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

A continuation of my conversation with Luke12000 concerning the nature of art. In this part, I address Luke's position that it is okay to categorize art, but not to evaluate it. I explain - as well as can be done by me "on the fly" while driving - the three general theories of "the good": intrinsicist, subjectivist, and objectivist. Luke's view, I suggest, is subjectivist.

Category:

News & Politics

Tags:

• Ayn
• Rand
• Objectivism
• good
• art

[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.

[Khayman8888]

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

[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?

[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.

[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]

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.

[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.