RoR: Forum

Calopteryx Splendens wrote,
"She calls Vermeer the greatest artist (I certainly agree that he is one of the greatest), but scorns his 'kitchen naturalism'. I wonder how many paintings by Vermeer she ever saw in her life, because this is sheer nonsense."

That's been my gripe with Rand's take on Vermeer as well. I disagree with her view that the "folks next door" and unheroic kitchen maids were the subjects of his paintings. They were merely sometimes the characters which conveyed what I think were his actual subjects: serenity, deep contemplation, solitude, quiet reverie. Contrary to Rand, I think heroic narrative, bold action or dramatic settings (or whatever other "improvements" she would have presumed to suggest to Vermeer) would have absolutely ~destroyed~ the greatness of his work.

J
(Edited by Jonathan on 12/07, 2:40am)

Post 41

Tuesday, December 6, 2005 - 2:27pm

Rich says: The problem is, once again, that it is not enough in some quarters to say "this is my pallette, it fits me well". It has to be reduced to premises that will "prove" that it is the only appropriate art for a moral, rational being. I'm sorry, but that's fascist bullshit and I'll have no part of it, even though I often agree with the aesthetics.

Jonathan says: � nothing more than inadvertent confession of their own peculiar Objecti-blindness and ineptitude at interpreting art. Considering the artist's life and context is usually just one of the many tools used by others to try to pry open the eyes of "those who would not see.

And then Rich quotes his wife: I was discussing this thread with my wife, who has a very strong psychology background, and she made a comment that kind of took me by suprise, but I see where she's coming from. She said of it: "These Objectivists, they're reducing themselves to behavioralists!

Rich and Jonathan, I suppose I should thank both of you, since your comments have helped me to learn such a great deal about myself. Lets see, what have I learned, oh yes, here�s the rundown: my philosophy lacks �cosmological� components(?), I have a compulsion to reduce art to premises in order to reinforce my aesthetic fascism, I am suffering from my own peculiar Objecti-blindness and thanks to some internet psychoanalysis - I just learned that I am behavioralist.

Are there any more insults that you would like to hurl at Objectivists? Please don�t hold back, keep rolling with your inferences, but make sure you continue to maintain your remarks as only generalized remarks; that way you can dodge any responsibility for attacking anyone in particular.

Considering your willingness to make such sweeping judgments, I find it ironic that both of you take such umbrage whenever someone suggests that there are objective standards by which to judge the value of a painting or music piece. Since as you gentlemen assert, the value of any particular piece of art is solely a matter of ones subjective �palate�, why take such umbrage when the palate of another is not as yours?

It�s not as if anyone here has suggested that if you show them what you find aesthetically pleasing, they can tell you your entire philosophy of life. Nor are they suggesting that if they could see the art you actually own, that they could tell you your valuation of your self.

After all, a man�s artistic preferences are not as decisive as his sexual ones.

George

(Edited by George W. Cordero on 12/06, 2:29pm)

Post 42

Tuesday, December 6, 2005 - 2:44pm

Jonathan,

Applause, applause, applause. I don't have time to participate in the details of the discussion, and I rather doubt that I'd participate even if I did have time. Similar discussions have been transpiring amongst admirers of Rand (I use that description so as to include people such as myself who don't consider themselves "Objectivists") for year upon year; and I began to weary of these debates many years ago. But, instead of merely sanctioning your posts anonymously, I wanted to register a public vote of thanks.

Appreciation also for Calopteryx Splendens' remarks. In regard to Beethoven -- mentioned by Calopteryx S., and probably the artist whose work, in the old days, occasioned the most soul-searching angst amongst persons who worried if their artistic tastes didn't line up with Ayn Rand's -- I'll tell a little story.

A good friend of mine from those years was an ardent Beethoven fan (as was
and am I; Beethoven is my foremost musical god, though I also love a long list of others whose music Rand didn't much, if at all, like). My friend and I were aware
that a young girl (younger than we were; she was in her early 20s) was planning to ask Rand at the Ford Hall Forum about Beethoven. My friend said, with fervor,
"Oh, I hope that she [Rand] doesn't come out for Beethoven! Because if she
does, then I'll never know who really loves Beethoven!"

These days loving Beethoven is considered ok, but I think that many Objectivists
still have the feeling of their soul being on trial in the crucible of their esthetic tastes.

Ellen S.

Post 43

Tuesday, December 6, 2005 - 2:48pm

"Are there any more insults that you would like to hurl at Objectivists? Please don�t hold back, keep rolling with your inferences, but make sure you continue to maintain your remarks as only generalized remarks; that way you can dodge any responsibility for attacking anyone in particular. "

George, well said as usual.

- Jason

Post 44

Tuesday, December 6, 2005 - 2:51pm

I don't want to get way up in AR's ass about a lot of her spurious and not-so-spurious comments about various artists, musicians, etc. She was a woman of strong opinions, and she was a standard-setter for a whole new generation of thinkers. I think she got cocky about this stuff sometimes, and I think she knew that she was doing it a lot of the time. She had a theatrical element in her, obviously. And like I said, TRM was a fantastic book. It was, in the end, a manifesto, though, and manifestos are very focused things. I love Ayn Rand, and part of the reason I do is because she was cocky, she put out a lot of heat, and occasionally she was dead full of shit. That's not ever my beef, I love that.

My thing is the (unintended, I hope) effects of dronery that came out of it. Some Randians (I'm using Heinlein's term now because I'm bored of the other ones) seem like they have trouble loosening up, and that's with art, too.

Now, I happen to be a spiritual person, and I agree with William James when he wrote that ultimately, the religious attitude is a somber one. And so it is with Objectivism, too. BUT.....

Some things in art and music are just for fun. Kitsch and retro and punk and all kinds of silliness. It makes me happy. Sometimes I even get happy from observing the dark Gothic poseurs... I don't know, sometimes they just crack me up!

Sometimes, I think you'll have a Randian catch him or herself enjoying something that doesn't fit the criteria, and they have to reel it back in. That's sad. It's like walking out of the porn store and bumping into the parish priest.

Let me give you an example. Hunter Thompson. I loved Hunter Thompson. I think Thompson was the greatest journalist who ever lived, and he was a sparkling, kick-ass reprobate of a writer. I could read his eulogy to Nixon (He Was A Crook) a zillion times over.

I would imagine that Hunter, in a word, would be contraband according to the party line. See? That's annoying. I don't like that because it feels authoritarian, and I have major problems with authority.

And I thought that the essay Rand wrote about Woodstock in The Objectivist, while she had some points on the logistics, and I sympathized with that whole line of thinking, completely omitted the point. Completely. She didn't even talk about who was playing there, and that was silly. To her it was nothing more than a giant hippie hog-waller. Which it was, but it was about more than that too. See? That kind of stuff in terms of art is what hacks me off.

Oh, and those damn cha-cha lessons at the conferences. That's just goddamn goofy. It makes me want to spike their punch with ecstasy and get the fucking started.

rde
"Rock and Roll is about fucking."- Suzy Roche

Post 45

Tuesday, December 6, 2005 - 3:01pm

Also appreciation for Kevin Haggerty's remarks about Frida Kahlo's work. Speaking of Frida, there's a movie about her called simply *Frida*. I thought it was well done and, yes, uplifting. I think I'd have enjoyed the movie even if I didn't already, prior to seeing it, resonante to what I think she conveyed in her painting. I don't have any of her paintings on my living room wall, this is true. But I have a book of them, which I look at every now and then. The feeling I primarily get from them is one of great courage. Also, I see a certain stark beauty in the visual drama -- something that a little bit, though in a different way, reminds me of Georgia O'Keefe (a favorite of mine).

Ellen S.

Post 46

Tuesday, December 6, 2005 - 3:22pm

Did you know she was a Communist? She was married to Diego Rivera, the muralist equally known for the freshness of his aesthetic approach and for his pro-Soviet propaganda. She was also bonking "Leon Trotsky" on the side.

Oh, gawd yes, William. In fact, I'm lucky enough to live close to the Detroit Institute of Arts, which I love to visit. There's a mammoth room covered with a mural done by Rivera. Above the entrance, close to the ceiling, is a little reminder of his political affiliation: A hammer and sickle.

Henry Ford, who commissioned the murals, wasn't pleased with the logo, but wanted Rivera to paint the room so badly, he allowed it. Politicians all over the state of Michigan and elsewhere tried to have Rivera banned from doing the work, but because it was private property, belonging to the Fords at the time, there was nothing they could do, so the mural stays to this day, along with the hammer and sickle.

The mural it'self is gorgeous and depicts the auto industry from digging up the iron ore (Rivera's ideas of distrubution are clear here: The Earth is "handing the material over to man." It's funny in that he completely leaves human beings out of this essential process of digging up the raw material) to the final production of an automobile. If you look at the walls closely, you can still see his pencil drawings and changes.

You have to see this thing if you're ever in Detroit. It's all wrong, but I can't help but smile at the clever way he put his ideas to paint.

Teresa

Post 47

Tuesday, December 6, 2005 - 4:59pm

Speaking of Frida, there's a movie about her called simply *Frida*.

Ellen, is the movie any good? I'd like to see it if it is. Hopefully it's at the video store.

Post 48

Tuesday, December 6, 2005 - 7:51pm

They're basically saying 'what you see is what you get,' and that there is no more to it than that. That's just silly, because there almost always is more going on than that."

Wrong. As Holmes oft said - you see but you do not observe. There is more to it than that, even as it is all you see. That is why Art is for contemplative purposes - to look at time and again, and observe what is in the universe presented. Otherwise, the temptation is to say the silly woman is a shallow one.

Post 49

Tuesday, December 6, 2005 - 9:17pm

Teresa,

I thought the movie was good, yes: It was well constructed in the way the story was laid out, and beautifully filmed, and passionately acted: Salma Hayek, who plays Frida, was the power behind the film's being made -- she had a strong desire to play the role. I thought Alfred Molina as Rivera was terrific in his role, too. And the dynamics between them...Fireworks! (He is tall and bulky; she is small and crippled -- and yet his fiery match.) Also I thought especially noteworthy was Geoffrey Rush's performance as Leon Trotsky. That relationship is poignant, bittersweet -- different flavor from the relationship with Rivera. There's a scene which has many times come back to me in visual recall where she and Trotsky climb to the top of one of the old temples...

The movie's available in DVD from Amazon. Here's the URL.

The link shows a picture of Salma Hayek as Frida.

http://imdb.com/title/tt0120679/

Ellen S.

(Edited by Lysandra
on 12/06, 9:32pm)

Post 50

Wednesday, December 7, 2005 - 2:39am

Ellen,

Thank you very much for your supportive comments. I most sincerely appreciate them.

:-) J

Post 51

Wednesday, December 7, 2005 - 2:54am

This thread inspires strange thoughts...I have always liked the reviews at Amazon, not the professional ones but by those who buy the products�the people vary greatly in their knowledge and expression. Often I get a sense of their context by their style and that combined with their opinion is often a very helpful to get a take on them and the product.
For example I liked Dean�s piece, not for his opinions about the nature of art or what is good or bad, sorry Dean, but rather for how he evaluated art. I think it is great to like or dislike an artwork and getting insights into how someone thinks about is fun for me. Kinda like art is in the eye of the beholder thing.
On a different level I have enjoyed art scholarship and art history�not the beholder kinda thing.
Philosophers writing about art is also very interesting and that can be a beholder kinda thing�more often than not the art (or the formless in the case of Kant, hahaha, couldn�t resist) mirrors their philosophy.
And then there is teaching art...a lot of science goes into that and many wonderful teachers are as objective as they come.
There are the collector, gallery groupie, dealer, commercial artists, mags, marketing people, etc...
And just think among all those contexts will be the stupid, the average, and the sublime.
It seems to me that discussing art is not exactly simple if only because what may be obvious to you could be irrelevant in another person�s context.

Post 52

Wednesday, December 7, 2005 - 3:52am

Ellen wrote,
"I thought Alfred Molina as Rivera was terrific in his role, too. And the dynamics between them...Fireworks!"

Speaking of fireworks, I much preferred one of Frida's other romantic interests.

Salma Hayek and Ashley Judd, now ~that~ is art. :-)

J

(Edited by Jonathan on 12/07, 3:54am)

Post 53

Wednesday, December 7, 2005 - 9:33am

There is one thing I value very highly in an artist or musician, I call it the "fingerprint" factor. It no doubt comes from my music background.

What I noticed after awhile was that certain artists are unmistakeable, very quickly to be recognized. Simple example: Carlos Santana. I can hear sometimes even just one note of his on a recording, and I know it is him.

I put a lot of stock in that level of originality.

So, wherever Frida Kahlo stands on my pallette, she is from the start in very good stead because I can instantly pick out her work.

A small thing, but very important to me, and, I think, a very difficult thing to achieve.

rde

Post 54

Wednesday, December 7, 2005 - 1:35pm

Rich,

Having an identifiable fingerprint or voice is one of the hallmarks of great art, regardless of any sense-of-life esthetics.

I became aware of this when I was in my early teens and saw a movie on Glen Miller - who was looking for, and found, his own "sound."

The proof is in the pudding, too. This guy's stuff refuses to go away. (That does not mean that he is a Rachmaninoff, either. Merely that in the field of dance hall and easy listening music of his time, he is a very great composer-arranger-band leader. Not a bad trombonist, either, but not one of the greats.)

Michael

Post 55

Wednesday, December 7, 2005 - 3:22pm

J, re the movie *Frida*:

"Speaking of fireworks, I much preferred one of Frida's
other romantic interests [to the one between her and Rivera].
Salma Hayek and Ashley Judd, now ~that~ is art. :-)"

Ignoring the wink (which might imply somewhat facetious
intent -- shame, shame, J. ;-)), agreed on the artisticness
of those scenes: they had that painting-in-motion sort
of quality, with the stylized way of filming. Your reminding
me of those scenes brings to my thoughts a description I
was looking for when I posted the earlier comments.
The way some of the sequences were done (the Hayek/Judd
sequences among them), I was reminded of flamenco dancing.

Back in the mid-60s, whenever it was that the World's Fair
was in Queens, I drove with some friends of mine from the
Chicago area to New York to spend a couple days at the
Fair. The highpoint for me of the exhibits and performances
was a flamenco performance at the Spanish pavilion.
Best flamenco dancing I've ever personally seen (though
I've seen some good filmed performances). The *Frida*
movie, especially in some parts of it, had an underlay
of the kind of tension and dynamics which are set up
in flamenco.

Another detail: Some of Frida's paintings were interspersed
in ways with reference to the story unfolding in the movie.

And...a different movie, but I'm reminded of it by
the inter-referencing technique: *Callas*. Some sensual
splendor in that one! (The connecting link was the
thought of the movie within the movie, with Fannie Armant
mimicking Callas as Carmen -- a role Callas never sang
in a full-staged opera setting.)

Ellen S.

___

Post 56

Wednesday, December 7, 2005 - 3:25pm

Correcting a detail from post 49: The URL I gave
is to the International Movie Data Base listing
of *Frida*, not to the Amazon listing -- though
the DVD is available on Amazon.

ES

Post 57

Thursday, December 8, 2005 - 8:21am

Alrighty, then.

First off, my purpose is not to insult. Insults are personal. I am not even attacking, I am simply questioning. That you take it personally, George, might give you cause for contemplation. Did the questions upset your applecart? Probably. Notice your emotional reaction. That means you are not completely comfortable, the system has somehow failed you. If it had not, you would have not shown a reaction. My inclination on this is that it has to do with the basics of existence, meaning, we are brought into this world without choosing so, we have to live in it, and then, we die. We have no control over the first, the second requires a great deal of work, and the last looms over us at all times, and we know nothing of what will happen next. The Objectivist answer to death is that it is simply over; game/set/match. Possibly so. What and how we evolve to The Randian system is significant, useful, and incredibly groundbreaking. It is a tight, benevolent system for living on earth, and dealing with others in a fair manner. But, it is not the alpha to the omega. It is a system. Systems are very useful, but they are always limited. That is the nature of a system. A system is a pragmatic tool, but it is not all-inclusive. The real issue, to my mind, is the consideration of consciousness. Are there different levels, how do we develop into higher levels? Objectivism has the possibility, if taken as a closed, linear system, of not addressing things that are beyond the earthbound, the affairs of men. Again, it is as major work that AR did to even create a system that would be one that is equitable and productive in the world of the "we". But that is where it stops.

I am not convinced that there is a free lunch that is so readily available. It does not mean that there are not Objectivists who are comfortable incarnate, comfortable with what is the most common thing all men have, the knowledge of their own mortality.

Look, the Rand philosophy seems to largely attract a certain personality type, and it is in the range that lies in the upper edge of the analytical and driver axes, to use that model. Part of the common behavior often found in those types involves how they deal with tasks. It is preferable, for them, to dispense with something completely, to their satisfaction, then on to the next thing. And I am OK with that, because that is their right and choice. It is when there is an argument made that their approach to such things not only applies to them, but all others worthy of understanding it as they do that I do not believe them, because, bottom-line, it belies something in them. They need to have that level of buy-in in order to affirm their own comfort level.

Objectivism is a fabulous thing, it is a world-class thing. But it is not everything.

Post 58

Thursday, December 8, 2005 - 10:44am

Above is another good example of Rich's "non insults" which he seems to hurl around on a daily basis now. His mission here is to explain to Objectivists how simplistic their thinking is. Using vauge, nonsensical arguments (under a shroud of total benevolence of course) he stinks up every thread he can with his interjections. Here are some examples, just going back the last few days. There are literally hundreds of examples if you go back through his posts :

1. "What and how we evolve to The Randian system is significant, useful, and incredibly groundbreaking. It is a tight, benevolent system for living on earth, and dealing with others in a fair manner. But, it is not the alpha to the omega. It is a system. Systems are very useful, but they are always limited. That is the nature of a system. A system is a pragmatic tool, but it is not all-inclusive. The real issue, to my mind, is the consideration of consciousness. Are there different levels, how do we develop into higher levels?"

2. "When religious folk use the word "faith," it is very often beyond the strict dictionary definition use. Language is used differently in many religious communities. Maybe that's against Objectivist rules, but still, it is the case. In my church, "faith" comes largely from very solid places, such as ourselves, our families, and the religious community of which we are a part.

3. In a way, I think Objectivists are attempting to have something like objective art, through adoption. I think it is rarely if ever true objective art, but the dynamic they are going for is similar. I think this poses a difficulty, though, because Objectivism does not have cosmological components, and the spiritual component is very innate.

4. Look, the Rand philosophy seems to largely attract a certain personality type, and it is in the range that lies in the upper edge of the analytical and driver axes, to use that model. Part of the common behavior often found in those types involves how they deal with tasks. It is preferable, for them, to dispense with something completely, to their satisfaction, then on to the next thing. And I am OK with that, because that is their right and choice. It is when there is an argument made that their approach to such things not only applies to them, but all others worthy of understanding it as they do that I do not believe them, because, bottom-line, it belies something in them. They need to have that level of buy-in in order to affirm their own comfort level.

Rich is anti Objectivist and he uses this website as his medium for validating his own "spiritual, pragmatic... whateveritis" philosophy. He beats around the bush and makes it vauge enough to where it doesn't read like an insult. Make no mistake THESE ARE INSULTS until Rich can back up his claims. He always refuses to do this. He simply follows up with more vauge insults and cheap inferences. This last post (err... insult) responding to George is an exellent and disgusting example of just what I am describing.

- Jason

Post 59

Thursday, December 8, 2005 - 11:36am