Modern Art, part 2 of 2

[Victorprossart1]

Behold the knob in all his glory.

[eventide925]

Objectivism and subjectivism are parts of the whole human experience. Knowing where they both fit and how they work for one is a well rounded outlook...

[TheDogRibs]

You need to lighten up and enjoy yourself more.

[courtabeth]

Peevish,amateurish,jaded.Remin­ds me of that first year grad student in every class that can't hear anything but the three or four books he's read from cover to cover.

[prillvex]

Peikoff:

"Non-objective art flouts the rules of the human mind."

Ayn Rand:

"Until a conceptual vocabulary is discovered and defined, no objectively valid criterion of esthetic judgment is possible in the field of music...we have to treat musical tastes or preferences as a subjective matter...Music cannot tell a story, it cannot deal with concretes, it cannot convey a specific existential phenomenon."

Which means that music flouts the rules of the human mind.

[Kurturmis]

as a traditional artist i find this extreamly refreashing to hear. Modern art should not be held in such high regard. Anyone interested in real art or want to read a traditional contempoary artist views google art renewal centre.

[bpope123]

I might say that Modern art might be more of a technique, rather then "art". You can employ a Pollock technique when rendering your art, but it isn't art all by itself. You might even make the smears and splatter a focal point, but, I guess, it should be part of a larger reality, fantasy, what have you. I personally think art should raise the views consciousness, but it certainly doesn't need to be understood, or even liked by everyone.

[nurabsol]

if "art" doesn't need to be understood? how does one determine it to be "art"? How can "art" raise the viewer's consciousness if they can't understand it? Just as he says in the video, modern "art" is not something one can draw anything from. It is not even intended, for the most part, to mean anything. So how can that, which is the denial of meaning, raise consciousness?

[rutgerjimmyjayjay]

There is no classical or modern art, there is only art. Although I dislike postmodernism in social life in all its senseless nihilm. I do think it can be used in art, movies and literature. However, there can be high (classical) and low (modern) art. I love both David Lynch and Roy lichtenstein on one hand, and Tarkovsky and Rembrandt on the other.

[cropperb]

Lichtenstein is pretentious nonsense.

This is not an issue of a continuum, with all art at some point on a line. Rather, it is an issue of exclusion: modern "art" is excluded from an objective, rational definition of "art".

[rutgerjimmyjayjay]

I agree, that there are levels in artistic achievement, in quality, etc. Do you really reject all posmodern art, literature, film, because of the disaproval of objectivist philosophy? Even if your natural response towards modern art (example: Lichtenstein) was a positive one?

[TakeAleft]

Again... SO... what "old" art is then a visualisation of reality? That painting in your room is ALSO just an interpretation of reality... there is no objectivity!!!

And please... the avantgarde (exept for the italian futurism) was against fascism... find me a contempurary art book that agrees with you!!! (please answer all, thx)

[tdekom]

Rembrandt, Da Vinci, Buonarroti, Tchaikovsky, Mozart, Beethoven, Hugo, Dostoyevsky

to name just a few.

[cropperb]

"find me a contempurary art book that agrees with you!!!"

This statement shows how irrational you are. How does showing a source that agrees validate my argument?

You are a stark-raving mad subjectivist. And a militant skeptic.

[TakeAleft]

Do you have a thought for yourself???

Piekoff and Rand are like Jesus and Moses to you... and their writing is your bible...STOP REFERING TO THESE FALSE GODS AND THINK MAN... so sad, this video is a prove that an intelligent mind can be victimized by even the most obvious propaganda

[tdekom]

Whats wrong with Rand or Peikoff? Is it the fact that there are only very few pro-reason philosophers, or is it just the fact that you disagree with Rand and Peikoff?

When you refer to these philosophers as Gods, their books as the bible, you imply a faith based belief--a worship via blind, subjective, arbitrary whim. That is not the case with objectivism, as it is rooted in reality and is entirely rational.

[TakeAleft]

1) if Rand and Peikoff are "pro-reason" what are every one else.. "against-reason"-philosophers.­.. idiot!

2) I write that OBJECTIONISTS uses the work of Rand (especially) as a bible... just look at CropperB, in his (legitimate) attack against religion he has elevated Rand to the level of god.. when in fact she is just an outdated philosopher...

[tdekom]

To answer question #1, yes.

And, again, I doubt Mr. Cropper believes Rand is God. In fact, you have no evidence to support this. He quotes the authors he likes, such as Rand, Peikoff, Branden, Neitzsche, etc. Never does he wholly submit to their every word. I'm sure he may disagree with Rand on some things.

Outdated philosopher? Aristotle has been dead for over 2 millenia and is still influencing philosophers. Men die, ideas do not.

[TakeAleft]

So now you are calling aristoteles a woman??? Well, so much for the educationsystem in America

If you had watched CropperB videos for a longer time, you would now that he always refers to Rand, or people speaking about Rand... NO WAIT... he also speaks of her collegues... but since you answered yes to 1) im sure you dont see a problem with this...

[russelsparadox]

You are an idiot. Did he say "Men die, women do not?"  And that Aristotle isn't dead? (It still wouldn't follow from that that he is a woman...)

Jesus, go back to school.

[tdekom]

The appalling truth here is that you never state your premises, you never state WHY you disagree, simply that you do and that bcropper is a fool. Your ad homs aren't welcome, and therefor neither are you.