RoR: Forum

BRAVO! Peter, I was with you with every word. Well said! But isn't the truth always well said.

Michael

Post 1

Friday, January 17, 2003 - 9:30am

Thank you Peter! What an awesome article and I especially appreciated the examples because it made clear to me (very much a novice!) what the issues really are.

I never realized the importance or true role of architecture before though I'm realizing now that it's been one of my own concerns in simple things like choosing a home and setting it up for the optimal use of space, comfort and LIVING. LOL!

You've opened up a whole new doorway to exploration of a very important idea for me!

Joy :)

Post 2

Friday, January 17, 2003 - 10:03am

Thank you for the excellent and informative article. I loved the visual aids, too!

I admit, I have always reserved the term "ART" to apply to things whose sole purpose is aesthetic. In my mind, if something served a utilitarian function, it was not ART per se, but an object with artistic properties. For example, if I had a sculpture in my home that was designed purely for visual delight, it might rise to the level of ART. But if I take the same sculpture, and put a lid on it and make it into a cookie jar, it wouldn't seem quite like art anymore. Rather, it would be a very well-designed cookie jar. I think architecture struck me similarly. After reading your article, I'm rethinking this issue!

Now that you've opened up for me the possibility of art serving dual functions, both aesthetic and utilatarian, I have a question: Can cars and trucks be art? What about a swimming pool? And even the cookie jar? Can anything that serves a function, and whose form serves that end, be art?

Post 3

Saturday, January 18, 2003 - 11:35am

If we take Eric's newly-created cookie jar and remove the utility, we are left with a recognizable work of art. If architecture is "not primarily" utilitarian, we should be able to similarly remove its utility and be left with a recognizable work of art. We can't. Since the aesthetic can be removed from a building but the utility cannot, architecture is primarily utilitarian. Architecture is not art because its alleged aesthetic IS its utility: architecture does not recreate reality, it IS reality. If architecture is art, so is everything else that mankind makes.

Jonathan

Post 4

Saturday, January 18, 2003 - 12:52pm

Thanks, Peter, for a most provocative discussion of a very important topic.

This Sciabarrian author would just like to put in a plug for WHAT ART IS, because of its singular significance in advancing scholarly discussion of Objectivism. I most adamantly agree with Peter's comment that this book "by the editors of Aristos is certainly an important one." And because it is "the first . . . to seriously wrestle with Rand's theory and to explicate it," I do agree, quite strongly, "that we must be grateful" for it.

It has long troubled me that those who discuss Rand's aesthetics almost always treat it as an asterisk or an afterthought in some final chapter of a book or in some final lecture, as if it stands unrelated to the other aspects of Objectivism. That Rand, herself, was an artist, speaks volumes about the importance of aesthetics in Objectivism. In my own book, AYN RAND: THE RUSSIAN RADICAL, I place my discussion of Rand's aesthetics smack in the middle of the book, in the eighth chapter (on "Art, Philosophy, and Efficacy"). So the fact that Torres and Kamhi came along to devote a whole scholarly volume to this aspect of Objectivism is, for me and for many other scholars, a great cause for celebration---precisely because it helps to advance the give-and-take, to which Peter's own article contributes. Whatever your agreements or disagreements with this book, there were ~no books~ prior to WHAT ART IS devoted to this subject.

I should also point out that THE JOURNAL OF AYN RAND STUDIES published a major symposium on Rand's aesthetics, inspired by the Torres-Kamhi book (and addressing many aspects of it), and that SOLO's own esteemed Michael Newberry was an important contributor to that symposium. The table of contents for that issue can be found at: http://www.aynrandstudies.com/jars/v2_n2/2_2toc.asp. I should also note that a two-part reply to the Symposium will be published in our pages: Kamhi's reply will be featured in the Spring 2003 issue; Torres's reply will be featured in the Fall 2003 issue. (And in virtually every issue of the journal, one can find material relevant to Rand's aesthetics.)

So, again, thanks for a stimulating piece, Peter.

Cheers,
Chris
====
http://www.nyu.edu/projects/sciabarra/update.htm
====

Post 5

Saturday, January 18, 2003 - 8:35pm

Hey Chris,

What would you think of someone who dismissed dialecticism as non-scholarship? Especially under the guise of scholarship. No, you don�t have to answer that, though you probably have had to on numerous occasions. Ha ha.

Personally, I know three architects who are as much of an artist as I am, Peter Cresswell being one of them. We are all dealing with the same, universal, aesthetic problems: form, space, movement and spiritual values. Architects deal with the art and science of designing buildings for a human�s overall welfare, i.e. their spiritual life. Buildings that are primarily utilitarian are called structures; the things that contractors make to save money on design fees. Running on I could be absurd and rationally talk myself out of being an artist because I can understand how painting could be utilitarian: I study how our eyes work and my �researches� show people how to see in the same way as an architect shows people how to live. Either way I side with architects! Ha ha.

Michael

Post 6

Sunday, January 19, 2003 - 5:34am

Michael writes: "What would you think of someone who dismissed dialecticism as non-scholarship? Especially under the guise of scholarship. No, you don�t have to answer that, though you probably have had to on numerous occasions. Ha ha."

You're right, Michael. I have to do it all the time. In fact, because of the terrible things dialectics has been associated with throughout the history of thought, the biggest attacks I've faced are from people who don't think it even merits discussion, or that it's simply "trivial."

But I think that there is an implicit premise here that needs checking, with regard to this question about architecture: The whole discussion that Torres and Kamhi present is an outgrowth of ~ambiguities~ in ~Rand's own work~ with regard to the status of architecture. ~That~ is why this whole discussion has taken place to begin with; Rand notes the artistic aspects of architecture, and then, she notes the utilitarian aspects, while making no formal presentation as to the place of architecture in her aesthetics ~or~ in terms of its relationship to her actual definition of art (which seems to preclude utilitarian considerations). It is ~because~ of these ambiguities that the debate is taking place; Torres and Kamhi didn't just come to this conclusion out of thin air.

And given the additional evidence they present (see http://www.aristos.org/whatart/ch10.htm) with regard to Rand's own hedging on this question, I think they were certainly ~right~ to raise this issue. Ultimately, you may judge them to be wrong, you may even judge Rand to be wrong, but the debate itself owes its origins to Rand's ambivalence---and it is ~that~ ambivalence that needs to be examined, questioned, and ultimately resolved. So, it seems to me that any problems with T&K's views on this subject are rooted in the tensions in Rand's own theory. This book is, ultimately, about "The Esthetic Theory of Ayn Rand." And given that this "esthetic theory" (note: theory, not application) is essentially centered in just four essays in THE ROMANTIC MANIFESTO, clearly, there is a lot of work to be done in teasing out the full implications. I'm just happy that somebody, somewhere, finally devoted a book to the subject. This is a beginning; it is not the culmination. But we've got to start somewhere.

And, by the way, I'd say the same thing about my own work on Rand.

Cheers,
Chris

http://www.nyu.edu/projects/sciabarra/update.htm

Post 7

Sunday, January 19, 2003 - 6:31am

Chris--Its all about the question of perspective, isn�t it, and primary and secondary issues. I don�t have my books here but Rand has said that art is not didactic. Combine that with philosophy which is. In her fiction there are didactic elements in the sense that philosophical messages come through loud and clear and explicitly. I don�t think anyone, well I better be careful about saying what I think should be understood, would claim Rand is not an artist because of that. This would be the same issue with architecture the aesthetic elements vs. the utilitarian. To Rand the primary purpose of her fiction was to create the ideal man to an architect it is to create the ideal living environment and yet one has didactic and the other utilitarian elements. Not exactly a disqualification.

The curious thing for me is the issue regarding the truth or falsehood in knowledge such as what is in What Art Is. I also find it curious your statement: �This book is, ultimately, about "The Esthetic Theory of Ayn Rand." And given that this "esthetic theory" (note: theory, not application)�� How can one discuss theory without referents to reality, isn�t that a rationalistic discourse or floating abstractions?

I understand you value their work because it creates discussion but I don�t because I see little truth in it. And I can imagine your next move is comment that through discourse is how we find truth �ha, ha.

Michael

Post 8

Sunday, January 19, 2003 - 7:29am

The point of my post above was to say that Rand herself was ambiguous specifically with regard to architecture as art. Any problems that you might have with Torres and Kamhi on that subject should ultimately be directed to Rand herself, since her work is the source of the tensions.

I certainly don't believe that one can disconnect the theory from the application; my point was that Rand's ~theory~ (the focus of the book) is only presented in the first four essays of THE ROMANTIC MANIFESTO. The importance of WHAT ART IS is that it discerns a ~theory~ of aesthetics, that is, a ~theory~ about the nature of art and its meaning in human life. Most people who have critiqued Rand's aesthetics have failed to focus on the fact that Rand actually developed a whole ~theory~ of the nature of art and why it is important. They simply focus on Rand's love of Mickey Spillane or her disdain for the subjects painted by Vermeer or her statement that Beethoven had a malevolent sense of life. WHAT ART IS goes a long way toward helping us to focus our attention on Rand's actual theory---as distinct from her personal aesthetic tastes.
Yes, Rand justified her aesthetic tastes by reference to her theory, but it is the theory that has been lost in the shuffle---until this book was published. (And for confirmation of this, take a look at how THE ROMANTIC MANIFESTO was received in its day; almost every reviewer focused on Rand's "peculiar" aesthetic tastes; none focused on Rand's understanding of art: its nature, its role, its meaning, or all the important concepts that she marshalled in defending it, e.g., sense of life.)

I'm astonished that you don't value their work, Michael, or that you "see little truth in it." Is there really that little truth in that whole book? You may disagree with their understanding on any number of issues, but their exposition of Rand's aesthetic theory, especially vis-a-vis other theories in the history of aesthetics, is, to me, one of the most important aspects of the book. It helps to situate Rand's views in the wider history of philosophy and goes a long way toward providing us with a basis for a much larger discussion with people outside the Objectivist universe. Moreover, the material they present on scientific support for Rand's theory (chapter 7)---which is deeply relevant to its "truth" status---and their provocative takes on abstract art and postmodernism, are very worthwhile discussions.

Do I agree with Torres and Kamhi on all these issues? Of course not. I've had many
disagreements with them. But they still provide the basis for a discussion that was simply ~absent~ (or barely noticeable) prior to the publication of this book.

And it is not that I think we discover truth through dialogue; it's that you can't advance or disseminate knowledge ~without~ dialogue. Ultimately, one's conclusions will rest on the strength of the evidence, on the facts of reality.
But every scientist who claims to identify those facts still relies on the discussion that follows, which "chews" the evidence from a variety of vantage points in an effort to trace its implications and applications.

Cheers,
Chris

Post 9

Sunday, January 19, 2003 - 7:37am

Sunday, January 19, 2003 - 10:14pm

Michael Newberry writes,
"To Rand the primary purpose of her fiction was to create the ideal man to an architect it is to create the ideal living environment and yet one has didactic and the other utilitarian elements. Not exactly a disqualification."

It really is refreshing to hear that the principles of Objectivist aesthetics are broad enough to include such art forms as, say, couture.

Jonathan

Post 11

Monday, January 20, 2003 - 8:22am

Chris, but I don�t have any problems with Rand. In the Romantic Manifesto it seems pretty clear to me the difference between her aesthetic CONCEPTS and her asides or her more outrageous and entertaining examples. BTW, I think the subject matter in Vermeer�s paintings is boring as hell; a pot-marked milkmaid conscientiously pouring milk with the same concentration as one of the retarded workers that one can see at Mc Donalds. With the fundamental issues Rand is brilliantly clear: connecting the nature of art to concept formation; how art relates to the senses; how metaphysical value-judgements are innate to the process; and etc. How the public or scholars view her is not a concern of mine. I don�t mean that as a rude comment but I mean that speaking as one person who loves to experience the �light bulb� affect when I come into contact with astute works or people.

It dumbfounds me that anyone would consider that Rand was ambiguous in presenting Roark as an artist. It seems that every page contains an aesthetic perspective that unravels the depth of artistic creation; such as and in what manner that buildings have souls like human beings. As I mentioned before I don�t have my books with me and I don�t recall how Torres and Kamhi used the aesthetic theories illustrated in the Fountainhead or if they used them at all.

Knowledge, for me, is about UNDERSTANDING the CONCEPTS involved. From this perspective I did not get the �light bulb� result from anything in their book.

If you remember, in JARS I was limited to a 3-page review of their book, On Metaphysical Value-Judgements http://www.michaelnewberry.com/soul/essays/metapvaluej/index.html, I take them to task for the pretentiousness of redefining Rand�s definition of art. If only for that one instance they lose credibility in my eyes.

Michael

Post 12

Monday, January 20, 2003 - 9:51am

Michael writes: "Chris, but I don�t have any problems with Rand. In the Romantic Manifesto it seems pretty clear to me the difference between her aesthetic CONCEPTS and her asides or her more outrageous and entertaining examples."

I agree; but that was not the issue for most of those who reviewed Rand's ROMANTIC MANIFESTO when it first came out. It was, for the most part, dismissed as a rationalization for Rand's "peculiar" aesthetic tastes.

Michael writes: "With the fundamental issues Rand is brilliantly clear: connecting the nature of art to concept formation; how art relates to the senses; how metaphysical value-judgements are innate to the process; and etc." And on this, you'll get no disagreement from me or T&K.

Michael writes: "How the public or scholars view her is not a concern of mine."

That's all well and good---but for those of us who are fighting the specifically ~scholarly~ battle, it does matter. Obviously, what matters more to me, on a personal level, is the meaning of art in ~my~ life---and on that, of course, I agree with you.

Michael writes: "It dumbfounds me that anyone would consider that Rand was ambiguous in presenting Roark as an artist. It seems that every page contains an aesthetic perspective that unravels the depth of artistic creation; such as and in what manner that buildings have souls like human beings."

I agree with you here; I think Roark has the artist's soul. But the issue for T&K is Rand's ~non-fiction~ treatment of architecture---which shows ambiguities as to whether she treats it ~formally~ as "art." That is all I've said in this dialogue: the ambiguities are in Rand's work, and the tension can be found not only between her fiction and her nonfiction, but within her nonfiction as well (and given the fact that architecture was possibly dismissed by Rand, later, according to Binswanger, as a separate entry in the LEXICON, because she'd decided it was more "utilitarian"...).

As for your review in JARS, which I encouraged and appreciated, and still promote to this day---because, by the way, I ~do~ view you as an artist, and I wanted to have an ~artist~ say something about a book on Rand's aesthetics, let me remind you of what you said to open that essay: "It is exciting to see all the scholarly work that is being published on Rand's philosophy, literature, and aesthetics---especially a serious and in-depth work such as Louis Torres and Michelle Marder Kamhi's WHAT ART IS." Yes, you spell out some very serious differences with their approach---but I took that opening as not simply politeness: I took it to mean that you welcomed the publication of the book with excitement precisely because it expanded the discussion, a discussion that you, yourself, have contributed to.

We gotta start somewhere...

Finally, as to their "re-definition" of art: The ambiguities, again, were introduced by Rand herself. Rand first defined art in her lectures on Fiction-Writing: "Art is a re-creation of reality according to one's values." She reiterated that definition in her lecture at the 1961 Creative Arts Festival at the University of Michigan. (See Branden's WHO IS AYN RAND?) Only later did she revise the definition to state: "Art is a selective re-creation of reality according to an artist's metaphysical value-judgments."

The subsequent discussion in WHAT ART IS ultimately revolves around these discrepancies and ambiguities in Rand's own various presentations of the subject. T&K actually have a difference of opinion between them, and they discuss their differences---rather bravely, I might add---in the pages of their own book. I don't believe this discussion makes them "lose credibility"; if anything, it makes them gain credibility in my eyes---for being brave enough to discuss ambiguities in Rand's presentation, and differences among themselves, right in the text of the book.

Anyway, I really doubt we'll come to a meeting of the minds on this; I just genuinely appreciate their contribution---and I genuinely appreciate the fact that their contribution has exponentially increased the discussion, not just among Objectivists, but outside the Objectivist universe. And that appreciation extends, as well, to the contributions of those whom Rand has influenced, including you, Michael, and Peter---not merely as commentators on T&K's work and on Rand's aesthetics, but as practitioners.

Cheers,
Chris

---
http://www.nyu.edu/projects/sciabarra/update.htm
---

Post 13

Monday, January 20, 2003 - 4:12pm

Chris writes: �Michael writes: "With the fundamental issues Rand is brilliantly clear: connecting the nature of art to concept formation; how art relates to the senses; how metaphysical value-judgements are innate to the process; and etc." And on this, you'll get no disagreement from me or T&K.�

Chris! Of course there is a disagreement with T & K! They think metaphysical value-judgements only pertain to historical/literary works and literature and not all art; this is exactly the point that I criticize them for. Not only is their perspective on this FUNDAMENTALLY different than Rand�s, the crux of Objectivist aesthetics but it goes against EVERYTHING I know about meaning in art. When I say �everything� I am not saying that lightly, I am talking about the meaning behind every act of painting. This is a major difference not simply the splitting of hairs.

Michael wrote: "How the public or scholars view her is not a concern of mine."

Chris responds: �That's all well and good---but for those of us who are fighting the specifically ~scholarly~ battle, it does matter.�

And I agree and support you in fighting the scholarly battle, go get �em.

Chris writes: �I think Roark has the artist's soul. But the issue for T&K is Rand's ~non-fiction~ treatment of architecture---which shows ambiguities as to whether she treats it ~formally~ as "art."�

She explicitly refers to the Fountainhead as the place to go for her discussion of architecture, if one drops that context�well, what can one say?

Chris you quoted the opening of my article and if I remember correctly the genesis of the article I was anything but polite. Ha ha, and I had the pleasure of having you for my editor�abstractly I really do welcome serious work, which T & K have indeed provided but I did not glean knowledge from it.

Chris writes: �Finally, as to their "re-definition" of art: The ambiguities, again, were introduced by Rand herself. Rand first defined art in her lectures on Fiction-Writing: "Art is a re-creation of reality according to one's values." She reiterated that definition in her lecture at the 1961 Creative Arts Festival at the University of Michigan. (See Branden's WHO IS AYN RAND?) Only later did she revise the definition to state: "Art is a selective re-creation of reality according to an artist's metaphysical value-judgments."�

Again I stress the importance of �understanding� the �concepts� involved, like understanding what metaphysical value-judgements are and how they show up in art�if one doesn�t get that point then juggling the definition of art is playing word games.

Chris I am not very good at politeness but I have been trying to communicate to you that many of T & K�s ideas negate the values that Peter, I, and other artists have dedicated our lives to. Our objections are neither frivolous nor uninformed though they undoubtedly lack the polite forms of scholars.

Michael

Post 14

Monday, January 20, 2003 - 8:51pm

The recent exchange between Newberry and Sciabarra has given me a good excuse to post my own take on Torres and Kamhi.

Rand had the foundations of a theory of aesthetics; she did not have a completed theory comparable to her theories of epistemology or of ethics. I still look forward to reading, some day, a systematic, objective aesthetics built on Rand's foundations. I did not find such an aesthetics, or even progress toward one, in Torres and Kamhi.

Rand's central aesthetic insight is that the function of art is to communicate an implicit "metaphysical value judgement." This function depends on the psychology of valuing - how perception and cognition result in the experience of value-judgements. I suspect that Rand did not complete an aesthetics, in part because the requisite foundation in scientific psychology was not available. Unfortunately, it is still not available - and even more unfortunately, what is available today was not put to any use by Torres and Kamhi.

The other result of failing to take the function, of communicating an implicit "metaphysical value judgement," as the essential characteristic of art, results in T&K's dismissing, from the concept of art as such, those arts that use constrained techniques - such as architecture and photography - to perform that function. Thus T&K violate "Rand's Razor" - their concept of art priviledges non-essentials (techniques) over essentials (function, or final cause).

That, unfortunately, is just one instance of how T&K fail to use Rand's epistemology, both in interpreting what Rand wrote (they frequently mis-interpret Rand's statements about the contextual boundaries of specific arguments, as principles or definitions) and constructing an intrinsicist super-structure on top of their mis-interpretation of Rand's exposition of her foundations.

Which brings me to Rand's favorite logical heuristic: when you come to a contradiction, check your premises. The first conclusion T&K proceed to draw from their faux-Randian aesthetics is that, because in their aesthetics photography is not art, works of photography may be legitimately suppressed - by force, including
imprisonment of the curator of an exhibit of Mapplethorpe's photographs - in the name of fighting "pornography" and "obscenity."

Some readers of T&K have excused this by postulating that Mapplethorpe photographed - or that T&K believed that Mapplethorpe photographed - acts of sexual abuse of children. At a recent TOC event, I discussed this with Ms. Kamhi, and she denied ever believing that the two children who appear naked in Mapplethorpe's work were sexually abused, or even appeared to have been. Kamhi told me that her work in aesthetics led her to part ways with Rand's anti-censorship politics. It did not lead her, as far as she told me, to check her premises.

My own view is that there was an excellent reason for the ambiguities in Rand'saesthetics: the facts of psychology - the facts of reality - that Rand would have needed to resolve those ambiguities were not available to her at the time. Some of the necessary facts are still not available today. And, with aesthetics as with anything else, objectivism is first and foremost about primacy of existence. If it is not grounded in all relevant facts of reality, it is NOT objective anything.

Post 15

Tuesday, January 21, 2003 - 5:36am

I'm going to respond briefly to Michael and Adam---because, well: here it is I'm talking about contributions to THE JOURNAL OF AYN RAND STUDIES, and lo and behold... both of them are contributors! Michael was a contributor to our aesthetics symposium (Spring 2001), and Adam is going to be published in our forthcoming Spring 2003 issue. He has written a provocative article entitled: "Object-Oriented Programming and Objectivist Epistemology: Parallels and Implications." And if I don't actually get back to editing and preparing final proofs for the Spring 2003 issue, it will not be published. :) [Okay: end commercial break...]

Yes, of course, you, Michael, have a serious disagreement with T&K on the issue of metaphysical value-judgments and its breadth of application. But my point is that T&K don't dismiss MVJ in their book and that the ambiguities you and others have criticized are typically an outgrowth of the ambiguities in Rand's own work. For ~those~ ambiguities in Rand have led to all of the debates over the "aesthetic" nature of architecture and photography, and so forth.

Addressing one of the ambiguities, Michael says that Rand "explicitly refers to the Fountainhead as the place to go for her discussion of architecture, if one drops that context�well, what can one say?" Yes, you are right; but she also makes formal statements that seem to contradict that suggestion, and in the light of what she apparently told Binswanger (that architecture was more 'utilitarian' and not categorized formally as art), I don't think the issue is so clear-cut.

Yes, I was your editor, Michael---but I ~know~ you can be polite. :) (And just so we're clear: Politeness is not exactly the credo of scholars... ) I do not believe your objections are "frivolous" or "uninformed". If I thought that, your piece would not have appeared in the symposium.

I do think Adam is right to say that "Rand had the foundations of a theory of aesthetics; she did not have a completed theory comparable to her theories of epistemology or of ethics." The key word here is "comparable," however---because, I don't think she had completed theories of epistemology or ethics either. For example, her INTRODUCTION TO OBJECTIVIST EPISTEMOLOGY is precisely that: an introduction. It provides no discussion of induction, no theory of propositions, no formal theory of perception (Kelley's EVIDENCE OF THE SENSES tries to fill those gaps), and so forth. Furthermore, I think that Objectivists who focus ~only~ on that introduction without examining many of the other relevant things Rand said about the complexities of mind are necessarily working with a one-dimensional view of Rand's epistemic insights. I'm thinking specifically about propositions one can glean from her lectures on fiction-writing and nonfiction-writing, and even from her essays on aesthetics---almost all of which pertain to what Hayek and Polanyi called the "tacit dimensions" of consciousness... so clearly relevant to our discussions of her aesthetic theory.

I do disagree with Adam that T&K have not progressed toward a "systematic, objective aesthetics built on Rand's foundations" if only because they are, to my knowledge, the first writers to address precisely what Adam---and all Objectivists---should be concerned with: the facts of reality. Their chapter on "Scientific Support for Rand's Theory" at least ~begins~ the discussion about the evolutionary, archaeological, anthropological, cognitive, psychological, physiological, and neurological evidence in support of Rand's basic aesthetic insights. As they state there: "... the basic principles of her theory are not only internally coherent but objectively valid as well." And that's why they focus, in that chapter, on "the relevant scientific disciplines"---though they readily admit that "a comprehensive examination of such material" is beyond the scope of their book.

This said, I think Adam is surely right that Rand did not have recourse to "the requisite foundation in scientific psychology"---but I do think that T&K's criticisms of architecture and photography grow out of Rand's own statements, which are not always consistent. (Rand was much clearer about "photography" than, say, architecture, however.)

(As an aside: I don't think that T&K, in their book, endorse imprisonment or censorship---though I do recall pointing out some possible implications of their argument that I, myself, found problematic from my own strict libertarian perspective. I do know that they are against government funding and support of the arts.)

In any event, I stand by my initial comments here: You have to start someplace. I do not view T&K's book as the ~culmination~ of discussion on Rand's aesthetics. But I do regard it as a fine beginning. In addition to the scientific discussion they offer in a single chapter, they go a long way toward situating Rand's theory in a wider historical context. This is a valid exercise insofar as it helps to bring her aesthetics into a larger conversation. Even Aristotle, whom Rand saw as the fountainhead of a "primacy of existence" approach to philosophy, began most of his discussions by presenting and debunking the arguments of those who came before him as a way of clearing the path for his own enunciation of valid theoretical principles. (In one instance, near and dear to me, Aristotle enunciated the theoretical principles of dialectical argumentation in a way that separated them from a faulty Platonist ontology---no small achievement.)

Adam doesn't know this, but one of the things that has long endeared him to me is that he usually ends all of his posts with the following signature (absent here): "Context matters. There is seldom only one cause for *anything*."

One of the criticisms leveled at my AYN RAND: THE RUSSIAN RADICAL, was that I priviledged non-essentials (technique) over essentials (function, or final cause) in my discussion of Rand's system as a dialectical project. But I was working through a trilogy of books (of which RUSSIAN RADICAL was the second of three) on dialectical method and social theory, and my view of dialectics as the "art of context-keeping" can be practically summarized by Adam's signature. From my perspective, context-keeping is as relevant to historical investigation as it is to scientific inquiry.

No one book can speak to ~all~ contexts. Not even a trilogy can do that. But as I have said repeatedly: Even if one disagrees with aspects of T&K's book or aspects of Rand's aesthetic theory, you have to start someplace. And it is my hope that the conversation that T&K have jump-started will succeed---in the long-run---in bringing long overdue attention to Rand's aesthetic theory and to the further development of a full-fledged systematic aesthetics based on an objective foundation.

Now, I gotta get back to work... for your sake, Adam, as well as for my own! :)

Cheers,
Chris
===
http://www.nyu.edu/projects/sciabarra/update.htm
===

Post 16

Tuesday, January 21, 2003 - 8:12am

Chris's defense of the value of WHAT ART IS is so eloquent that I feel no need to add to this discussion, except to correct Adam Reed's entirely false statement: "Kamhi told me that her work in aesthetics led her to part ways with Rand's anti-censorship politics." As I don't doubt Adam's integrity, I don't believe that he deliberately misrepresented me, but rather that he completely misunderstood what I said during our discussion at last year's TOC Summer Seminar.

On my position on the question of censorship, see the letter Lou and I wrote in response to Charles Oliver's review of the book in Reason:
.

Post 17

Tuesday, January 21, 2003 - 8:18am

For some reason, the URL for Lou's and my letter to Reason (dealing in part with the issue of censorship) did not appear in the previous post. I add it here: http://www.aristos.org/editors/resp-rea.htm

Post 18

Tuesday, January 21, 2003 - 9:19am

Michelle Kamhi is entitled to an apology from me if I misrepresented or even misunderstood her. Unfortunately, it was her letter to Reason, which she presents to clarify my supposed misunderstanding of her position, which was the starting point of my discussion with her at the TOC seminar. In it, she asserts "the far more grave (and justifiable) charge that two of the photographs consitituted child pornography." By characterizing the "child pornography" charge as justifiable - even though, as she told me, she knew that there was no child abuse in connection with the photographs - Kamhi puts her views in direct conflict with Rand's politics.

Rand demonstrated that objective criminal law requires proof of a violation of rights - proof that some actual person suffered actual harm, an objectively demonstrable risk of actual harm, or a credible threat of actual harm - before a criminal charge can be considered justifiable. The clear consequence of this principle is that the charge of "child pornography" is justifiable only if the accused harmed or participated in harming a child to produce the alleged "child pornography." Which, as Kamhi told me she had always known, was never the case with Mapplethorpe's photographs.

So if, as Ms. Kamhi claims, I did not understand her at the TOC seminar, then still I don't. Perhaps she can explain.

Post 19

Tuesday, January 21, 2003 - 8:01pm