Another honest question from the child
John
Rand tires to show how art and literature can be looked at
objectively. In it, she goes on to define what art is. My contention
is that her views on art and literature (as well as music, etc) is
completely based on her SUBJECTIVE OPINION and personal taste since, I
feel, that any of the arts cannot be defined objectively. I also
completely and totally disagree with the notion that if anyone likes
an Abstract Expressionist painting, that they are morally flawed, or
irrational or any way else she tried to describe it; I don;t believe
that if one listens to Beethoven that they have "a malevolent sense of
life".
Just looking for feedback on this one being that this is one area with
Ayn Rand's philosophy that I completely part from (but in a way is a
very IMPORTANT parting)
To judge art, literature, music, etc objectively and to make the
sweeping broad claims that she made regarding it is the same as saying
that you can objectively define "beautiful"--which is another concept
completely subjective and always will be.
My question is: How can you possibly judge these areas objectively?
John
IshallTriumph
Ayn Rand began by showing what art is, a selective recreation of reality
according to an artist's value-judgments. To judge art, then, you judge how
well the artist has demonstrated his perception of reality.
jgalt
"John" <stjul...@juno.com> wrote
> My contention
> is that her views on art and literature (as well as music, etc) is
> completely based on her SUBJECTIVE OPINION and personal taste since, I
> feel, that any of the arts cannot be defined objectively.
That statement right there efficiently sums up why everyone "picks on you",
if you'd realize it. Nearly every statement you've made on this board boils
down to that. If you've been on as many objectivist forums as you claim,
you should have noticed their priorites. Most objectivists don't care if
you don't personally like Miss Rand (though they do get offended if she is
rabidly insulted), we don't mind if you rationally disagree with damn near
anything (the key term here, btw, is "rationally"). But you're right, there
is something you do that drives objectivists, and anyone who tries to have a
sensible conversation, absolutely apeshit. It's when you attempt to reverse
causality and make your FEELINGS the basis of cognition, not to mention
reality in general. That's the extent of your epistemology, if the posts
here are a good indication. It consists of the statement: John feels A,
therefore B is true(or false)
John feels no one can objectively define art, therefore Ayn Rand's esthetics
is inherently flawed.
John feels calling homosexuals immoral is wrong, therefore the root of
homosexuality is not emotional disorder.
If you want to be taken seriously, attempt to present an argument, not
unjustified "contentions". Don't tell us what you believe, how you feel, or
even whether you agree or disagree, just answer the question WHY? Let's
practice:
>I also
> completely and totally disagree with the notion that if anyone likes
> an Abstract Expressionist painting, that they are morally flawed, or
> irrational or any way else she tried to describe it; I don;t believe
> that if one listens to Beethoven that they have "a malevolent sense of
> life".
WHY?
> To judge art, literature, music, etc objectively and to make the
> sweeping broad claims that she made regarding it is the same as saying
> that you can objectively define "beautiful"--which is another concept
> completely subjective and always will be.
WHY?
John
Yes. But only if you accept HER definition of what art "is", know
what I mean? That's the problem I have with her ideas when it comes
to this particular subject. The question of "What is art?" has been
asked many times over the centuries. Rand's definition is only ONE of
the answers. I can accept that's how SHE sees it. But I don't accept
her definition. Because of this defintion, she completely dismissed
Abstract Expressionism, condemning the whole Modern movement in fact,
saying it was NOT art. But then she goes on to show how the Modern
artists senses of life are corrupt and immorall and evil (in some
cases) therefore giving Modern Art the credibility she originally
tried to dismiss. So it IS art....just art she didn't like or approve
of....
John
TommCatt
> In the "Romantic Manefesto", in the essay "Art and Cognition", Ayn
> Rand tires to show how art and literature can be looked at
> objectively. In it, she goes on to define what art is.
This was one of the first things that drew me to Rand. She at least had
the courage to define art! Every concept has a definition. Yet trying to
find a definition for art can be very frustrating. You would expect most
scientists to know the definition of science, most engineers to know the
definition of engineering, most farmer to know the definition of farming.
Yet most artists seem unable (or unwilling) to define art. Some have gone
so far as to claim there is no definition. Some have said that when you
can't find anything else to call it, it must be art (a synonym, as it
were, for "none of the above").
Now we have a definition of art. Agree or disagree, at least we have a
starting point. And if you disagree with the definition, what is a better
definition? Perhaps you know of a better one and we can adopt that
definition instead of hers.
> My contention
> is that her views on art and literature (as well as music, etc) is
> completely based on her SUBJECTIVE OPINION and personal taste since, I
> feel, that any of the arts cannot be defined objectively.
You want to drive Objectivists absolutely bonkers (most philosopher, in
fact) just keep saying "I feel" like you do. Disagree if you will. But
at least give us some basis for the disagreement so we can formulate a
response. As you have stated it here, there really is no way to answer
your objection. The best I can do is just reiterate the claim. Of course
art can be defined objectively. Every concept, concrete or abstract, can
be defined objectively. Even the concept "subjective" has an objective
definition.
So I am reduced to, in effect, just saying "you are wrong" and asking you
to clarify your argument.
> I also
> completely and totally disagree with the notion that if anyone likes
> an Abstract Expressionist painting, that they are morally flawed, or
> irrational or any way else she tried to describe it; I don;t believe
> that if one listens to Beethoven that they have "a malevolent sense of
> life".
I actually agree with the notion about abstract art, but I am a HUGE
Beethoven fan. His 9th is about as uplifting a piece of music as I have
heard (even better than Queen's Bohemian Rhapsody or Iron Butterfly's
In-A-Gadda-Da-Vida). So I would agree that she took some of her analysis
a bit too far.
The question is, is her error procedural or systemic? If I say "two plus
two equals five" does my error expose the fallacy of all of mathematics,
only addition, or just my own understanding?
> Just looking for feedback on this one being that this is one area with
> Ayn Rand's philosophy that I completely part from (but in a way is a
> very IMPORTANT parting)
Fine, but *how* do you part with it? Give us something to work with here.
> To judge art, literature, music, etc objectively and to make the
> sweeping broad claims that she made regarding it is the same as saying
> that you can objectively define "beautiful"--which is another concept
> completely subjective and always will be.
Mais non! You are wrong. For one thing, if what you said were true,
there would be absolutely no place at all for art critics. There would be
no foundation for criticism of any art.
> My question is: How can you possibly judge these areas objectively?
A few years ago, I read of some scientists who wanted to know the
objective characteristics of beauty. So they took thousands of pictures
of women's faces. They had dozens of men separate the pictures into three
piles, beautiful, ugly, and so-so. They took measurements of the faces
and found similar attributes within the stacks. They entered these into a
computer and scanned in some of the pictures. The computer was able to
judge beauty or, at any rate, the beauty of a women's face.
That is about as objective a measure as you can get.
Btw, I don't remember all the objective aspects of a "beautiful" face, but
there was a consistent ratio between the width and length of the face, the
width of the gap between the eyes to the width of the eyes themselves, and
quite a few other characteristics.
Tomm
--
Science is best defined as a careful, disciplined, logical
search for knowledge about any and all aspects of the universe,
obtained by examination of the best available evidence and
always subject to correction and improvement upon discovery
of better evidence. - James Randi
malenor
>Science is best defined as a careful, disciplined, logical
>search for knowledge about any and all aspects of the universe,
>obtained by examination of the best available evidence and
>always subject to correction and improvement upon discovery
>of better evidence. - James Randi
Although Randi seems to be speaking from an objective standpoint here,
further exploration of his beliefs indicates that he believes psychic
phenomenon are a real possibility. He does not disbelieve in psychics,
because science cannot disprove their claims in general. So it is
necessary for someone (such as himself) to go around showing that it
is possible to imitate their psychic abilities through sleight-of-hand
and "mentalist" techniques. So far he has been able to demonstrate
that every psychic *could* have been using magicians' tricks rather
than real psychic abilities. Unfortunately, this does not prove that
the psychic was not using real mental powers, and Randi knows this.
(But then there have been times when the "psychic" has been proven to
be a fraud; still, this doesn't prove that all psychics are frauds or
that even that particular psychic was a fraud.)