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 unreadBack one pagePage 0Page 1Page 2Page 3Page 4Page 5Page 6Page 7


Post 140

Friday, August 15, 2008 - 1:06amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
http://barbarabranden.com/interview3.html

http://barbarabranden.com/interview4.html

Q: What about the writing, reading it in manuscript, the rough draft. We kind of had an indication of what that was like from the things Leonard Peikoff published from The Fountainhead. I remember reading it and being embarrassed for her, that it was in print.

Branden: It should not have been published. That was wastebasket stuff for her, the material from The Fountainhead. But Ayn was a paper-miser; she couldn't throw things out.

Q: Why do you think he published that?

Branden: Well, I can only think of one reason, to make money. What else could there be?

Q: Fill up the pages of The Early Ayn Rand?

Branden: He had to know that the reason she never published it is because she didn't want to publish it.

Q: The writing was so rough. When she read Atlas in manuscript to the group, was it rough like that too?

Branden: No, it wasn't. It was much more polished writing from the beginning. It was really final draft before she left any section. When Nathan and I first started reading it, it was typed, but then we caught up to her; so she would show us what was handwritten before it was typed. The really difficult thing for me was not to read what was crossed out. The temptation was overwhelming but she begged me not to. Oh, I was dying to see, and sometimes she would let me see what was crossed out and talk about it, which was fascinating. As a matter of fact I have some of the manuscript pages where she has cross-outs. It's immensely interesting to see, like seeing her thought processes.

Q: Did the people talk about their own lives? I noticed that a lot of Objectivists just talk about ideas and they don't ask the person how they're doing?

Branden: Oh, yes we did. We were friends. Things began to go wrong in later years with everybody but essentially we were a group of friends. We knew each other very well and cared for each other. We talked like real people talk.

Q: Ayn Rand appointed Nathaniel Branden, and later Leonard Peikoff, her intellectual heir; did she ever define what that meant?

Branden: I don't know that she defined it, but I knew what she meant. Specifically with regard to Nathan, she believed that, after she was gone, he would carry on her ideas and continue elaborating and presenting them. That's what she meant by intellectual heir. It wasn't that she had placed the mantle on him. She thought that's what he planned to do, and wanted to do, to carry on her ideas and continue as she was doing, presenting them to the world in ways that would be acceptable to her and that he was the person best qualified to do it.

I think that if that had been said, people wouldn't have had the objections that they do have. It is a very strange concept, intellectual heir, unless one understands exactly what she meant by it. It's not clear from the term itself. I assume she meant the same thing about Leonard. Unfortunately it hasn't happened. It hasn't happened with either of them. Which is part of what is wrong with deciding that somebody is your intellectual heir. You cannot know what the future will be.

Q: At the end of your interview in Liberty, you criticized the handling of Rand's estate, what specifically did you have in mind?

Branden: It has been really upsetting me since shortly after Ayn died. The fact that there have been no archives; the fact that Leonard is publishing material that shouldn't be published, but should be in archives. The fact that he is selling things which should have been kept. He has such an important literary estate, and he hasn't the foggiest idea of what you ought to do with a literary estate. Clearly he has not asked anyone who knows, or at least he is not interested in whatever they've told him. It's been sold off in bits and pieces, published in bits and pieces, and to me the worst thing of all is, not even that he published her philosophical "thinking aloud" notes, but that he edited them! Edited Ayn Rand has no historical value. Ayn Rand thinking aloud on paper edited by Leonard Peikoff? It has no meaning!

Q: Do you think he edited it just grammatically, or did he change philosophical ideas?

Branden: I don't think he invented philosophical ideas, or reversed them. But I think he was very careful about the language that she might have used at one time, then later would not have written quite that way. To make such changes absolutely destroys the historical value of her notes.

Q: Do you remember anything specific?

Branden: I don't. When I saw this treasure of Ayn thinking aloud about philosophy on paper and then saw "Edited by Leonard Peikoff", I couldn't believe my eyes! Edited by anybody! You just don't do that. Because how does anybody ever know what was Ayn and what was Leonard? What was there and what has been cut out?


I was very happy to see at BarbaraBranden.com some positive book reviews by BB of books that previously in her career would probably have been verboten reading for Objectivists, such as "My Name Is Asher Lev" by Chaim Potok.

Sorry you don't appreciate Thornton Wilder -- it's an acquired, adult taste, I grant you -- he happens to be my favorite American author. Especially good is a very early work titled "The Bridge of San Luis Rey" and his little-known final novel "The Eighth Day." I also very much enjoy his play "Our Town."

And I was happy to learn from part of the above interview that some of AR's early writings have, apparently, been archived at the Library of Congress -- thanks to Robert Hessen.



Post 141

Friday, August 15, 2008 - 1:34amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Atheist Art (Socialist Realism -- paintings of Lenin, Stalin, tractors, or factories)



Atheist Art (Picasso was an atheist)




Post 142

Friday, August 15, 2008 - 8:05pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Do not confuse propaganda posters as 'fine art' - they're not...



Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 143

Friday, August 15, 2008 - 8:56pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Robert, I don't see how you can make such a statement a priori. Many well known paintings of the Romantic period were propaganda. Look at the Death of Marat, Liberty Leading the People, Turner's Slave Ship.

In any case, that picture of moshiach Lenin does have artistic quality - but it's far from irreligious!









Post 144

Saturday, August 16, 2008 - 1:30amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Do not confuse propaganda posters as 'fine art' - they're not...

The point is that pretty much all "fine art" is forced to function as propaganda in communist/fascist, societies. Part of the reason is that these societies see all art as propaganda anyway: for them, religious art (for example) propagandizes on behalf of a society, a power structure, and a relation of the individual to the state, that is unacceptable -- unacceptable because it threatens the absolute authority of the state and its leaders. A country like the former USSR that confiscated Bibles and threw its owners into mental institutions or gulags clearly would not take lightly to religious paintings.

With the exception of some of the classics from earlier centuries, art is not allowed to stand on its own in these societies. All concerts, all art gallery exhibits, all poetry readings, etc., are watched by "cadre officers" to ensure that nothing politically incorrect occurs.

I'm glad Keer appreciates the "artistic qualities" of the Lenin painting. There are more like that for him to hang on his walls: Stalin, Mao, tractors with zaftig women driving them, truck convoys, good solid representational Third Reich art of Der Fuhrer...

I have a book of concentration camp art. I like to look at it to remind me of what happens to artists when forced to live in an atheist society.



Sanction: 16, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 16, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 16, No Sanction: 0
Post 145

Sunday, August 17, 2008 - 8:11amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

"I have a book of concentration camp art. I like to look at it to remind me of what happens to artists when forced to live in an atheist society."

Now that's a bullshit! statement if I've ever heard one.



Post 146

Sunday, August 17, 2008 - 3:20pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
claude,

I have a book of concentration camp art. I like to look at it to remind me of what happens to artists when forced to live in an atheist society.

Whenever you make such a broad, unqualified, unsubstantiable remark, you only lose your credibility. This before anyone even addresses the malicious nature of the comment.

So, did you intend to lump all atheists together with a fascist regime, or are you simply having trouble pulling your foot out of your mouth?

jt



Post 147

Sunday, August 17, 2008 - 6:39pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
So, did you intend to lump all atheists together with a fascist regime...
 
Yes, Jay, that's what Claude means. 




Post to this threadBack one pagePage 0Page 1Page 2Page 3Page 4Page 5Page 6Page 7
User ID Password reminder or create a free account.