About
Content
Store
Forum

Rebirth of Reason
War
People
Archives
Objectivism

Post to this threadMark all messages in this thread as readMark all messages in this thread as unread


Post 0

Thursday, March 29, 2007 - 5:10amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
This could have started with a positive spin and been placed in Objectivism, but I would like to start from scratch with a discussion of Aesthetics.

Ayn Rand defined art as a selective recreation of reality according to the values of the artist.  She said that one could paint a junkyard, bright and clear with intriguing industrial refuse or one could depict it fuzzy and muddled and stinking.  Obviously, the first celebrates life, while the second denigrates human existence.

Ayn Rand also cited Aristotle's claim that drama is superior to history because drama depicts what COULD have happened, rather than what did.  The epitome for that was Sophocles's Oedipous Tyrannnos.  (Calling it Oedipus Rex is a misnomer on several grounds that obscure the intent of the play.)  In other words, whether or not Thebes actually had a priest named Tiresias is not important.  (In fact, that was the same name as the priest of Apollo in the Illiad, an important point from the author to the audience.)   No one expected that Creon "really" said this or that Jocasta "really" said that.  The point of the play was to take a familiar setting with familiar characters and within that context to explore the fall of a great man. The play presents arguments about religious piety, fatalism, and free will.  Those were topics of that time, as they are for ours, which is why the play endures.

How far can you go with that?  In other words, Sophocles purposely chose mythical Thebes.  No one could have known what was said in Thebes back then because it was not recorded.  So, the author was free to invent.  However, he could not have placed Socrates in the play.

The movie 300 is shot through with historical innaccuracies.  However, the history was recorded.  We know how they dressed.  We know something of who they were inside as people.  Yet, because they shout a few words about "freedom" this cartoon movie has become a symbol of "something" for some people.  What if these were Germans on the Russian front of World War II?  Such a (bootleg) romantic movie has been made, in fact, about a corporal who brings his guys home despite overwhelming odds. 

What if a movie about Germans on the Russian front had jet planes, cellphones, and laptops interspersed with cavalry lancers and infantry pike formations, with the Germans dressed in kilts and the Russians in buckskin?  The icing on the cake would be for them to come upon the town of Lvov and declare their wonder at the honored home of the great von Mises brothers, Richard and Ludwig...

Ayn Rand said that art is a selective recreation of reality.  That imposes some requirements.

 


Post 1

Thursday, March 29, 2007 - 1:23pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
     Worthwhile points, especially the examples of  what SF fans would call 'alternative history.' --- The movie TROY had a prob or two with 'coins-on-lids' if I remember. Still, I thought it was otherwise well done and acted.

     Absolutely correct re 'requirements' imposed by reality, even if the latter is being 're-created.' SOLID point there. --- O-t-other-h, H'wood has acquired the idea of 're-imagining' a story, so, that does leave leeway (as SF writing in general does.)

     Still, I expect '300' to have been worth seeing after I get it on DVD (I wanna check those 'special features.')

LLAP
J:D


Post 2

Friday, March 30, 2007 - 3:33amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Discussing Rodin's The Thinker (http://rebirthofreason.com/Spirit/Art/62.shtml)
I said that what you see in a work of art is often a matter of what you bring to the experience. 
John Dailey wrote: "... what SF fans would call 'alternative history.' --- The movie TROY had a prob or two with 'coins-on-lids' ... H'wood has acquired the idea of 're-imagining' a story, so, that does leave leeway (as SF writing in general does.)
I agree with the importance of the many implicit topics in those two paragraphs. 

In a sense, we can only recreate reality.  Even a monster or a chimera is based on elements of real things, albeit put together in an unrealistic way.  It is metaphysically impossible to create (or re-create) the unreal.   So, perhaps that part of the definition is redundant. 

Yet, an artist can create Pegasus or Martians.  They serve purposes depending on the intention of the artist.  Certainly, our common views of Pegasus versus the Chimera underscore two different intentions in two different kinds of "unreal" (I prefer "mythical")  creature, one noble, the other horrible.

Ayn Rand did not appreciate science fiction.  She did not see the purpose in it.  She did, it is said, like Star Trek.  Perhaps there is contradiction in that.  At any rate, it remains for others to build on the foundation of Objectivist aesthetics, to check the premises and take it from there.

Robots, for instance, are also "unreal" but as has been said better elsewhere, robots (or aliens) allow us to "design" a person with certain attributes and then explore the consequences.  Asimov's robots, of course, are primarily altruistic

There are many ways to tell a robot story.  Asimov's robot universe is bright and logical, whereas Cordwainer Smith's "Scanners Live in Vain" is dark.  Nonetheless, Cordwainer Smith's brilliant universe and complex characterizations appeal to some Objectivists.  That brings the discussion back to the artist and the viewer.  I read some Harlan Ellison, but found his works malevolent.  Similarly, from the first word, I found Saul Bellow's Herzog technically a work of obvious genius, but utterly pointless.  Herzog, however, is, indeed, a selective recreation of reality with no flying horses or robots.

When discussing Hollywood, the question of "rights" comes into play -- and that word means more than legal rights.  There are moral rights (and wrongs), as for instance when Dick's Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep was given the name Bladerunner, which was ripped from a pretty good story by a Alan E. Nourse.  That story would make a good movie.  Not all stories do.  A couple of years ago, I interviewed a professor of classical history for an article that ran in The Celator.  Speaking of Alexander, she said, "Live's don't make good movies."  (Perhaps that allows the selective unreality of art.)  When a subject is moved from one medium to another, what requirements are there for "faithfulness to the original"? Wagner's Ring was not the first retelling of the Siegfried story.  It was written down in the Dark Ages, and then "modernized" by the troubadors of the Middle Ages.  In between that, Attila the Hun was added to and deleted from the epic.  Is Tschaikowsky's 1812 Overature supposed to be a history?  This bears directly on the up-coming movie based (we can only hope) on Atlas Shrugged


Post 3

Saturday, March 31, 2007 - 10:44pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
How is music a "selective recreation of reality"? 

Ayn Rand's definition of art seems to apply only to painting and sculpture.

Yet, she liked Salvadore Dali, because of the clarity of the images, even though the images were "unreal."


Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 4

Sunday, April 1, 2007 - 6:56amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
From my manuscript on Ethics and Aesthetics.......




Contemplation takes many forms, from the sometimes “lead me by the nose” approach of literature and – emotionally – sometimes music, to the “slam” effects of paintings and sculptures, with a lot of sublimity in between. All, however, as works of Art, are united in their intelligibility.



What, for instance, tho, is intelligible about music?



As Rand pointed out, we gain our knowledge thru the use of concepts – that is, by means of abstractions. But out cognition, however, begins with the ability to perceive. “Art brings man's concepts to the perceptual level of his consciousness and allows him top grasp them directly, as if they were percepts,” she added. As I said earlier, this means that a work of Art takes the abstractions of metaphysics and makes them into specifics – the concretes. Now, concretes are usually thought of in terms of entities – yet Rand, writing in her Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology, has said that concretes subsume not only entities, but attributes, actions, and relationships. To me, this includes situations as well – what, I would say, in terms of music, as emotional situations. This brings me to conclude that Rand did indeed make a error in assuming that Helmholtz's use of sensations meant that music is auditorily experienced as sensations, not precepts. But, as Davird Kelley pointed out in his Evidence of the Senses, all sounds are properly to be regarded as percepts, as he goes on to explain their feature as being an attribute of specifics in an auditory context. The harmonic sounds, as tones, then get integrated into what is called a melody, the fundamental aspect of music.



Aside from her misdirected mis-understanding of the sensation/perception issue of musical experience, there are two criticisms of her view of music I also find a need to address. The first is that she premised the \essence of music as being mathematical. The easiest way to respond to such a criticism is to remember that she defined mathematics as the science of measurement – and also to remember that a sheet of music, any music, is a sheet full of measurement. Yes, there are other aspects of music that give texture to the music, put the measurements into contexts – but the bottom line is that music is an exoppression of auditory stimulus according to mathematical means. It is on that basis, the fundamental level, that she expressed the way music is involved in one's sense of life and was concerned with.



The other cirticism leveled at her music t heory is the one she really didn't give a satisfactory answer to – what is the re-presentational aspect of music that co-responds to reality? I suspect part of the problem in giving a good answer to this was her sensation/perception mis-understanding aspect of how the mind hears music. But, if one were to re-translate her sensation mistaken observations and put them into perceptual concretes, it seems a much more integrated and noncontradictory view emerges.



While I am primarily an artist, tho I also sculpt, I also am an avid listener od serious music. One thing I've observed is that for the most part of human hustory, music was in accompanyment with song and dance. It wasn't until about 300 years or so ago that secular music really made its mark, and music started being played for its own sake. But, for the time music was connected with voice especially, and dence, there was never a question about its expressive meanings. This is to say there was no problem as to what aspect of reality music's meaning referred to, music's emotional respondings. The question would only arise when music per se was in volved. Yet, as far as I am concerned, it seems a false problem, as the same set of pitch, beat, tone, etc. That music makes use of when accompanying vocals should elicit the same response emotionally when not accompanying vocals, when the music stands on its own. This is clearly noted in such instances as laments, or songs of joy, or the emotions of solemnity, or the gaiety of dance. Music, as such, is a very abstract Art, and in expressing what it is and does in a form similar to the definition of Art, I would have to say that music selects and styles certain important or meaningful aural experiences, making use of certain configurations which best express those qualities, drawing out the relative emotional responses – abstracting, as it were, to better the perception.



Even when one deals with music beyond a single instrument or small group of instruments, as, say, the expressiveness of an orchestra, where far greater variety of tones and emotional derivations can be achieved, note that there is still a co-respondent to singing – the violins, which are analogous to the vocal, whether singly as in a violin concerto, or grouping as if a choral, as they are arranged in the orchestra itself. In any case, it is clear there is intelligibility, a definite "re-presentation of..." in music, and a definite reference to "some aspect of reality."



Now, there is more on this which I could continue saying something about, filling in some of the details of this music section to smooth out what seem rough patches – but I am not really interested. I only wanted to say enough to indicate – primarily for others – that Rand's aesthetic views do indeed apply to the other arenas of Art as they do to literature – and, I hope I've shown, to rendering. I could, for instance, go on with the moral implications that are to be found in music, which have been disputed by others who claim that moral examples cannot be displayed other than thru literature, but I hope that by showing at least clues to the supposed dilemna in speaking of rendering, so , too, someone will detail it for music [if not, and nobody else comes forth to do so, then I reluctantly will have to "teach the children" – I just hope not.... there are, after all, other adults around].





Post 5

Monday, April 2, 2007 - 7:13pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Brother, you said a mouthful.


Post 6

Wednesday, April 4, 2007 - 9:09pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
The movie 300 is shot through with historical innaccuracies. However, the history was recorded. We know how they dressed. We know something of who they were inside as people. Yet, because they shout a few words about "freedom" this cartoon movie has become a symbol of "something" for some people.



So I suppose the Iliad or the Odyssey is just ridiculous because it is historically inaccurate. What would you say to Homer if you lived during his time?

"Oh no way Homer, Apollo did not come down from the heavens and give the Greeks a plague. And Achillies? Come on his heel was not his only weak spot. Dipping him as a child in a river did not make him impenetrable. We know about the Trojan war and you're just making up all these silly untrue things. Who knows why your epoch poems have become a symbol of something for some people?"

Pfeh

You know you're right, and the same thing with Schindler's List. No way was Schindler 5'8" tall he as 5'6" tall! And these silly things at the end of the movie that he cried about all the Jews he couldn't save. That wasn't true either. Eyewitness accounts said he just left without such a dramatic speech, and left in the dead of night without ceremony.

I can't understand how then with such an inaccurate portrayal of Oskar Schindler that the movie would mean something to some people.



Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 7

Thursday, April 5, 2007 - 10:31amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
The movie 300 is shot through with historical innaccuracies. However, the history was recorded. We know how they dressed. We know something of who they were inside as people. Yet, because they shout a few words about "freedom" this cartoon movie has become a symbol of "something" for some people


This is such a rediculous objection I am still shocked so many people make it. Yeah, they didnt dress like that, nor was Xerxes 10' tall and he probably didnt have bone-saw armed henchmen. wtf? This is not a historical documentary, it was never intended to be, nor does all art need to be historical documentaries. The point of good art is not to tell historical stories, but to convey important truths. If you want history turn on the history channel. If you want some inspiration, go and watch 300.



Post to this thread


User ID Password or create a free account.