In Defence of Ayn Rand #2-2: 'Good' Art

[mikeyposter]

Yeah - I've read the Fountainhead, and most of her other stuff.  Rand is what you call an elitist - she perceives people of quality to be of a certain class, and tends to relegate a lot of good, honest folk who are very creative to the scrapheap.

Trust me, I worked in theatre for years, and met plenty of Ayn Rand wannabees. They tended to put the cost and profit of art before anything the art actually says. It's called being closed minded.

[Kikarok]

@mikeyposter

If they put cost and profit before artistic content and integrity, then they are anything but an Ayn Rand wannabe. If you've indeed read her novels, you should have noticed her championing of the average man along with the Roarks of the world, provided the average men have moral integrity. Remember Mike, the electrician and good friend of Roark? When is he thrown in the scrapheap?

[Khayman8888]

@mikeyposter Really. So you probably thought Peter Keating was the protagonist of the novel then.

[mikeyposter]

So if you wanna make art, find who your audience is. Who do you want to speak to. If you are looking for Art, and want to classify it, go ahead! Everyone loves to do it - the true critic can wave a flag and say "everyone pay attention to this". But don't waste your time getting MAD at bad art - the world is not everyone's, so criticize away, and support what speaks to you the most. Your concern about if art can hurt is a waste of energy. The miscommunication is the human condition.

[sapidpersona]

"So if you wanna make art, find who your audience is."

Please read Ayn Rand's "The Fountainhead" for the sake of your reasoning.

[mikeyposter]

But don't get me started on public funding for the arts - I'm Canadian, and while it's nice to have the grants, it can create an atmosphere where, because the money is public, too much money goes to re-staging musicals and propping up local "institutions" for the sake of jobs, and not enough goes into funding artists who may offend the wrong people with what their art says, but which give us a chance to debate their significance. Which is kind of the point for an artist - the debate.

[mikeyposter]

Whether or not people meet standards, including Ms. Rand, and whatever value judgement you make of a thing or experience, is completely subjective. Whether or not you are "right" about it is based completely on the popular, current consensus about it. Unfortunately, in our hyper-connected, 150 channel world, I find we get a ton of stuff thrown at us that I find doesn't speak to me. And the only reason it speaks to others is because they get what costs the least and makes the most profit.

[mikeyposter]

If you want to objectively define Art, here it is:

Art (or work of art) = Innovation Within Period + Overall Audience Appreciation + Longevity Of Relevance

art = Self Expression + Awakening Audience's Understanding of the World

The first is a label you put on a thing (hence the debates about whether one artist is more important than another, and the effect anthropology and history on these arguments) and the second is a what you try to make out of what you have at hand - including yourself.

[mikeyposter]

I think the art Ms. Rand and others who are of her social status is Art - they strive for something eternal, like the Romans or the Greeks. I have been in the houses of some of the great and powerful 8 figure earners, and that is what I see on the walls. There aren't infinite ways of making art or expressing yourself - it's just that the available mediums and the zeitgeist of the audience watching it are changing all the time.

[mikeyposter]

However, most of the art you're talking about is what I call "Capital A Art". Art is usually what you call something that speaks of a new way of seeing things. All of the great painters you talk about were impressionists and so on, because they were labelled that for how they painted. Very few artists work out the specific style they will cleave to - they will write about it ad-nauseum, but most of the true "genius" of art comes in the moment.

[mikeyposter]

An "amateur" artist is only separated from a "professional" by two factors - how many people find something fascinating in their work, and how much training and how many resources they have at hand. A drunk in a Karaoke bar can surprise a room full of people, as can a reality-tv show contestant - and for the people in the room the performance can be art. That's why we consider pop stars and country singers and folks artists as such.

[mikeyposter]

I stumbled across this by accident. The young fella striving for definition is not unusual in his quest for some certainty.

I find, having worked in and around the arts for most of my life, that the making of it - professionally - is always a balancing act between what you feel you should be expressing and what the people paying you to make art want the art to say. Your position as an artist is always connected to an audience, because art can't exist in a vacuum. (forgive the multiples here)

[aekel66]

To me, art is simply a tool for recreation. God reacration for me is something that give me emotional kicks, regarless if it doeas so by speaking to my rational mind or to my subconsious instincts. This (at least for me)means that the only physical critique for art would be that it stimulate the subjective mind.

[robshaps]

Paul - have you heard Ken Wilber's interview with Nathaniel Branden? You should find it and download it. I think you'll find it interesting.

[SpazzzDog]

Objectivism does limit art. You were wrong when you said art can exist in all levels of abstraction. Rand says "As a re-creation of reality, a work of art has to be representational; its freedom of stylization is limited by the requirement of intelligibility; if it does not present an intelligible subject, it ceases to be art." -Romantic Manifesto, pg. 21

[SpazzzDog]

Even though I believe art is subjective, I believe in an objective world that exists independent of my mind. I'm an empiricist and that experience is the best way to learn about the world. What does Objectivism predict my taste in art to be? Remember, all it takes is one counter example to prove Rand's theory of art wrong.

[SpazzzDog]

When it comes to life and the natural world, I'm an intrinsicist. When it comes to art I'm a subjectivist. I think your deduction that subjectivist art leads to art having no definition is false. Art is a form of self expression, and how an individual chooses to express himself is different between individuals. Likewise, one person may like one form of expression over another. I like the art that I like, I don't give a f'ck what Rand says I should or shouldn't like.

[Entropy56]

I think good, bad, and evil are possibly the worse words ever.

Except that the word, worse is itself a judgment word.

[Entropy56]

Correction: "worst"

[dharmabam]

why can't you guys just email each other

[rhythymelodica]

genres are stupid and so is this dude. what does he think of the beatles? and I mean you not the peter keating inside you, telling me what ayn rand thinks.

[BeatBuddy]

McKeever, try writing a novel. Make sure that your values and ideas relate "objectively" to the human experience, in order to produce a work that may be "analytically accurate", but lifeless and stodgy. If you want to understand anything about art, the LAST person you should listen to is Ayn Rand.

[marneedear]

You should read Sparrowhawk.

[BeatBuddy]

Will check him or her out.

[lokitoyz]

Anyway I'm sure you get the point rejection of mysticism blah, blah, blah. I believe writers reveal certain aspects of themselves when they write dialogue for their characters. Shakespeare is no exception but is exceptional.

[BeatBuddy]

Shakespeare is often regarded as having the best understanding of human nature. I picked it up many years ago while reading A MIDSUMMER NIGHT'S DREAM. Balzac, in my view, is a first runner up.

By putting labels(i.e. msytics) on writers, Rand immuned herself from appreciating and understanding cultural achievements. Thoreau comes to mind.

[artsissy]

In response to my questions about music, Paul McKeever wrote,

"Yes, in as much as there does not appear to be any single meaning that can be given to any particular melody."

So, music is subjective, abstract, and doesn't present intelligible meanings, yet it's still art?

[PaulMcKeever]

It's an interesting question. If I recall, in Rand's article on Art and Cognition, she doesn't say so explicitly.

[artsissy]

Rand believed that music was art, despite explaining in the Romantic Manifesto that it can't communicate concepts or meanings. In other words, she recognized that it is unintelligible, and, as I quoted her below, that "no objectively valid criterion of aesthetic judgment possible" for music, and that we must treat musical tastes "as a subjective matter."

[artsissy]

Interesting, isn't it, that a subjective, abstract form like music is art according to Rand, yet a subjective, abstract form like abstract painting isn't? The "objective" standard used in determining what is or is not art was apparently nothing more than Rand's subjective feelings, while the subjective feelings of fans of abstract art were declared invalid.

[PaulMcKeever]

Query: did she actually say "music is art"

[artsissy]

I don't recall if she said the specific phrase "music is art," but she clearly believed that it was. She listed it as one of the major branches of art, and, when defining its nature, she contrasted it several times against "the other arts."

[artsissy]

She also believed that architecture was art, despite stating that it "combines art with a utilitarian purpose and does not re-create reality," which contradicted both her view that art cannot serve a utilitarian purpose and her definition of art - a "re-creation of reality."

[artsissy]

I just noticed that I misplaced quotation marks in my last message and inadvertently inserted a couple of words.

This is how the post should read:

Paul McKeever,

Do you think that music is art?

Rand believed that it was, despite also believing that there was "no objectively valid criterion of aesthetic judgment possible" for music, and, therefore, that "we have to treat our tastes or preferences as a subjective matter."

Do you agree with her?

[PaulMcKeever]

Yes, in as much as there does not appear to be any single meaning that can be given to any particular melody. Lyrics are another matter, and fall into the category of other written works, like novels and poetry. I'm of the opinion that music can be enjoyed for its sound qualities (melody, etc.) even if the lyrics accompanying the instrumental are anti-life. Provided one is not sanctioning the anti-life lyrics/creators of an otherwise good sound/melody, I think one is doing nothing immoral.

[PaulMcKeever]

As a similar example, I've enjoyed watching "A Christmas Carol"...because I see it as a vivid example of society's condemnation of the (largely) good for being the good.

[PaulMcKeever]

...and as a condemnation of the author, who felt a need to conjur up the supernatural as a justification for altruism...one would have thought altruism to be more easily proven with natural evidence, were it valid, no?

[artsissy]

Paul McKeever,

Do you think that music is art?

Rand believed that it was, despite also believing that there was "no objectively valid criterion of aesthetic judgment possible" for music, and, "therefore, that we have to treat our tastes or preferences regarding music as a subjective matter."

Do you agree with her?

[marneedear]

What limits an artist is to hold that anything one throws together, even without thinking about in any significantly cognitive way (Pollack), is art. This does not provide the artist with any reason for being! His purpose is rendered arbitrary. How sad, empty.

[marneedear]

Its amazing to me that someone could imagine that holding the purpose of art to be to re-create one's ideas and values in a way that relates objectively to the human experience. The world is so complex and intricate! How could that ever limit you? Fantasy is not outside this realm, as is quite clear in the realist works of the 19th century masters....

[BeatBuddy]

You are responding to a lot of psuedo-intellectual hokum. Let the artist open his nostrils, breath and inhale, like Jackson Pollock did, who sought an outlet for his emotional and sensual universe. Rand panned all art that didn't fit into her tiny cocoon of "reality". I can't think of a more dynamic expression of individualism than surrealism. Naturalism had led to an enormous amount of social change, and exisentialism was beyond her intellectual capacities.

[marneedear]

Good lord. You do realize that Rand admired Dali and Jose Manuel Capuletti, right?

[BeatBuddy]

Not to my knowledge, I am not even remotely aware that she admired them. But I am aware that she panned Beethoven, Mozart, and Shakespeare as being anathema to Objectivist thought.

[marneedear]

In order to make these modernist "things" seem valuable you necessarily HAVE to make up stuff to prop it up! But Realism stands on its own. It doesnt need any "art world" to defend its value with "art speak." And yet we are to think that paint drippings are highly valuable and deeply intellectual?

[BeatBuddy]

It's the emotionally weak and intellectually inept who must make things up. Realism does not merely stand on its own. Even the Naturalists had to be selective in how to convey their messages and sense of purpose.

As for Jackson Pollock, I fell in love the moment I laid eyes on him. The vitality, the disorder, and the color schemes strike a chord.  I would rather suck it up than "intellectually analyze" it; that would kill the taste. You are looking at him purely as a technician.

[lokitoyz]

"This is the excellent foppery of the world when we are sick in fortune often the surfeit of our own behaviour we make guilty of our disasters the sun the moon the stars as if we were villians on neccessity fools by heavenly compulsion naives theives treacherers by spherical predominance. Drunkards liars and adulterers by an enforced obediance of planetary influence and all that we are evil in by a divine thrusting on."

[lokitoyz]

Beatbuddy, thank you it's nice to see there is some integrity left in this world. Existentialism is a great foundation and way of life. The only problem that I can find with it is that it does not embrace the eastern concept of impermanance. I know that we make our own meaning according to Sartre but that does not account for our lack of control as we approach finality.

[BeatBuddy]

Thanx for the gracious reply. There are no philosophers whom I embrace wholesale, not even my mentor, Bertrand Russell. Rand purported to be objective, but this is nonsense. She was too narcisstic, too megalomaniacal to fill that role. Any thought that fell short of her absolutist, panaceaic view of life was by definition evil. Shakespeare is right: "There is more to heaven and earth than what is dreamed of in your philosophy."

[lokitoyz]

Yes, and althought shakespeare at times defered to the Christian belief system it seems to me that a certain doubt in his own beliefs is revealed in the antogonistic Edmund from Lear. When he says...(continued)

[BeatBuddy]

There has been lots of conjecture about Shakespeare being a religious skeptic. One thing is certain, he cannot be regarded as a religious writer when compared to this contemporaries, in which religion was the dominant theme.

[kylben]

I'm not sure that belief is consistent across the 'far east', but no matter - to the extent that it's true, it at least leaves the door open to objective reason. So, you say what you are *not* arguing... what are you trying to say?

[lokitoyz]

This non thing can not be explained. All attempts leave me falling short. I just know that I've experienced a transcendental experience. It's not a cop out just a personal experience. But I think the buddhists may call it Sammhadi.

[kylben]

Well, I can guarantee you that you didn't. All attempts to describe it in the terms you're groping for leave you falling short because every one of those ideas lead to a contradiction. I'm not saying you didn't experience something, nor denying the value to you of the experience itself, only that it was not an experience of the kind of thing you think it was.

[lokitoyz]

I appreciate your authority over my experiences but I'm not sure if you are sufficiently trained in eastern thought to understand what it is that I'm trying to say. In fact shame on me for trying to put a name on it in the first place. I trust my experience and believe it to be genuine. By the way in zen experience all contradictions are buried and have nothing to do with duality. We probably won't get any further here unless you actually experience it for yourself. Thanks anyway and good luck.

[kylben]

There is no 'eastern' thought, just thought. Experiencing 'it' for myself is impossible. There is no 'it' to be experienced - at least not the kind of it you seem to be trying to explain but can't.

[kylben]

By the way, there is an additional 'ism' to Paul's triad of intrinsicism, subjectivism, and objectivism. That is nihilism, where the self and the consciousness (along with 'all contradictions') are buried, and what is sought is non-existence, nullity, the void.  It is at the heart of eastern philosophy, particularly zen. In the west, at least, it is usually a reactionary response to encountering the contradictions of intrinsicism. You're well along on that dead-end road. Good luck with that.

[lokitoyz]

The term no-thing does not mean nothing or void or null it simply attempts to begin a discussion about the undescribable in the least decieving language possible because if we call it some thing than we can not begin to approach it. Not understanding this has lead you to the erronious conclusion that it's heart is nihilism and that is wrong. It's not a dead end it's just not the glory and ecstacy of the burning bush.

[lokitoyz]

One last thing please read the Upanishads or Nagarjuna it will illumine you and perhaps free you from the static perception of the purely intellectual approach. Oh, and the Nihilism thing? that's the approach that right wing fundamentalists take because they also don't get it and I hope your not in with that crowd.

[lokitoyz]

The void is not at the heart of eastern mysticism the void is a term that is the least deceiving to describe that which transcends conceptual thought. I don't have the exact quote but you will find this in the Lao tzu.(I CHING) That is not Nihilism. The experience is not the void but an experience beyond that which can be expressed in terms of the realm of opposites. Read Nagarjuna he was known as the poet of nothingness.

[lokitoyz]

Thanks anyway and good luck.

[lokitoyz]

You said "Rather,[the "intrinsically good"]is that which is judged to be good independently of the mind, nature, needs, wants etc of the viewer. Judged by whom? The intrincist is a person with a mind that is not independent of that which is judged. I swear I'm not trying to make this difficult but what you're saying doesn't make any sense. Do you have a textbook definition perhaps that might be able to explain it better?

[PaulMcKeever]

I suggest that you read Ayn Rand's "What is Capitalism?". Explaining Rand's definition of "intrinsically good" in "500 characters or less" is difficult when the person seeking the explanation lacks a grounding in objectivism.

[kylben]

Your difficulty seems to be that you see the contradiction inherent to intrincism, and so cannot fathom how anyone can believe it. Paul is not saying that intrinsicist has a rational belief, but that he *wrongly* believes it. Your objections - "Judged by whom?" - are correct. The intrinsicist denies that there must be a judger - a valuer.

[kylben]

In other words, the intrinsicist says "X is good in and of itself, and would be good even if nobody existed to judge it." There *are* people who believe that, and base entire philsophical houses of cards on it.

[lokitoyz]

Yes, that's what I thought and I appreciate you confirming that for me. If I understand it correctly the entire premise would at least have more validity if they assumed the existence of a transcendent being who judges that which is beautiful and ugly. But you see where abstraction lead? Madness I say MADNESS! Seriously, thank you.

[kylben]

You're welcome. But I'm not sure what you mean by "You see where abstraction lead?"

[lokitoyz]

I meant to use the plural (abstractions)God is an abstraction in the sense that he, she, it, if that which transcends conceptual fabrication actually exits. Which I don't think can exist in the Judeo Christian form. Formlessness has no form. A deeper mystery that includes evolution seems more likely.

[kylben]

I'm not completely following that. First, we use the word 'abstraction' differently. Roughly, I use it to mean a concept formed from relating two or more other concepts in some way, and it's a perfectly valid thing to do. There are no abstractions except within a consciousness, a thing or an entity can't be an abstraction.

Second, 'A deeper mystery' about what? A mystery is nothing more than something we don't know yet. "Mystery", in the mystical sense, is a non-concept, it's gibberish.

[lokitoyz]

I respectfully disagree with you on the deeper mystery response and yes it is a non concept in that in cannot be perceived with the senses and therefore transcends conceptual fabrication. I have no proof but I do not call it God and no I am not merely replacing it with another word that is the default of the intellectuals.

[lokitoyz]

I think God is a metaphor for the mystery of our own being nothing more than that. I have had an experience not of the mind not of emotion or intellect I could not wrap my mind around it. But this I do know the intellect can not touch it and it only came once but I know as rational human being that I experienced it.

[lokitoyz]

Again I am not trying to sell this to you it is a personal experience. I do not claim to have secret knowledge but intuitive insight. I may be wrong. I reject all western construction concerning a personal God and rejection Hinduism and the like. The subconscious reveals more than any religion has to offer me.

[kylben]

Well, you apparently reject "western" constructions of reason, too. We can't argue feelings, so there's not much left to discuss.

[lokitoyz]

When I mentioned western constructs I meant the Judeo Christian concept of deity or deities. It's interesting because in the far east the priestly casts understand their Gods to be mere masks for the truth. Like I said evolution is a fact I'm not arguing that and I don't think there is a God.

[kylben]

Sorry, the below is a reply to this...

[lokitoyz]

Let me restate that I may have had insight to a transcendental experience.

[lokitoyz]

If the intrinsic is independent of the human mind then who is there to judge it? This seems an abstraction that can not actually exist. Sort of like the concept of infinity.

[PaulMcKeever]

The intrinsic isn't the unjudged. Rather, it is that which is judged to be good independently of the mind, nature, needs, wants etc. of the viewer. For example, the intrincist might believe that any painting involving red paint is good...even if the painting is of a bloody murder.

[lokitoyz]

Let me rephrase this. There must be a consciousness in order for the intrinsic to actually exist. I can understand if we are talking about an omniscient viewer but without it we are still talking about an abstraction. Everything in existance is defined by it's opposite hot/cold, male/female, unless you are speaking of that which is neutral and has no opposite. Unjudged? All things things perceived with the senses have been judged.

[PaulMcKeever]

Nothing is defined by its opposite. Were it so, nothing would be definable.

[lokitoyz]

Most things perceived with our minds are defined by opposites or we would have no frame of reference. It is a basic constituent that is accepted by every intelligent living intellect. Are you speaking of no-thing or nothing? Let's define this first.

[PaulMcKeever]

There is no difference in meaning between "nothing" and "no-thing", so I am speaking about both terms.

[lokitoyz]

So, this is a hypothetical you'll concede? Is that correct? Just as zen is a hypothetical? The material universe without sentient beings isn't necessarily intrinsically beautiful or ugly? It simply is. No abstractions no expectations. That would make it the not beautiful the not ugly which doesn't negate the intrinsic but reduces it to a mere abstraction.

[lokitoyz]

There can be no intrinsic values unless you are suggesting a transcendent viewer. That which escapes all conditions in time and space. If we define intrinsic as existing without judgement then it is merely a hypothetical and not even as real as infinity because at least the infinite has applications.

[PaulMcKeever]

I have been using the word "intrinsic" in a particular way. I have no interest in using it to represent the concept "existing without judgment". We are speaking about value. An intrinsicist wrongly believes that things can have a value without there being a valuer.

[lokitoyz]

In what way have you been using it? Please be specific so that I might understand it as well. Thanks.

[PaulMcKeever]

As I said: "Rather, [the "intrinsically good"] is that which is judged to be good independently of the mind, nature, needs, wants etc. of the viewer. For example, the intrincist might believe that any painting involving red paint is good...even if the painting is of a bloody murder."

[lokitoyz]

Unless the intrincist assumes the existence of a God who created all things judged by him to be beautiful or ugly.

[Entropy56]

I took "intrinsically good" to mean that the judgment of a thing is based upon a real or imaginary authority outside oneself. And the subjectivist bases judgment within himself. Of course, the conundrum is that the accepting outside authority is merely making the subjective judgment indirectly.

[Entropy56]

But this indirect subject authority (e.g. God) can be accepted for only so long as the dissonance between the specific judgments of that outside authority don't vary too much. In the end subjectivism wins out. Belief in intrinsically good is just a shell game.

[lokitoyz]

And this is where we get into a loop that just goes nowhere. I appreciate you confirming my concerns. It is merely a form of intellectual masterbation as far as I can surmize. Fun but nevertheless useless. Thanks.

[onerottensod]

and by the way--- its laughable the way you propagandize by portraying a subjectivist and an intrinsicist with a lazy stoner-ish speech and manner. but its not surprising , given your apparent elitist and possibly fascist tendencies

[onerottensod]

your video on Anarchy and Taxation made a lot of sense, but here you are a pompous windbag. Much like Rand , you excel when it comes to political and economic matters, but are dead in the water with anything involving human emotion or taste

[Aynology]

ObjectiveArt always has a purpose; cARrying the creatOR/viewer towARd, a benevolent universe. HonORing Man as its centre.

-the non-objective doesn't-