Aesthetics: The Neglected Branch of Objectivism

No description available.

Category:

Education

Tags:

• objectivism
• aesthetics
• objectivist
• ayn
• rand
• philosophy
• Ayn Rand
• Objectivism (Ayn Rand)
• art
• theory

[thenewintellectual]

I often get the feeling that many people who are not artists give up on the prospect of taking art seriously since most of the acclaimed works we are exposed to are so blatantly unintelligible. As for movies and fiction novels, these are hardly art works in the objectivist sense of the word. They have more in common with entertainment like sports than real art.

[ObjectivistAesthetic]

@thenewintellectual I'm going to politely disagree re: movies, fiction. I would hold that adhering to Objectivist aesthetics would lead a person to identify them, despite how popular or bad they often are, as works of art. Otherwise, what criteria could you use to differentiate them? Any art can be entertaining. I think sports serves a similar psych. function (as described by Rand in the Rom. Manifesto), but in a less outward manner.

[yankeewh1te]

What is the painting behind you? If I'm not incorrect, is that a spider gaussian blurred/layered 50 times in photoshop such to amplify the effect of its claws, to make it look giant? Is it postmodern?

/me wonders where his Gattaca poster went

Hope you got a chuckle out of that :)

[ObjectivistAesthetic]

@yankeewh1te Ha ha. It's a landscape by a former-friend of mine named Alyssa Schmidt. I am very proud to own two of her paintings. I think I might make a video about art I own in the near future--but no promises.

[TheMessianicManic]

Have you ever done a video explaining the relationship between your art and objectivism? I love your paintings, I think they're fantastic, but when I look at them I don't think, "ah, these were done by an objectivist."

[ObjectivistAesthetic]

@TheMessianicManic Thanks! Yeah, I certainly don't try to make them look like sort of stereotypical Objectivist stuff. Plus, I can't seem to shake making slightly depressing artwork! The relationship I have to my work is a long and sordid tale--I'll make a video about it sometime.

[StudentOfObjectivism]

On a day to day basis, if I see 'art' that are BS, I can just ignore it; when I see political views that are BS I can't - because bad politics directly leads to a person holding up a gun and dictating the course of my life.

[WarVideo]

I have absolutly no artistic ability, but Im very interested in the theory of art.  My interest involves trying to understand what a particular artwork means and the method of figutring out what an artist is trying to convey. Romantic Manifesto is actually my favorite non fiction book by Ayn Rand.

[freedomforall3]

Another reason might be the limited number of Objectivist artists to discuss. As, you said, it's easy to critique abstract painting, but it's hard to find stuff to admire (besides Ayn Rand's work). Currently, my favorite Romantic Realist is Bryan Larson (find him at cordair . com).

[freedomforall3]

I think that most active Objectivists are focused on spreading the philosophy, and the most efficient way to do that is through politics and ethics; this is where non-Objectivists are most receptive. Subsequently, when Objectivists get together, they discuss what they are used to, i.e. political subjects and strategies. As a result, aesthetics gets neglected amongst the most competent persuaders i.e., the most vocal.

[freedomforall3]

Certainly art is more technically difficult to discuss than politics, even amongst those well versed in the terminology. After all, with such abstract terms as "sense of life", "psycho-epistemology", and "metaphysical value-judgments" who can blame them if they stick to the simplicity of Force vs Mind?

[freedomforall3]

I think politics (at least on its face) is easier to discuss, because most people at least profess to believe in human rights, and it's easy to start a discussion on how best to "protect" them. Conversely, in Art, the majority of people believe it is subjective and whim based. To a non-Objectivist, a discussion of Art is like a discussion of metaphysics: confusing, and pointless.

[freedomforall3]

In answer to your question, I don't think aesthetics is discussed much because it is the most abstract branch of philosophy. It requires a deep understanding of all the others, and the number of people who can discuss it with a knowledge of all the terms is limited.

[freedomforall3]

Hey Justin! I've been following your art blog for some time now, and bought your "our gang can do it better" drawing a few months ago, but didn't find your YouTube page until now.

[NewScholar9]

you're right, as an Objectivist, I do not care so much for the Aesthetics, I am a sudent of history and Philosophy so Objectivist ethics, metaphysics and epistemology are more interesting to me.