, but utilitarian objects cannot be classified as works
of art."[3] Rand's reasoning on this point is not spelled out, but in
another essay she states, "One of the distinguishing characteristics of a
work of art (including literature) is that it serves no practical, material
end, but is an end in itself; it serves no purpose other than
contemplation... "[4] Without explicitly saying so in her definition, Rand
clearly means for art to be exclusive: if the object has a specified
purpose other than simply being "a selective re-creation of reality," then
it ceases to be art.
If you are interested in reading more extensively on this subject, let me
recommend Rand's essays in _The Romantic Manifesto_. Her theories of
literature, which was her primary interest, are expanded on in _The Art of
Fiction_. For a shorter read, Peikoff summarizes Rand's views in chapter 12
of _Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand_. Or, if you are interested in
a much longer read on this topic, Louis Torres and Michelle Marder Kamhi
offer extensive discussion and criticism of Rand's esthetics in their book
_What Art Is: The Esthetic Theory of Ayn Rand_.
Reference Notes:
[1] "The Psycho-Epistemology of Art" in _The Romantic Manifesto_, p. 19.
This definition is repeated in several other essays in the same book.
[2] See his response to me earlier in this thread, available on Google at
<http://groups.google.com/groups?&rnum=1&selm=3B604216.DDC891BB%40mediaone.
net>
[3] "Art and Cognition" in _The Romantic Manifesto_, p. 74
[4] "The Psycho-Epistemology of Art," p. 16
Robert J. Kolker
R Lawrence wrote:
> Rand's definition of art is: "Art is a selective re-creation of reality
> according to an artist's metaphysical value-judgments."[1] A manhole cover
This definition is prima facia absurd since reality cannot be
recreated. It can be represented, understood, dealt with,
lived in but it cannot be recreated. Anything an artist does
is trivially an artifact that can only resemble something found
in the real world. The Rand definition would include Andy
Warhol's Campbell Soup (tm) paintings as art, which it is
in a trivial sort of way. There is a "recreation" of reality for
you. It is totally underwhelming.
Can anyone recreate the Grand Canyon? Absolutely not.
There is only one, it took millions of years to be carved
out by wind and rain and it cannot be recreated in any
reasonable sense of the term. But pieces of it can be
photographed and painted. Music can be written to
imply the grandeur of the place. But it cannot be recreated.
So much for Rand's definition. Defective, absurd and totally
anti-factual.
Bob Kolker
Robert J. Kolker
R Lawrence wrote:
>
> Note that by Mr. Kolker's subjective definition of 'art', such an object
> would *not* be art for me, because it fails to "satisfy" me. But it might
> be art for someone else. Mr. Kolker notwithstanding, Rand's definition has
> the advantage of being objective. One can use it to determine whether an
> object is art or not, regardless of what one thinks of that object
Her definition is NOT objective. It is absurd and meaningless since
reality can not be recreated by any human being. I have visions of
men making an exact replica of our solar system somewhere else
in the galaxy. Selective recreation of reality has the same shitty
ring as "virtual reality" which is an oxymoron.
Bob Kolker
>
Robert J. Kolker
R Lawrence wrote:
> I made my meaning explicit. You still insist on responding as if I was
> using your meaning.
You have parroted a totally meaningless combination of words,
"selective recreation of reality". A bogus nonsensical notion.
You may disagree with what I think art is, but at least what I
say makes sense.
Bob Kolker
R Lawrence
>>Rand's definition of art is: "Art is a selective re-creation of reality
>>according to an artist's metaphysical value-judgments."[1] A manhole cover
>
>This definition is prima facia absurd since reality cannot be
>recreated. It can be represented, understood, dealt with,
>lived in but it cannot be recreated. Anything an artist does
>is trivially an artifact that can only resemble something found
>in the real world.
Duh again. I already responded on this point, and you apparently didn't
absorb anything from my reply or even acknowledge it. By the way you are
using "re-create," the term has no application to anything, since
everything in reality is made via manipulation of the already existing,
and every object is distinct from any previously existing object. So
nothing can be "re-created" and the term is useless. But somehow the word
does get used and people understand what is meant by it -- which implies
that you are wrong to impute your chosen meaning to it. Rand's usage
clearly refers to the development of semblances of previously existing
things. If you want to impute some other meaning to Rand so that you can
intentionally misunderstand and misrepresent what she is saying, go right
ahead, but don't expect me to cooperate.
Now that I've addressed this twice, you can pig-headedly repeat the same
things a few more times if you like, but I won't be responding further to
any of your comments unless they raise something new.
For other readers who grasp that Rand did not mean what Mr. Kolker
suggests, but have some reservations about her specific choice of words
(perhaps because it allows people like Mr. Kolker to confuse the issue),
let me suggest a term offered by Louis Torres and Michelle Marder Kamhi in
_What Art Is_: 'mimesis'. This is a technical term from ancient Greek
esthetic philosophy, which refers to the imitation or representation of
aspects reality in a new physical form. Thus, what Rand refers to in
English as "selective re-creation of reality" could be substituted in the
definition with 'mimesis': "Art is a mimesis based on an artist's
metaphysical value-judgments."
> The Rand definition would include Andy
>Warhol's Campbell Soup (tm) paintings as art, which it is
>in a trivial sort of way. There is a "recreation" of reality for
>you. It is totally underwhelming.
OK, that's a new point. First, let's note that *your* definition would also
include the soup can paintings as art, since they served to satisfy Warhol
and at least some observers. So your objection doesn't make much sense
based on your own standards for what qualifies as art.
Nonetheless, some people might be disturbed by the idea of Warhol's
controversial work being classified as art. Personally, I don't know that
much about his work. In _What Art Is_, the authors discuss Warhol's
paintings and indicate the he was attempting "machine-like" (that is,
non-selective) reproduction of his subjects, and thus his work does not
qualify as art. However, even if we assume that his work is fully qualified
for designation as 'art', this would not imply any endorsement or approval
of his work. Boring, "underwhelming" art is still art.
R Lawrence
> Selective recreation of reality has the same shitty
>ring as "virtual reality" which is an oxymoron.
And yet people know what "virtual reality" refers to. Once again, your
examples demonstrate the opposite of your point. Just because you interpret
a term to mean something other than what other authors or speakers meant,
doesn't mean there is something wrong with what they have said.
Robert J. Kolker
R Lawrence wrote:
> and every object is distinct from any previously existing object. So
> nothing can be "re-created" and the term is useless.
Thank you!
> But somehow the word
> does get used and people understand what is meant by it -- which implies
> that you are wrong to impute your chosen meaning to it. Rand's usage
> clearly refers to the development of semblances of previously existing
> things. If you want to impute some other meaning to Rand so that you can
> intentionally misunderstand and misrepresent what she is saying, go right
> ahead, but don't expect me to cooperate.
I take what Rand wrote, and what anyone says or writes to me
**** verbetim **** literally and without interpretation. I assume
people mean what they say and say what they mean.
I do not try find charitable ways of re-intepreting the utterances
of others. If they cannot say what they mean, then too damned bad.
Bob Kolker
>
>
> Now that I've addressed this twice, you can pig-headedly repeat the same
> things a few more times if you like, but I won't be responding further to
> any of your comments unless they raise something new.
You have not addressed anything. There is nothing you can do to
make the meaningless and asburd, meaningful and reasonable.
You cannot make a Gucci Bag from a pigs arse.
> definition with 'mimesis': "Art is a mimesis based on an artist's
> metaphysical value-judgments."
So you say. Did Rand say that? Did Rand mean that? If so, how
do you know. Can you communicate with the dead?
>
>
> > The Rand definition would include Andy
> >Warhol's Campbell Soup (tm) paintings as art, which it is
> >in a trivial sort of way. There is a "recreation" of reality for
> >you. It is totally underwhelming.
>
> OK, that's a new point. First, let's note that *your* definition would also
> include the soup can paintings as art, since they served to satisfy Warhol
> and at least some observers. So your objection doesn't make much sense
> based on your own standards for what qualifies as art.
I conceded quite clearly that what Warhol produced was art.
I consider it trivial art, but art it is.
>
>
> Nonetheless, some people might be disturbed by the idea of Warhol's
> controversial work being classified as art. Personally, I don't know that
> much about his work. In _What Art Is_, the authors discuss Warhol's
> paintings and indicate the he was attempting "machine-like" (that is,
> non-selective)
Warhol selected what he wanted to simulate/represent. He chose in
once instance a can of a brand name of soup. That is about as
selective as one can get. It wasn't generic soup, it was Campbell's (tm)
Soup. um um good!
> reproduction of his subjects, and thus his work does not
> qualify as art. However, even if we assume that his work is fully qualified
> for designation as 'art', this would not imply any endorsement or approval
> of his work. Boring, "underwhelming" art is still art.
At last, we agree!.
Bob Kolker
Robert J. Kolker
R Lawrence wrote:
> "Robert J. Kolker" <bobk...@mediaone.net> wrote:
>
> > Selective recreation of reality has the same shitty
> >ring as "virtual reality" which is an oxymoron.
>
> And yet people know what "virtual reality" refers to.
Yes it refers to something totally artificial and unreal.
Hence an oxymoron.
Bob Kolker
> Once again, your
> examples demonstrate the opposite of your point. Just because you interpret
> a term to mean something other than what other authors or speakers meant,
I have no idea what anyone * meant (i.e. intended) *. I know
what they said, uttered and expressed. Since mind reading is
not in my resume, I do the best I can by taking people at their
word, which is only good manners, btw.
Bob Kolker
Acar
This realism in art bullshit is the same mediocre, dogmatic, regulation-minded
crap the the Red government imposed on Russian artists to their perpetual sense
of enslavement. Who could possibly care what Ayn Rand or Joe Blow qualify or
disqualify as art, especially one whose favorite composer is Rachmaninoff?
Richard did not offer a single argument in support of his opinion until a Rand
student asked, whereupon he proceeded to explain her views as if they were
authoritative, which of course they are not. As far as I know in the world of
art here and everyehere Rand's views are disregarded as inconsequential.
To Richard's credit he adds his own twist by suggesting that the author of the
definition does not understand her own definition and mistakenly assumes that
the Taj Mahal and the Pyramids may be art.
I can understand that Rachmaninoff's The Rock or The Isle of the Dead may be a
recreation of reality, though not nearly as much as R. Strauss' Alpine Symphony
or the Domestic Symphony or Don Quijote, but pray tell what does Rachmaninoff's
Second Symphony recreate?
A pox on the art police and all sorts of regulators of human expression. I just
wrote a shopping list. Are you interested in buying it for framing? It is a
selective recreation of reality (Downy stands for toilet paper) and it is
written according to my metaphysical value judgements because everything that I
do I do according to my metaphysical value judgements. Hoe could it be
otherwise? I have a plastic Christmas tree that I would like to sell you.
Ridiculous.
Carmichael
theDRaGoNFLy...
include nail clippings.
theDRaGoNFLy...
Chris Porter
<RL0...@yahoo.com> wrote:
(snip)
> For other readers who grasp that Rand did not mean what Mr. Kolker
> suggests,
O admit to having a hard time with it.
> but have some reservations about her specific choice of words
> (perhaps because it allows people like Mr. Kolker to confuse the issue),
> let me suggest a term offered by Louis Torres and Michelle Marder Kamhi in
> _What Art Is_: 'mimesis'. This is a technical term from ancient Greek
> esthetic philosophy, which refers to the imitation or representation of
> aspects reality in a new physical form. Thus, what Rand refers to in
> English as "selective re-creation of reality" could be substituted in the
> definition with 'mimesis': "Art is a mimesis based on an artist's
> metaphysical value-judgments."
(snip)
Replacing a little-used word with more common ones,
"Art is an imitation or representation of aspects [in?/of?] reality in a new
physical form, based on an artist's metaphysical value-judgments."
To be clear, would you say the above is accurate?
Examples to make this a concrete exercise:
Art or craft?
http://members.aol.com/cporter7/Images/saurophagonax.gif
Art or craft?
http://members.aol.com/cporter9/Images/BigSpiral.jpg
Art or craft?
http://members.aol.com/cporter9/Images/Skull.jpg
Are you able to discern my "artist's metaphysical value-judgement" from
these selections? Is it possible to discern the artist's metaphysical
value-judgements by observing a single piece of their art? Is it necessary
to discern the metaphysical value judgements of the artist in order to know
if it is art?
I don't really see what usefulness there is in Rand's definition. How will
it help me tell what is art from what is not art?
-- Cheers, Chris
All our knowledge begins with the senses, proceeds then to the
understanding, and ends with reason. There is nothing higher than reason.
Immanuel Kant, Critique of Pure Reason, 1781
Robert J. Kolker
Chris Porter wrote:
>
> Replacing a little-used word with more common ones,
> "Art is an imitation or representation of aspects [in?/of?] reality in a new
> physical form, based on an artist's metaphysical value-judgments."
What is a * metaphysical * value judgement as opposed to another
kind of value judgment?
Bob Kolker
Chris Porter
<bobk...@mediaone.net> wrote:
LOL! I have absolutely no idea! But I didn't want to go putting words in
someone else's mouth. And my interest lies in trying to figure out how in
the world art can be discriminated as art from other things that look like
it but apparently contain no "metaphysical value-judgement (whatever the
heck that is). If it really can be so judged, then I will be able to learn
something.
-- Cheers, Chris
Some of the more environmentally aware dinosaurs were worried about the
consequences of an accident with the new Iridium enriched fusion reactor.
"If it goes off only the cockroaches and mammals will survive..." they
said.-Derek Tearne
Robert J. Kolker
R Lawrence wrote:
>
> And yet people know what "virtual reality" refers to. Once again, your
> examples demonstrate the opposite of your point. Just because you interpret
> a term to mean something other than what other authors or speakers meant,
> doesn't mean there is something wrong with what they have said.
The term refers to a verisimilitude of reality or a similacarum of
reality. In short virtual reality is not real. So it must be unreal reality.
Can you spell oxymoron?
Bob Kolker
Robert J. Kolker
David Buchner wrote:
> things - these great big heavy lovely things. Does where the object is
> displayed determine whether or not it's art? Or does something cease to
> be art if it has a useful purpose?
>
Apparently something that is merely decorative is not sufficiently
metaphysical to be art.
In Fascist Dictatorships of the left and the right any art that
does not present the politically correct ideal is excoriated
a degenerate. In Objectopia any art that is not metaphysical
enough is excoriated as being non-art. Any art that does
not exault Man and his works, show Man to be Heroic is
subjective clap-trap etc. etc. etc.
What about the drawing of Paul Klee? The showed men as
brutal and ugly. Klee was able to capture the soul of the
Nazis and show it as he saw it. Was Klee a subjectivist?
Or was he merely an intrinsicist? If you were a Jew in
Germany whose very existence was threatened how would
you see men?
Bob Kolker
R Lawrence
>R Lawrence <RL0...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>but have some reservations about her specific choice of words
>>(perhaps because it allows people like Mr. Kolker to confuse the issue),
>>let me suggest a term offered by Louis Torres and Michelle Marder Kamhi in
>>_What Art Is_: 'mimesis'. This is a technical term from ancient Greek
>>esthetic philosophy, which refers to the imitation or representation of
>>aspects reality in a new physical form. Thus, what Rand refers to in
>>English as "selective re-creation of reality" could be substituted in the
>>definition with 'mimesis': "Art is a mimesis based on an artist's
>>metaphysical value-judgments."
>(snip)
>
>Replacing a little-used word with more common ones,
>"Art is an imitation or representation of aspects [in?/of?] reality in a new
>physical form, based on an artist's metaphysical value-judgments."
"aspects of reality" -- pardon my typo.
>To be clear, would you say the above is accurate?
It appears to be basically what I said above, although I was not attempting
specifically to define "mimesis." The word "aspects" should probably be
modifed by "selected" to make the selective nature of artistic re-creation
clear.
>Examples to make this a concrete exercise:
>
>Art or craft?
>http://members.aol.com/cporter7/Images/saurophagonax.gif
Hard to tell, it could be really boring art or an illustration from a
child's biology text. It's sort of like trying to tell whether a really
dull story is fiction or non-fiction. It is not always going to be obvious
from simple observation of the object.
>Art or craft?
>http://members.aol.com/cporter9/Images/BigSpiral.jpg
Not art.
>Art or craft?
>http://members.aol.com/cporter9/Images/Skull.jpg
Looks like art to me.
>Are you able to discern my "artist's metaphysical value-judgement" from
>these selections?
I can discern that such judgements were made in at least one case (the last
item). In another case (the first item) I can't tell, because the
representation is so basic as to resemble a non-artistic illustration. I'm
guessing it was at least an effort at art. But I can't take responsibility
for the quality of your artistic efforts.
The second item isn't art because it isn't a mimesis, regardless of what
judgements you made in creating it.
> Is it possible to discern the artist's metaphysical
>value-judgements by observing a single piece of their art?
Sometimes.
> Is it necessary
>to discern the metaphysical value judgements of the artist in order to know
>if it is art?
Is it necessary to be able correctly discern which speicific judgements
they made? No. Is it necessary to be able to discern that some such
judgements were made? Yes.
>I don't really see what usefulness there is in Rand's definition. How will
>it help me tell what is art from what is not art?
I don't know if it will help you, but it worked for me above. It can also
be applied to a wide variety of examples:
Michelangelo's "David" > art
Manhole covers > not art
"The Last Supper" > art
Random paint drippings slung by a monkey (or Jackson Pollock) > not art
Etc.
See, it's very effective.
R Lawrence
>In Fascist Dictatorships of the left and the right any art that
>does not present the politically correct ideal is excoriated
>a degenerate. In Objectopia any art that is not metaphysical
>enough is excoriated as being non-art.
The fact that something is not art is not per se grounds to "excoriate" it.
My computer is not a work of art, but I like it just fine. This post is not
a work of art, but there is no need to excoriate it. Etc. Nor, despite your
invocation of "Fascist Dictatorships," is the Objectivist theory of art
intended to provide the basis for government supression of "bad" art or
non-art.
You can take the straw men back out to the fields where they belong.
R Lawrence
Can you spell equivocation? You should be able to, because you're doing it
all the time in this thread. First of all, "virtual reality" is a distinct
term that means "a computer simulation of a real or imaginary system that
enables a user to perform operations on the simulated system and shows the
effects in real time" (according to the American Heritage Dictionary). Even
if one accepted the practice of deconstructing the term into its parts to
determine the meaning (which doesn't quite work in this case), it should
still be clear that a simulation of reality is still real -- it just isn't
the part of reality that it is simulating. In your (unwarranted)
deconstruction effort, you are equivocating between 'virtual' in the sense
of being a computer simulation and 'virtual' in the sense of existing in
effect but not in fact.
Robert J. Kolker
R Lawrence wrote:
>
> Can you spell equivocation? You should be able to, because you're doing it
> all the time in this thread.
There I go again, taking words literally, verbetim and at face.
A bad habit. Better I should struggle to find out what someone
* meant * as opposed to what they * said * or * wrote *. In
short, I should learn mental telephathy.
It just bothers me to refer to a * simulation * (real time or not)
as the real thing. In the weather buro where the simulate storms
no one brings an umberella. How strange. A simulation is not
the real thing. It is something that * resembles * the real thing
on some useful subset of attributes.
Now repeat to your self 3 times: The map is not the territory.
After that click your heels three times and say "there is no
place like home". You will be back with Auntie Em in no
time flat.
Bob Kolker
Chris Porter
<RL0...@yahoo.com> wrote:
It is, as far as I can tell, a representation of selected
aspects of reality in a new physical form. I'm skipping
the metaphysical value-judgement part, since I don't
know what it means.
>>Art or craft?
>>http://members.aol.com/cporter9/Images/BigSpiral.jpg
>
> Not art.
It is, as far as I can tell, a representation of selected
aspects of reality in a new physical form. (A spiral, btw)
I'm again skipping the metaphysical value-judgement
part, since I don't know what it means.
>>Art or craft?
>>http://members.aol.com/cporter9/Images/Skull.jpg
>
> Looks like art to me.
It is, as far as I can tell, not a representation of
selected aspects of reality in a new physical form.
Though I suppose if you said that that a re-arrangement
of diverse selected aspects of reality in a new physical
form was art, I think it would be.
Like before, I'm again skipping the metaphysical
value-judgement part, since I don't know what it means.
>>Are you able to discern my "artist's metaphysical
>>value-judgement" from
>>these selections?
>
>I can discern that such judgements were made in
>at least one case (the last item).
>In another case (the first item) I can't tell, because the
>representation is so basic as to resemble a non-artistic illustration. I'm
>guessing it was at least an effort at art. But I can't take responsibility
>for the quality of your artistic efforts.
It's a commercial illustration. Why can't you tell, if
your definition gives you a way of discriminating
what is art?
> The second item isn't art because it isn't a mimesis, regardless of what
> judgements you made in creating it.
It really is selected portions of a spiral.
>> Is it possible to discern the artist's metaphysical
>>value-judgements by observing a single piece of their art?
>
> Sometimes.
OK.
>> Is it necessary to discern the metaphysical value
>>judgements of the artist in order to know
>>if it is art?
>
> Is it necessary to be able correctly discern which speicific judgements
> they made? No. Is it necessary to be able to discern that some such
> judgements were made? Yes.
I'm cool with that. What are your criteria?
Why were you unable to distinguish the first piece?
>>I don't really see what usefulness there is in Rand's definition. How will
>>it help me tell what is art from what is not art?
>
> I don't know if it will help you, but it worked for me above.
I respectfully disagree, I don't think it did.
> It can also
> be applied to a wide variety of examples:
>
> Michelangelo's "David" > art
> Manhole covers > not art
> "The Last Supper" > art
> Random paint drippings slung by a
> monkey (or Jackson Pollock) > not art
> Etc.
>
> See, it's very effective.
As you wish.
-- Cheers, Chris
"The easiest, most humiliating path to defeat is thinking that to beat the
enemy you must be like him. Avoid the temptation to set your values aside
'for the duration.' What's the point of fighting if you give up what you're
fighting for? If remaining consistent with your values leads to defeat, you
chose the wrong values to begin with." -- L. Neil Smith
Robert J. Kolker
Chris Porter wrote:
>
> > The second item isn't art because it isn't a mimesis, regardless of what
> > judgements you made in creating it.
>
> It really is selected portions of a spiral.
Perhaps it is the artist's way of saying that he not only likes
spirals but that he likes to hide the letters CP underneath
a design.
Bob Kolker
Chris Porter
"Robert J. Kolker" <bobk...@mediaone.net> wrote:
>> It really is selected portions of a spiral.
> Perhaps it is the artist's way of saying that he not only likes
> spirals but that he likes to hide the letters CP underneath
> a design.
Nah. Write your sig large in the world.
(it's an old copyright protection)
-- Cheers, Chris
A man never tells you anything until you contradict him.
George Bernard Shaw
Acar
says...
What an ignoramus.
>As you wish.
You are obviously an artist. Why are you arguing with Richard as he were an
authority on art? Obviously he is worse than the opposite because he has
distorted concepts about art. You are better off asking Kolker. :-).
Carmichael
>-- Cheers, Chris
Chris Porter
<acar...@mail.com> wrote:
(snip)
>Why are you arguing with Richard as he were an
> authority on art?
I am not. I am looking at his understanding of art as if he has
something potentially worthwhile to say about Rand's
belief of what constitutes art, as he appears to one of the
few here that is willing to discuss it.
I can only do this seriously if I deliberately chose to withhold my
preconceptions about his opinions, so I'm keeping my responses
in a very low tone.
>Obviously he is worse than the opposite because he has
> distorted concepts about art. You are better off asking Kolker. :-).
Yes, one man's distortion is another man's art. ;-)
-- Cheers, Chris
An idea is not responsible for the people who believe in it.
Rick Pasotto
humanities.philosophy.objectivism, Robert J. Kolker wrote:
>
> What about the drawing of Paul Klee?
Which drawing of Paul Klee? Who was the artist?
Or did you perhaps mean the drawings of Paul Klee?
Am I supposed to be a mind reader?
I can only know what you actually wrote.
--
Shall I speak of the corrupting immorality that seeps into the
veins of the whole body politic when, in principle, the law puts
itself at the service of every spoiliative impulse? Attend a
meeting of the National Assembly when bonuses, subsidies,
bounties, restrictions are on the agenda. See with what shameless
rapacity everyone tries to make sure of his share of the plunder
-- plunder to which he would blush to stoop as a private
individual.
-- Frédéric Bastiat (1801-1850)
Rick Pasotto ri...@telocity.com http://www.niof.net
Acar
says...
Precisely.
Carmichael
>-- Cheers, Chris
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Robert J. Kolker
Rick Pasotto wrote:
> On Fri, 27 Jul 2001 23:12:01 +0000 (UTC) in
> humanities.philosophy.objectivism, Robert J. Kolker wrote:
> >
> > What about the drawing of Paul Klee?
>
> Which drawing of Paul Klee? Who was the artist?
>
> Or did you perhaps mean the drawings of Paul Klee?
>
> Am I supposed to be a mind reader?
>
> I can only know what you actually wrote.
My error. I meant to say the drawings of Paul Klee.
I.E. the stuff he drew. Thank you for the correction.
Bob Kolker
Eudaimonus
"R Lawrence" <RL0...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1Hf87.25869$Gj5.14...@typhoon.san.rr.com...
> Eudaimonus <jws...@soltec.net> wrote:
>
> >One of the older meanings of the word 'art' is 'craft', from which is
> >derived the word 'artifice'.
>
> I'm not sure what the point of this comment is. Like many words, 'art' has
> multiple meanings. We already have enough equivocation in this thread
> without adding to it.
I do believe that was the point of the comment. That the word has clearly
more than one meaning in English. Why would I point that out? Because I
though it relevant to the discussion, obviously. Why would I think it
relevant? Well, you got it : equivocation.
Dave O'Hearn
> with which it has much in common
>
> You don't think cutting a brilliant diamond
> out of a dull looking rock is not art? Or
> making the setting? Or making body ornaments
> to complement the beauty of the wearer?
>
> If anything cutting a brilliant stone, by striking
> on the fault lines requires greater skill than
> making a statue from limstone or granite. It is
> an excercise in physics as much as it is rock
> cutting.
Some jewelry is certainly art, such as the religious ornamentation
found in Egyptian tombs. It was made to ornament the human form to
approach their idea of the divine. But what you are referring to is
craft, not art. Mastering the skills necessary to make truly fine
jewelry requires great discipline, and it is a laudible moral act. But
that alone isn't enough to make it art.
--
Dave O'Hearn
Acar
Yet he was able to understand your meaning very easily. We do that all the
time.
It is not hard to know what Rand menat by "recreation". She obviously did not
mean a day at the beach or a good movie.
Carmichael
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
>Bob Kolker
>
Acar
says...
Why not? Is design a skill?
Carmichael
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
xo
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
xx
Robert J. Kolker
Dave O'Hearn wrote:
> craft, not art. Mastering the skills necessary to make truly fine
> jewelry requires great discipline, and it is a laudible moral act. But
> that alone isn't enough to make it art.
What makes it art, is that a thing of beauty is created.
A work of art is any object made to be beautiful (by some standard of
beauty). It might or might not have a practical or instrumental use. Art
means the activity undertaken to produce a work of art.
This would also include musical works and performances
and literary works as well.
Bob Kolker
Robert J. Kolker
Acar wrote:
> It is not hard to know what Rand menat by "recreation". She obviously did not
> mean a day at the beach or a good movie.
Then what did she mean. A reproduction of something else?
Reality is all that is. It cannot be recreated or reproduced. It
can be represented, simulated, replicated,
spoken of , sung about, painted,
photographed, written about but it cannot be re-created.
Bob Kolker
Fred Weiss
"Robert J. Kolker" <bobk...@mediaone.net> wrote in message
news:3B62D508...@mediaone.net...
> What makes it art, is that a thing of beauty is created.
Not all art is beautiful. In fact some of it - some even of the greatest
art - is *deliberately* not beautiful (though it may show great skill in
execution).
> A work of art is any object made to be beautiful (by some standard of
> beauty). It might or might not have a practical or instrumental use.
That is the very distinction between craft and art. True art has no direct
practical or instrumental use ,i.e. it is an end in itself.
Fred Weiss
Robert J. Kolker
Fred Weiss wrote:
>
> That is the very distinction between craft and art. True art has no direct
> practical or instrumental use ,i.e. it is an end in itself.
>
That is a very elitist description of art, and one which I deny
categorically. I know people who buy a picture to impress other
people. That is an end. I know people who buy a picture to
enjoy looking at it. That is an end. I can't think of a thing in
the world that humans relate to or use that does not have
a purpose beyond itself. The aesthetics of craft (as you put it)
have a large overlap with the aesthetics of art. The overlap is
so large that I do not see a substantial separation other than
having or not having a practical use.
Bob Kolker
Acar
>
>"Robert J. Kolker" <bobk...@mediaone.net> wrote in message
>news:3B62D508...@mediaone.net...
>
>> What makes it art, is that a thing of beauty is created.
>
>Not all art is beautiful. In fact some of it - some even of the greatest
>art - is *deliberately* not beautiful (though it may show great skill in
>execution).
One upon a time a bee farmer hasd a pet bee which he named "Beauty". On a
particularly hot afternoon such as we are experiencing now in some parts of the
country he emptied the ice tray from his refrigerator and refilled it with
water. Undected by him Beauty flew in and got trapped in the water. Many hours
later the apiarist, while he was holding a hive, noticed that Beauty was
missing. The moral of this story is that Beauty is in the ice of the bee ho
lder.
(I dodge).
>> A work of art is any object made to be beautiful (by some standard of
>> beauty). It might or might not have a practical or instrumental use.
>
>That is the very distinction between craft and art. True art has no direct
>practical or instrumental use ,i.e. it is an end in itself.
>Fred Weiss
Fred Weiss
"Robert J. Kolker" <bobk...@mediaone.net> wrote in message
news:3B62F7C5...@mediaone.net...
>
>
> Fred Weiss wrote:
>
> >
> > That is the very distinction between craft and art. True art has no
direct
> > practical or instrumental use ,i.e. it is an end in itself.
> >
>
> That is a very elitist description of art, ...
Calling it names doesn't change the fact of the distinction.
>....and one which I deny
> categorically. I know people who buy a picture to impress other
> people. That is an end.
But it misses the point of the art. It's like reading a great novel to pass
a literature course. The author didn't write the novel so you could pass a
literature course.
> I know people who buy a picture to
> enjoy looking at it. That is an end. I can't think of a thing in
> the world that humans relate to or use that does not have
> a purpose beyond itself.
Art.
It does fulfill a human need (and to that extent that is its purpose) but it
is not a utilitarian need.
> The aesthetics of craft (as you put it)
> have a large overlap with the aesthetics of art. The overlap is
> so large that I do not see a substantial separation other than
> having or not having a practical use.
But that is one of the key differences...that and that it is not merely
decorative (such as jewelry or other exquisite objects which aren't really
designed to be used, such as Faberge eggs). I'm not saying that to diminish
the decorative, but it is not art...not fine art, anyway. It is in a
different category in what it is designed to evoke and convey.
Fred Weiss
Acar
>news:3B62D508...@mediaone.net...
>
>> What makes it art, is that a thing of beauty is created.
>
>Not all art is beautiful. In fact some of it - some even of the greatest
>art - is *deliberately* not beautiful (though it may show great skill in
>execution).
You are contradicting yourself. Art is not about great skill alone. That is
craft, you said. Your concept of beauty is narrow. Artistic depiction of "ugly"
subjects is valued for the beauty of its expressiveness. "Ugliness" and beauty
can co-exist as different elements of one thing. Have you ever seen an ugly
woman with a kind face? :-)
>> A work of art is any object made to be beautiful (by some standard of
>> beauty). It might or might not have a practical or instrumental use.
>
>That is the very distinction between craft and art. True art has no direct
>practical or instrumental use ,i.e. it is an end in itself.
The ceiling of the Sistine Chapel holds back the rain. Of course if the pai
nting
is just decoration one can say that the design of the Parthenon (very
"decorative" indeed) is art but the building is not. The commissioned portraits
of the Spanish royal family by Velazquez were intended to serve the function of
photography. (By the way they were some really butt-ugly people.)
Carmichael
>Fred Weiss
>
Dave O'Hearn
> Dave O'Hearn wrote:
> >Some jewelry is certainly art, such as the religious ornamentation
> >found in Egyptian tombs. It was made to ornament the human form to
> >approach their idea of the divine. But what you are referring to is
> >craft, not art. Mastering the skills necessary to make truly fine
> >jewelry requires great discipline, and it is a laudible moral act. But
> >that alone isn't enough to make it art.
>
I'm not sure what you are trying to get at by asking, "Is design a
skill?" At least some aspect of design is a skill; I would need a
clear definition of "design" to say anything more. I don't see what
this has to do with art, though.
I was not saying that all things requiring skill are necessarily
craft, and that art must be created without skill, if that's what you
thought. It is only very recently that the term "art" has gotten such
a blurry definition. The distinction between art and craft is a
well-known one. Crafts require skill, and may result in very
beautiful, admirable items. I have a flash light next to me that
qualifies; it's an excellent piece of manufacturing. But it isn't art;
art is something created solely for the sake of contemplation.
Tentatively, I can say that I find Ayn Rand's definition promising,
but I am not really sure what "metaphysical value judgements" means,
especially as opposed to non-metaphysical value judgements, and how
the difference between the two effects the definition.
--
Dave O'Hearn
Acar
>> Dave O'Hearn wrote:
>> >Some jewelry is certainly art, such as the religious ornamentation
>> >found in Egyptian tombs. It was made to ornament the human form to
>> >approach their idea of the divine. But what you are referring to is
>> >craft, not art. Mastering the skills necessary to make truly fine
>> >jewelry requires great discipline, and it is a laudible moral act. But
>> >that alone isn't enough to make it art.
>>
>> Why not? Is design a skill?
>
>I'm not sure what you are trying to get at by asking, "Is design a
>skill?" At least some aspect of design is a skill; I would need a
>clear definition of "design" to say anything more. I don't see what
>this has to do with art, though.
IMO the design is the creative input; the craft is essentially mechanical.
Years
ago I saw in Baltimore an exhibition of jewelry designed by Dali. Dali was the
designer, but not the craftsman for that collection.
>I was not saying that all things requiring skill are necessarily
>craft, and that art must be created without skill, if that's what you
>thought. It is only very recently that the term "art" has gotten such
>a blurry definition. The distinction between art and craft is a
>well-known one. Crafts require skill, and may result in very
>beautiful, admirable items. I have a flash light next to me that
>qualifies; it's an excellent piece of manufacturing. But it isn't art;
>art is something created solely for the sake of contemplation.
No matter how beautiful or exquisite a product of craftsmanship is, it is
something that almost anyone can learn to do (a Tiffany lamp?). The difference
is in the level of creativity and imagination involved, the kind of talent. So
an occasional craftsman may also be an artist. Most Persian rugs are not ar
t but
a given Persian rug can be. Most fine and exquisite furniture is not art but a
particular craftsman may create an exceptionally inspired and unique design.
Copying masterpieces (paintings) is not art in itself. So I will have to expand
my definition of art by introducing the element of creativity and perhaps
uniqueness. There can be no such thing as assembly line art, and certainly no
art by rut as you have in the crafts.
Carmichael
>Tentatively, I can say that I find Ayn Rand's definition promising,
>but I am not really sure what "metaphysical value judgements" means,
>especially as opposed to non-metaphysical value judgements, and how
>the difference between the two effects the definition.
It is no mystery to me. The metaphysical value judgements must be grounded in
reality (realism) to be good art. Paradoxically this equates to populism in
music (romantic melodies, Gilbert and Sullivan). Any music over Rand's head can
not be art. Boooring...
Carmichael
>Dave O'Hearn
Acar
>> Dave O'Hearn wrote:
>> >Some jewelry is certainly art, such as the religious ornamentation
>> >found in Egyptian tombs. It was made to ornament the human form to
>> >approach their idea of the divine. But what you are referring to is
>> >craft, not art. Mastering the skills necessary to make truly fine
>> >jewelry requires great discipline, and it is a laudible moral act. But
>> >that alone isn't enough to make it art.
>>
>> Why not? Is design a skill?
>
>I'm not sure what you are trying to get at by asking, "Is design a
>skill?" At least some aspect of design is a skill; I would need a
>clear definition of "design" to say anything more. I don't see what
>this has to do with art, though.
IMO the design is the creative input; the craft is essentially mechanical.
Years
ago I saw in Baltimore an exhibition of jewelry designed by Dali. Dali was the
designer, but not the craftsman for that collection.
>I was not saying that all things requiring skill are necessarily
>craft, and that art must be created without skill, if that's what you
>thought. It is only very recently that the term "art" has gotten such
>a blurry definition. The distinction between art and craft is a
>well-known one. Crafts require skill, and may result in very
>beautiful, admirable items. I have a flash light next to me that
>qualifies; it's an excellent piece of manufacturing. But it isn't art;
>art is something created solely for the sake of contemplation.
No matter how beautiful or exquisite a product of craftsmanship is, it is
something that almost anyone can learn to do (a Tiffany lamp?). The difference
is in the level of creativity and imagination involved, the kind of talent. So
an occasional craftsman may also be an artist. Most Persian rugs are not ar
t but
a given Persian rug can be. Most fine and exquisite furniture is not art but a
particular craftsman may create an exceptionally inspired and unique design.
Copying masterpieces (paintings) is not art in itself. So I will have to expand
my definition of art by introducing the element of creativity and perhaps
uniqueness. There can be no such thing as assembly line art, and certainly no
art by rut as you have in the crafts.
Carmichael
>Tentatively, I can say that I find Ayn Rand's definition promising,
>but I am not really sure what "metaphysical value judgements" means,
>especially as opposed to non-metaphysical value judgements, and how
>the difference between the two effects the definition.
It is no mystery to me. It means that the metaphysical value judgements must be
grounded in reality (realism) to be good art. Paradoxically this also equat
Fred Weiss
>In article <3e05f9e4.01072...@posting.google.com>, Dave O'Hearn
>says...
>>
>>Acar <acar...@mail.com> wrote:
>>> Dave O'Hearn wrote:
>
>>Tentatively, I can say that I find Ayn Rand's definition promising,
>>but I am not really sure what "metaphysical value judgements" means,
>>especially as opposed to non-metaphysical value judgements, and how
>>the difference between the two effects the definition.
"Sense of life" or view of the world, e.g. benevolent, malevolent vs.
specific
values, such as your career or what flavor ice cream you like.
>It is no mystery to me. It means that the metaphysical value judgements must
be
>grounded in reality (realism) to be good art.
That's true, but that's not related to that issue.
> Paradoxically this also equates to populism in music (romantic melodies,
>Gilbert and Sullivan).
It doesn't "equate" with it. Those just happened to be her personal
favorites
(altho' not Gilbert and Sullivan).
> Any music over Rand's head can not be art.
What are you talking about?
Fred Weiss
------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.papertig.com
Arnold Broese-van-Groenou
Acar <acar...@mail.com> wrote in message
news:JVE87.9934$ar1....@www.newsranger.com...
> Have you ever seen an ugly woman with a kind face? :-)
>
Yup. Kinda ugly.
--
Arnold
Arnold Broese-van-Groenou
Dave O'Hearn <dave...@pobox.com> wrote in message
news:3e05f9e4.01072...@posting.google.com...
>
> Tentatively, I can say that I find Ayn Rand's definition promising,
> but I am not really sure what "metaphysical value judgements" means,
> especially as opposed to non-metaphysical value judgements, and how
> the difference between the two effects the definition.
My understanding is that art is a way of expressing your feelings on how you
see the world. You can use words, or you can use other mediums such as paint
or sculpture. You may wish to convey an emotion, say of sailing in stormy
weather.
A painting can convey the threat and fear of those moments. I still remember
an oil painting I saw around 6 years old, where an old sailing ship was
foundering in towering seas, with some men in the water, surrounded by
debris. It had quite an impact on me. I sensed the emotion the painter
wanted to convey.
I believe this is what Rand meant by recreating reality. It's like saying:
"This is how I feel about (subject), do you feel it too?"
If you share values, you will most likely share emotions with the artist.
--
Arnold
Robert J. Kolker
Arnold Broese-van-Groenou wrote:
> foundering in towering seas, with some men in the water, surrounded by
> debris. It had quite an impact on me. I sensed the emotion the painter
> wanted to convey.
How do you know the painter was not expressing joy
of the predicament of the drowning men? The answer
is that you do not. You only know what * you * felt
and you only * suppose * that it was the artists
intention to induce you to have those feelings.
The only intent that you know is your own.
Bob Kolker
Fred Weiss
"Robert J. Kolker" <bobk...@mediaone.net> wrote in message
news:3B63E36B...@mediaone.net...
>
>
> Arnold Broese-van-Groenou wrote:
>
> > foundering in towering seas, with some men in the water, surrounded by
> > debris. It had quite an impact on me. I sensed the emotion the painter
> > wanted to convey.
>
> How do you know the painter was not expressing joy
> of the predicament of the drowning men? The answer
> is that you do not.
Oh, that's not true at all. If he intended to express joy at the disaster
there are ways he could have expressed it, say, by showing someone on the
ship looking down on the drowning men with a smile on his face or people on
the shore cheering or something like that. And that would have evoked a
completely different response when looking at the painting.
Fred Weiss
Acar
says...
Ugliness is only skin deep, Arnold.
Carmichael
>Arnold
x
x
x
x
Acar
says...
>A painting can convey the threat and fear of those moments. I still remember
>an oil painting I saw around 6 years old, where an old sailing ship was
>foundering in towering seas, with some men in the water, surrounded by
>debris. It had quite an impact on me. I sensed the emotion the painter
>wanted to convey.
Try "Castaway". They throw it at you twice, first in a wooden raft and later in
a rubber raft. Great art?
Carmichael.
>Arnold
David Buchner
> Rand's definition of art is: "Art is a selective re-creation of reality
> according to an artist's metaphysical value-judgments."[1] A manhole cover
> fails this definition by not being a selective recreation of reality and by
> being designed based on a functional purpose (it cover the manhole) rather
> than based on the artist's metaphysical value judgements.
So you *are* saying that having a functional purpose rules something out
of being art, right?
But the art *on* the manhole cover serves no useful purpose, does it?
Extension: what if I bought a manhole cover, hauled it home, and did a
painting on it, and displayed it somewhere?
I still don't quite get it; it seems like an arbitrary division. If I
use a work of art to prop up the corner of the table, does it stop being
a work of art? I guess what I don't understand is: what is the
usefulness of such a definition?
> The manhole cover is a good test because it is a classic non-esthetic item.
> If this type of object is "art," then all man-made objects are "art" and
> the term ceases to have significance. Applying your suggestion about the
> design "reflect[ing] something of his values," if the designer makes a
> crappy, uninteresting manhole cover, that also "reflect[s] something of his
> values" in the broad sense that you are using. So if that were enough to
> make it art, all man-made objects would be art.
Or maybe just all things that reflect that level of attention to detail
and loving decoration would. I wouldn't call a metal pole barn from
Menards "architecture," because it's just exactly what it is and with no
embellishment or style of any kind. It just does its job.
But I'm not so attached to this argument that I'll pursue it
passionately if nobody else is interested in discussing it. It just
seems like that definition potentially leaves some stuff out -- just as
overly-broad definitions let too much stuff in.
> OK. The fact that a sculpture is made out of cast iron does not make it
> cease to be a sculpture. I don't personally find corn to be a very
> inspiring object of contemplation, but that in itself does not disqualify
> something as being art.
I'm interested in this, too. Because all these people I know who went to
art school and are making this stuff, I know from back when I used to
have a wildly different set of ideas, and felt obligated to have a
broad, inclusive, wishy-washy standard-less set of standards. I don't
really know what I think of their art anymore.
> According to Rand, "The commercial art work in ads (or posters or postage
> stamps) is frequently done by real artists and has greater esthetic value
> than many paintings, but utilitarian objects cannot be classified as works
> of art."[3] Rand's reasoning on this point is not spelled out, but in
> another essay she states, "One of the distinguishing characteristics of a
> work of art (including literature) is that it serves no practical, material
> end, but is an end in itself; it serves no purpose other than
> contemplation... "[4] Without explicitly saying so in her definition, Rand
> clearly means for art to be exclusive: if the object has a specified
> purpose other than simply being "a selective re-creation of reality," then
> it ceases to be art.
Exactly. Her reasoning on the point is not spelled out, and it sounds
arbitrary. I agree that it works as a first-approximation description of
the usage; of what makes "art" different from "everything else people
make." But I don't see why it must automatically exclude this
"borderline" stuff like the art in ads or the decoration on manhole
covers.
> If you are interested in reading more extensively on this subject, let me
> recommend Rand's essays in _The Romantic Manifesto_.
I've got it. It's been slow going, and I laid it aside for awhile, in
favor of _Philosophy: Who Needs It_. Some amazing stuff in there; I'm
surprised it doesn't get mentioned more often than it does.
--
David
Buc...@wcta.net Osage MN USA
Acar
>
>>===== Original Message From Acar <acar...@mail.com> =====
>>In article <3e05f9e4.01072...@posting.google.com>, Dave O'Hearn
>>says...
>>>
>>>Acar <acar...@mail.com> wrote:
>>>> Dave O'Hearn wrote:
>
>>
>>>Tentatively, I can say that I find Ayn Rand's definition promising,
>>>but I am not really sure what "metaphysical value judgements" means,
>>>especially as opposed to non-metaphysical value judgements, and how
>>>the difference between the two effects the definition.
>
>"Sense of life" or view of the world, e.g. benevolent, malevolent vs.
>specific
>values, such as your career or what flavor ice cream you like.
>
>>It is no mystery to me. It means that the metaphysical value judgements must
>be
>>grounded in reality (realism) to be good art.
>
>That's true, but that's not related to that issue.
How is it that a recreation of reality being grounded in reality is not related
to metaphysical value judgements?
>> Paradoxically this also equates to populism in music (romantic melodies,
>>Gilbert and Sullivan).
>
>It doesn't "equate" with it. Those just happened to be her personal
>favorites
>(altho' not Gilbert and Sullivan).
I have read (here) that she liked operettas and those in particular.
>> Any music over Rand's head can not be art.
>
>What are you talking about?
He he. I overstated that one. Rand never said that only what she likes is art.
But she never said that she likes bad art either, or that there is better art
out there that she likes less. The point is that she _decreed_ what is good art
and what is bad art, and then she said what she likes. "I prefer second best"
doesn't make sense. This is the trouble with taking the job of thought police.
You have to be right at all time.
Carmichael
Robert J. Kolker
Fred Weiss wrote:
>
> Oh, that's not true at all. If he intended to express joy at the disaster
> there are ways he could have expressed it, say, by showing someone on the
Dammit man! You cannot read minds. No one can. You confuse your
inferences with direct and positive knowledge. The only thing you
can **** KNOW **** for sure is what you perceive directly by
your self, and then only if you are not hallucinating. That is the
only *** knowing *** there is. Everying else is infering and guessing.
Bob Kolker
Acar
>see the world. You can use words, or you can use other mediums such as paint
>or sculpture. You may wish to convey an emotion, say of sailing in stormy
>weather.
A nihilist artist may offer an empty canvas on a frame. A transcendalist artist
may feel that everything is reducible to a single simple idea and express that
with a dot in the center of a canvas. Why must you insist so vehemently that
those are great art (between wife beatings)? Please dont tell me that those are
not recreations of reality according to the artist's metaphysical value
judgements. Just give me your rationalized excuses. :)
Carmichael
>Arnold
David Buchner
> What about the drawing of Paul Klee? [They] showed men as
> brutal and ugly. Klee was able to capture the soul of the
> Nazis and show it as he saw it. Was Klee a subjectivist?
> Or was he merely an intrinsicist? If you were a Jew in
> Germany whose very existence was threatened how would
> you see men?
You've raised an interesting point (*I* think so, anyway). Is there no
place for Villains in visual art like painting and sculpture and stuff?
What I mean is that in films and novels, there are villains who
certainly don't fit the "projecting man as heroic" model -- but in the
larger context of the story they serve to do so anyway by opposing the
heroes. (Except in lots of modern movies where I get confused because it
seems like *everybody*'s a villain and in the end when they all burn up
and die or ride off into the sunset and Get Away With It -- it really
doesn't matter and I wish I'd watched something else.)
But in painting or sculpture, it seems like "the Objectivist view" is
that portraying evil or wasted lives or misery is to glorify that and
set it up as an ideal or as a cynical statement about the real nature of
the world.
Can you reflect your values by portraying their opposite, somehow?
See, I generally agree with Rand's appraisal of art as far as I
understand it. But this is mostly as a result of my "gut reactions" to
art, which I've gradually started to notice and think about over the
years, and some condensation of those impressions. So basically all I
have to go on is what "feels good" *to me* -- my personal preferences;
my automatic distaste for Great Big Downer Art. That doesn't seem like
enough.
But then again, how badly do I need this definition anyway?
Fred Weiss
You're using an "omniscient" standard of knowledge. We don't work on the
assumption that we are being deceived - unless we have reason to think so -
whether by artists or anyone else.
You KNOW that I am an Objectivist, not a Marxist in clever disguise playing
an
elaborate charade. If you don't know that, you don't know anything,
including
what's in front of your nose.
Robert J. Kolker
Fred Weiss wrote:
>
> You're using an "omniscient" standard of knowledge. We don't work on the
> assumption that we are being deceived - unless we have reason to think so -
> whether by artists or anyone else.
You should say self-niscient. You know what you perceive and nothing
else. Everything else is second hand to you. I am proposing an humble
and loveable definition of knowledge that is sized to the perceptual
limitations of man. Which is not to naysay our ability to make extremely
good guesses about reality (it is called science by the way) or some
very penetrating inferences (logic, math and science again). But do
not mistake inference from hypothesis with knowledge. Knowledge
comes in from the experiment you have designed, performed your
self and whose results you have perceived. Everything else is second
hand and hearsay.
>
>
> You KNOW that I am an Objectivist, not a Marxist in clever disguise playing
> an
> elaborate charade. If you don't know that, you don't know anything,
> including
> what's in front of your nose.
I know you sound like an Objectivst. Is it possible that you are acting.
How do I know that you are not acting? Am I privy to you innermost
thoughts? I am not. I do not claim mental telepathy on my resume. You
do.
Bob Kolker
Fred Weiss
"Acar" <acar...@mail.com> wrote in message
news:cGV87.10471$ar1....@www.newsranger.com...
> >> Paradoxically this also equates to populism in music (romantic
melodies,
> >>Gilbert and Sullivan).
> >
> >It doesn't "equate" with it. Those just happened to be her personal
> >favorites
> >(altho' not Gilbert and Sullivan).
>
> I have read (here) that she liked operettas and those in particular.
She loved operettas, especially Lehar and Kalman, but loathed Gilbert and
Sullivan. I forget why.
>
> >> Any music over Rand's head can not be art.
> >
> >What are you talking about?
>
> He he. I overstated that one. Rand never said that only what she likes is
art.
Of course.
> But she never said that she likes bad art either, or that there is better
art
> out there that she likes less.
You're putting it in a wierd way, but in fact she liked certain popular
fiction very much (and operettas, as you mentioned). There was certainly
(artistically) better, even brilliant, fiction and music , by her own
acknowledgment, that she just didn't like.
> The point is that she _decreed_ what is good art
> and what is bad art, and then she said what she likes. "I prefer second
best"
> doesn't make sense. This is the trouble with taking the job of thought
police.
> You have to be right at all time.
You're just babbling and you have no idea what you are talking about. Don't
you have anything better to do with your time?
Fred Weiss
Fred Weiss
"Robert J. Kolker" <bobk...@mediaone.net> wrote in message
news:3B644169...@mediaone.net...
>
>
> Fred Weiss wrote:
>
> >
> > You're using an "omniscient" standard of knowledge. We don't work on the
> > assumption that we are being deceived - unless we have reason to think
so -
> > whether by artists or anyone else.
>
> You should say self-niscient. You know what you perceive and nothing
> else.
I don't know Australia exists?
>Everything else is second hand to you. I am proposing an humble
> and loveable definition of knowledge that is sized to the perceptual
> limitations of man. Which is not to naysay our ability to make extremely
> good guesses about reality (it is called science by the way) ...
We just guessed our way to building a spaceship and sending it to the moon,
within what, inches of the predicted landing spot?
>...or some
> very penetrating inferences (logic, math and science again). But do
> not mistake inference from hypothesis with knowledge. Knowledge
> comes in from the experiment you have designed, performed your
> self and whose results you have perceived. Everything else is second
> hand and hearsay.
So I guess I'll just have to dismiss all of science.
> > You KNOW that I am an Objectivist, not a Marxist in clever disguise
playing
> > an
> > elaborate charade. If you don't know that, you don't know anything,
> > including
> > what's in front of your nose.
>
> I know you sound like an Objectivst. Is it possible that you are acting.
> How do I know that you are not acting? Am I privy to you innermost
> thoughts? I am not. I do not claim mental telepathy on my resume. You
> do.
You can't tell the difference between someone acting and someone genuine?
It's not a matter of telepathy. It's a matter of perceptiveness. Of course
charades have been pulled off and there are people who are incredibly
skillful manipulators, but it is simply not rational to assume such
relatively rare occurences are going on unless you have some reason to
suspect it. As we discussed recently, to arbitrarily assert "well, maybe it
is" or "it's possible it is" is...arbitrary.
Fred Weiss
Robert J. Kolker
Fred Weiss wrote:
> "Robert J. Kolker" <bobk...@mediaone.net> wrote in message
> news:3B644169...@mediaone.net...
> >
> >
> > Fred Weiss wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > You're using an "omniscient" standard of knowledge. We don't work on the
> > > assumption that we are being deceived - unless we have reason to think
> so -
> > > whether by artists or anyone else.
> >
> > You should say self-niscient. You know what you perceive and nothing
> > else.
>
> I don't know Australia exists?
Have you been there? All you have are photographs,
and second hand reports. If you have not been there
you do not know of your own knowledge that Australia
exists. You * believe * Australia exists (as do I) but
you do not * know * it.
>
>
> >Everything else is second hand to you. I am proposing an humble
> > and loveable definition of knowledge that is sized to the perceptual
> > limitations of man. Which is not to naysay our ability to make extremely
> > good guesses about reality (it is called science by the way) ...
>
> We just guessed our way to building a spaceship and sending it to the moon,
> within what, inches of the predicted landing spot?
The gravitational theory is based on hypotheses. It so happens
it worked out just fine. If we used Newton's theory to get to
Mercury, it would not have worked out so well. And it was
within several hundred feet of the landing spot, which is still
pretty good.
>
>
> >...or some
> > very penetrating inferences (logic, math and science again). But do
> > not mistake inference from hypothesis with knowledge. Knowledge
> > comes in from the experiment you have designed, performed your
> > self and whose results you have perceived. Everything else is second
> > hand and hearsay.
>
> So I guess I'll just have to dismiss all of science.
No just take science for what it is. Inferring and testing the inferences.
You do not have to dismiss a thing.
>
>
> > > You KNOW that I am an Objectivist, not a Marxist in clever disguise
> playing
> > > an
> > > elaborate charade. If you don't know that, you don't know anything,
> > > including
> > > what's in front of your nose.
> >
> > I know you sound like an Objectivst. Is it possible that you are acting.
> > How do I know that you are not acting? Am I privy to you innermost
> > thoughts? I am not. I do not claim mental telepathy on my resume. You
> > do.
>
> You can't tell the difference between someone acting and someone genuine?
That is right. A good actor sound genuine. I can suppose someone
is sincere (but I might be wrong). Or I could assume someone
is merely posing (and I could be wrong), but I do not * know *.
Why? I have no access to the workings of anyone's brain but my
own.
>
> It's not a matter of telepathy. It's a matter of perceptiveness.
Even perceptive people can be gulled and fooled.
> Of course
> charades have been pulled off and there are people who are incredibly
> skillful manipulators, but it is simply not rational to assume such
> relatively rare occurences are going on unless you have some reason to
> suspect it. As we discussed recently, to arbitrarily assert "well, maybe it
> is" or "it's possible it is" is...arbitrary.
Not so. The cases of people being defrauded, hoaxed, gulled, fooled
sometimes to their detriment number in the hudreds of thousands.
Nothing arbitrary about it at all.
Au contraire. It is precisely when you do NOT suspect it, you get
bit.
Bob Kolker
>
Arnold Broese-van-Groenou
A nihilist who leaves a canvas blank for expressing his despair, would under
my definition, be using art to do so, but I hasten to add that contentless
art is also contradiction in terms.
Both your examples express their view, or feelings about the world around
them, so I won't tell you they aren't "recreations of reality according to
the artist's metaphysical value judgements."
If your soul resonates upon seeing a dot, it says something about you; that
you share something with the artist. (Perhaps that you are both 'dotty'.)
Regardless, the issue isn't "great art", it is about what art is supposed to
be or do. If one feels an emotion strongly, one way of expressing it is
through art, "This is how I feel."
*That* is the test for me as regards being art. Just because some art is
poorly done, or expresses insane ideas, it isn't disqualified from being art
IMO.
I just wouldn't want it in my house, because I cannot identify with it.
--
Arnold
Arnold Broese-van-Groenou
> >Acar <acar...@mail.com> wrote in message
> >news:JVE87.9934$ar1....@www.newsranger.com...
> >> Have you ever seen an ugly woman with a kind face? :-)
> >>
> >
> >Yup. Kinda ugly.
>
> Ugliness is only skin deep, Arnold.
Well my response was a play on words, but in regard to your above comment, I
disagree. There are ugly personalities too. They often write themselves into
facial features. Since the face expresses emotions so well, the mental state
is often reflected in the face.
Certainly I see much ugliness in vulgarity. Contrast the sewer language of
some here (not you), with gentlemen who duelled to the death, but never
lowered themselves thus.
But to your original point, I think "kindness" will often show through,
enhancing whatever looks we inherited.
--
Arnold
Fred Weiss
>A nihilist who leaves a canvas blank for expressing his despair, would under
>my definition, be using art to do so, but I hasten to add that contentless
>art is also contradiction in terms.
Which should tell you that it is not art. In this instance it is avowedly
anti-art, by such artists own admission. A nihilist, btw, by definition, if
he
were consistent, in fact, would have nothing to say and it wouldn't matter
if
he said it. Throwing blotches on a canvas is as close as he can come.
>Both your examples express their view, or feelings about the world around
>them, so I won't tell you they aren't "recreations of reality according to
>the artist's metaphysical value judgements."
But they don't accept reality, so they have no way to re-create it. Hence
the
mess that is so-called "modern art".
Acar
Well, let's look at this babble and see if there is method to it. Rand fash
ioned
a definition of art as the nucleus of an integral branch of a philosophy that
looks at reality from a position of certainty about real and unreal, about
value
and non-value, about good and evil, about life affirmation and anti-life.
Certainty demands dogmatism, because truth can not look on the face of doubt.
This is an important element of my babble. Objectivism knows, understand and
teaches that it must be dogmatic and intolerant in respect to the above
mentioned issues; otherwise what good would be objectivity?
The definition prescribes realism as a necessary quality of any art. That i
s the
genus. It is in the differentia that we find the prescription of how to judge
art. Objectivism, the philosophy, is about metaphysical value judgements. In
Objectivism there are MVJs (metaphysical value judgments) that are good and
MVJs
that are evil. There are metaphysical value judgements that promote life and
those that promote death. It necessarily follows that good art is art that
recreates reality according to metaphysical value judgements that are in line
with the Objectivist philosophy of which this theory of esthetics is a part
. Bad
art is art that recrteates reality along points of view that are condemned by
Objectivism (erroneous MVJs). If this is not so, what is an esthetic theory
doing as a branch of the philosophy?
Now we know what good art is and what bad art is - it is all according to
Objectivist dogma. I do not want to hear that The Romantic Manifesto says
otherwise because this is not a discussion about TRM. This is a discussion
about
a definition. I don't want to hear that the definition does not really define,
that TRM defines; or that TRM explains the definition. The definition is in
plain English. There is nothing obscure about "recreation of reality" and
"metaphysical value judgements" nor are we ignorant about what MVJs are lau
dable
and what MVJs are evil in the philosophy of which this is the Esthetics branch.
If the definition is incomplete or if it does not define, throw it out.
Everybody knows that the thing about definitions is that they have to be
meticulously crafted to stand on their own; any definition. But a philosophical
definition which seeks to throw out the traditional view of a concept like art
must certainly stand up to that standard.
You thought that that was long? That's just the introduction. Now to the point.
Rand does not just say what art is (realism) but she also prescribes what is
good art. Now what is this about "there is great art that I don't like?" She
does not like good stuff, life affirming stuff?
Now I realize the Romantic Manifesto is said to carry on in such a way that the
ceiling of the Sistine Chapel and pictures of Christ's resurrection are OK. But
look at the definition. According to the definition they are indeed art - they
are realistic, but are they good art? So metaphysical value judgements about
creationism and resurrections are to be sanctioned? Is this definiton a stand
alone secular academic excercise or is it the centerpiece of the Esthetics
branch of a philosophy about truth and values. How come the values of the
philosophy suddenly get disconnected from one branch of the philosophy?
Less facetiously what I am really saying is two things:
1. That all that clarification about Objectivist esthetics does not flow from
the definition.
2. Where is the connection of Objectivist esthetics to Objectivist values if we
disregard the implications of the definition?
Carmichael