Robert Hessen on Ayn Rand's character and personality

Part I of my book had, of course, already been published on the web (posted from March 2002-Feb. 2003). He also speaks of the "recently intensifying" criticism of Ms. Branden's biography...

So, who WAS he arguing against?
(Edited by James Stevens Valliant
on 3/02, 1:11pm)

Post 21

Thursday, March 2, 2006 - 12:26pm

>how she grew mentally and what her working and thinking processes were [Phil]
> Chris Sciabarra's Ayn Rand: the Russian Radical. ... Rand's particularly effective methodology. He traces it back to her college training [Roger]

That's it? His whole explanation? Many people had the same college training she did and didn't turn out to be Ayn Rand. Moreover, it would be grossly simplistic (if this is what Chris says or implies) to attribute all of AR's genius to 'dialectic'.

To fully explain Ayn Rand's mind requires much, much more than a single event or period like college training.

Post 22

Thursday, March 2, 2006 - 12:32pm

> she didn't seem very ambitious in her replies, nor did she reach out much to help the listener understand from his context. And she often didn't answer the questions as directly and eloquently as one might have liked. [Andre]

On the Johnny Carson show, multiple times, she was not at all the way you describe. She was enormously eloquent, persuasive, direct, aware of and weaving in context.

Overwhelmingly favorable response as Carson later said, with the most letters he ever got on any guest.

Tour de force.

Rand at the top of her game, height of her persuasive powers.

(I saw each of them or tapes of them.)

Post 23

Thursday, March 2, 2006 - 1:06pm

I'd like to find out where I can obtain videos of Ayn Rand.

Help an Oist out, fellas. It doesn't even have to be on DVD with THX!

Post 24

Thursday, March 2, 2006 - 1:31pm

MSK,

And, yes, we have exchanged emails since I first suggested to Dr. Hessen that he may have been misled about my work, but the rest of the content of our exchange will remain our business for now.

I was just wondering if there was anyone, besides myself, who had previously discussed Ms. Branden's treatment of this issue.

Post 25

Thursday, March 2, 2006 - 4:32pm

~~ If I may add what some might see as a merely superficial comparison of 'personality' styles, the more I read of what others seem to love dwelling on re Rand's not being the 'warm and fuzzy' sensitive-to-feelings-of-others type person, and therefore clearly was an actual 'human' being...'like the rest of us' (umm-m..right)...I have to ask: does the character Henry Cameron come to mind?

LLAP
J:D

Post 26

Thursday, March 2, 2006 - 5:29pm

Phil: "How does genius build itself? I mean, if you are going to study a genius, beyond just their ideas, it's their MIND somebody should have the sense to be spending time on! (Peikoff has made a start on this a couple times, but nowhere near completeness which would require a book or at least some very long essays.)"

Perhaps, because it takes a genius to understand a genius?

Michael

Post 27

Thursday, March 2, 2006 - 7:28pm

Yes, NewBully, I know. But I'm busy.

Post 28

Thursday, March 2, 2006 - 8:34pm

Phil,
I love arrogance but I still trying to figure what backs up your�s.
Michael

Post 29

Thursday, March 2, 2006 - 10:04pm

Good grammar.

Friday, March 3, 2006 - 11:18am

Ahh - formula guy, huh.......

Post 31

Friday, March 3, 2006 - 3:53pm

Phil,

Is a grammar a distinguishing characteristic of genius?

"Oh, I love Rand�s brilliance she is so grammatical!!!"

Grammar is the thing. Look! Every sentence must be correct. Now boys and girls you must dot ever "i" and cross every "t" or you will never be a genius, no, no, no, you cannot focus on the monumental shape of the forest, yes, yes, yes, you must first know how to detail every nuance and spec of fiber, right, head down, eyes zeroed in on the object directly in front of you, no more than two feet away, blinders in place, we don�t want you to get distracted from the task/duty at hand�focus, focus, focus, what you don�t care to be a genius, what you just want to love what you do, bah, yes I know it is no fun, what...you want to include the horizon, you want the big picture, what you want to do everything and integrate the monumental picture, no, no, no that�s it, keep your head down, don�t look or think for yourself, the only way to learn genius is to write a book, yes, that is it, you write a book, and you, the author, you project yourself into Michelangelo, or Augustus, or Rand, you do a lot of research, tons, literally, tons of paper notes, yes, that is the way, and after you written the book, magic presto, you are a genius! You have now managed to get inside their brains, and comprehended everything about them�and in fact you may even exceed their genius because you have written their souls' speaking in perfect grammar!

;) Michael

(Edited by Newberry on 3/03, 3:55pm)

Post 32

Friday, March 3, 2006 - 10:00pm

> Now boys and girls you must dot ever "i" and cross every "t"...detail every nuance...focus, focus...perfect grammar [Michael N, with his trademark sarcasm]

What is truly nauseating is that this illogical anti-grammar diatribe in favor of illiteracy and imprecision -- i) committing the fallacy of opposiing "art" and genius to precision and accuracy, and ii) committing the fallacy of thinking that knowing the trees prevents you from knowing the forest -- has gotten three atlas statuettes from those who reward passion and style over accuracy.

Congratulations, Michael, you have been suckered right into the spirit of progressive education and the wild child and Rousseau and 'logic kills' and 'grammar is old-fashioned' and 'precision is stultifying' and 'school and 'the three r's kill creativity and spontaneity'. You want to fight postmodernism and unreason? You can't fall for their premises. Art and "creative fields" are no exception to the fact that there are rules and hard work and grammar and effort and editing and outlining and steps.

Do you have to be (a bit) anal-retentive about these things to be truly original and creative, to be a genius? Absolutely. You have to build the foundation of knowledge from the simplest and most prosaic stuff first, just like Michelangelo and Leonardo had to study the human form and understand its mechanics completely before they started to paint or sculpt.

You DID precisely and carefully study and master drawing and the mechanics of the human form across a course of years before (or as) you matured as an artist?

Didn't you?

Post 33

Saturday, March 4, 2006 - 1:07am

Phil,

I don�t think I will ever fail to be amused by anyone who hyper-ventilates over irrelevancy in an internet post.

All the rules, hard work, precision, editing, outlines, and steps don�t buy you shit in art; they are not beside the point but they are not the values that bring life into art. Anyone focused on those things but doesn�t comprehend the conceptual nature of, for one example, translating a 3-dimensional form to a 2-dimensional surface; will never get it.

Perhaps you have unwittingly fallen for worst of traditional education and embraced its anti-conceptual thinking?

Michael

Post 34

Saturday, March 4, 2006 - 11:13am

> rules, hard work ... and steps don�t buy you shit in art....Anyone focused on those things but doesn�t comprehend...translating a 3-dimensional form to a 2-dimensional surface; will never get it. [Michael]

You need them all.

As Michelangelo (see "The Agony and the Ecstasy") and the towering geniuses from a forgotten age understood. "Genius is 99% perspiration and 1% inspiration." - Thomas Edison.

Phil

(I don't know why you threw in "editing, outlines" in the context of a discussion of art, not writing. Michael, sometimes it is hard to follow what you are talking about. One summer at TOC I sat with you at lunch....and I literally couldn't follow you for a half hour....You are a passionate fellow, which is great, but sometimes a bit more of the anal-retentive philcoates-ish precision and editing and clarity you have contempt for as draining the life out of things are required.)

(Edited by Philip Coates
on 3/04, 11:20am)

Post 35

Saturday, March 4, 2006 - 11:52am

Phil,

Perhaps one of the reasons you don�t understand me is that you cannot comprehend that an artist edits constantly. Also, in painting you can use outlines literally, they are often used to arrange objects, which will be filled in: much like a writer, composer, sculpture, choreographer, singer, etc. But editing and outlines do not make a good artwork, it�s the artist�s ability to bring life into art that counts. And that deals with a very complex synergy of the mastery of balance, movement, perception, depth, innate talent, harmony, psychology; along with the ability to double check if the results do indeed have life to them.

You make a mistake that is not uncommon: you think that your knowledge is superior to concepts/knowledge that you don�t understand, in this case I don�t think you understand the conceptual nature of art�at least you have not shown me that you do understand that. I don�t understand anything about Einstein but that, of course, doesn�t mean he is wrong. You put yourself in vulnerable position by your pretentious stance that you are an expert in the arts.

Michael

Post 36

Saturday, March 4, 2006 - 12:52pm

> an artist edits constantly...but editing and outlines do not make a good artwork, it�s the artist�s ability to bring life into art that counts. [Michael]

Okay, well now that I understand you better it seems as if we're somewhat closer to agreement.

> your pretentious stance that you are an expert in the arts.

I don't think I would use the word 'expert'.

Post 37

Saturday, March 4, 2006 - 3:01pm

Phil,

The truth is you annoy the hell out of me.

If you did have more knowledge about art, about contemporary art history, and to know enough to compare what is happening today compared to 20/25 years ago, you would know that we are in the beginning stages of a new Renaissance.

In the early 80's in both the NY and Los Angeles art scene and in art education there was virtually no representational art. Everywhere you looked: galleries, art magazines, schools, museums abstract was the vast majority of the works, though on the wane, and PM installations and Video Art were gaining notice. It was utterly common to hear from teachers, students, critics that figurative art was dead.

I grew up with that education.

Throughout I maintained integrity to my vision of benevolent and figurative art.

And I have also noticed that you don�t own a Newberry, have never congratulated me on a completed major work, have never thanked me for article defending human value you in art. But that is ok, your in the majority of backseat driving Objectivists that think that the fucking ideas they spin in their heads are more significant than actions that validate their ideas.

Recently I visited several of the richest, most cutting-edge art galleries in the world, in Chelsea. 3 of the 4 galleries had some form of representational art from photo-realism, to line drawings, to intellectualized cartoons. The change to that from 25 years ago is so fucking radical and positive to be shocking. Objectivist artists, including myself, are making up to $45,000 for a major work. And yet, you hold onto some cynical view that no one today knows anything about art, doesn�t know about old master technique, and that we are living in some kind of dark age. If you visited www.NewberryWorkshop.com you might notice that not only do I understand old master technique but that I and a few colleagues are developing radically new techniques that quickly facilitate such things as perspective and proportion and light theory. Notice that some of my students that have never taken an art class before, and see what they have done is only a few hours.

The Art Renewal Center, http://artrenewal.org/ is a grass roots movement that champions representational art. Their website gets 6 million unique visitors a year. Recently, they have approved my NY Workshop listing it among 63 other ateliers, schools, and workshops across the United States. All run by exceptional artists. The existence and success of this site is almost as monumental of the tearing down of the Berlin Wall and as soon as some of these artists exhibit in the world�s great contemporary museums that will match that feat.

One of the hardest things to do, because of its normative nature, is to understand the qualities exceptional talent that is before your eyes.

Michael

Post 38

Saturday, March 4, 2006 - 3:26pm

Michael, you're titling against a windmill I haven't even erected.

I haven't been trying to criticize or belittle your work or recent positive trends in representational art. The truth is I have not been following these things well enough to comment with breadth or certainty. (I asked questions about your study and background, rather than implying you didn't have a solid one...it may have come across as sarcastic, but wasn't intended to be cynical). I like some of your work and some of the newer representational art, and some, quite frankly, I do not. But I was only trying to criticize a -post- of yours and view you expressed, not a whole trend in art.

And it is great that your work and the movement you refer to has been so successful and is so respected!! I have no ability to create in the area of the visual arts - I have difficulty drawing a stick man :-) But the fact I'm not a filmmaker doesn't mean I can't comment on the quality of a film. As I said to you on another thread, I think you'd be better advised to just refute the logic of my views, rather than trying to assess from a distance what standing I have for them.

ATTACK THE IDEAS, NOT THE PERSON.

Phil

By the way, thanks for the information, summary, and links you just posted. Some of those links I and others were not aware of. And over time, I hope to become better informed in regard to them.

(Edited by Philip Coates
on 3/04, 3:37pm)

Post 39

Saturday, March 4, 2006 - 5:37pm