RoR: Forum

Peter,

Do you really want to stand by your claim that the music of Rush comes "close to" the depth, scope, and integration that is in Atlas Shrugged? Really? How far would you defend that claim? I don't even think the members of Rush would want to defend it. :-)

Yes I do stand by it. Music and novels are very different beasts of course, so it is a very different order of depth and integration.

And I have to ask you, why cite 'classical influences' on rock musicians if you say that rock is superior to classical?

Please point out to me precisely where I have said that rock is superior to classical.

Trying to claim some stature for the music thereby?

Nope, the music has stature on its own merits. I simply thought it might give pause to those who claim that these groups are "headbanging caterwaulers" to know that these musicians they condemn actually admire the same composers they do. (Speaking for myself, I love a lot of classical music - Beethoven, Wagner, Mozart, you name it - and despite thinking that most heavy metal is "headbanging caterwauling", I love these specific groups. These specific groups have classical influences and in some cases Randian influences. Go figure.)

Wouldn't it be better just to argue (as I would) that rock and blues is what it is and that the better rock or blues musicians understand and enjoy that.

No.

They don't pretend they're simply classicists with a plectrum, or any thing other than what they are.

Who are pretending to be "classicists with a plectrum"?

MH

Post 21

Monday, October 4, 2004 - 3:06pm

I agree with the first posters to this poll that it is impossible to choose a greatest achievement in western art, although I did vote for David out of some vague personal preference after considering a write-in for Rodin.

Now, I think some of this thread has been nonsense. I do think Linz gets a bit harsh about some of the music I tend to like, but I think a line needs to be drawn between whether that music can actually be considered ART, for christ sake. I don't pretend it is. I think a lot of what I enjoy is entertainment, but it isn't art. By the same token, I even think some modern painting and filmaking is entertaining, although I don't think I would call it fine art. So I think some perspective should be kept. There's no need to get defensive. Just because something is not fine art does not make it worthless. It's about boundaries and protecting what is precious, and having respect for those who are artists. Entertainment value does not equal Art.

Post 22

Monday, October 4, 2004 - 4:20pm

I realize I'm just dipping my toes into this, but I must take issue with one idea--stated by Michael Newberry--that seems to have permeated the entire thread. And that is the idea that "high art" is only that which represents the "ultimate ideal."

That is a very, very narrow confinement of art. And one of my oldest and most profound disagreements with Ortho Objectivism.

Alec

Post 23

Monday, October 4, 2004 - 4:22pm

Peter wrote:
"So listen all you will to whatever music you wish - to rock, to jazz, to opera (hell, I listen to all of these myself) - but don't delude yourself that something is what it isn't; that for example "[the greatest achievement in Western Art] would have to be Pink Floyd's DARK SIDE OF THE MOON" for example. We all know that's not the case, now don't we.

Says you.

A is A; rock music is what it is - enjoy it for what it is by all means (as I do), but don't claim for it a virtue it doesn't possess, or a stature it doesn't have. It's only yourself you're trying to fool; and by fooling yourself in this manner you miss out on a whole world of artistic scope and integration that really does have real depth. :-)"

I disagree.

Post 24

Monday, October 4, 2004 - 4:50pm

Alec said: "... I must take issue with one idea ... [a]nd that is the idea that "high art" is only that which represents the "ultimate ideal." "

Well, it's almost a truism to say that art represents to us our real values - that it's a shortcut to our implicit philosophy and worldview. It might be said that the way we react to art reveals our soul. That said then, the better the art, (ie., the wider its scope, depth and integration) the better it does that job for each of us. By this reckoning, 'Othello' is better than 'Shrek' not simply because one is deemed 'high art' and one low fluff, but because the scope, depth and integration is better in the former than it is in the latter.

And if it's not true that art reveals our soul, then why the hysterical reactions when people's 'taste' is challenged? If it's just subjective as is so often claimed, then methinks the protests be too much. :-)

Post 25

Monday, October 4, 2004 - 4:58pm

Alec said:

" I must take issue with one�idea--stated by Michael Newberry--that seems to have permeated the entire thread. And that is the idea that�"high art"�is only that which represents the�"ultimate ideal."�

That is a very, very narrow confinement of art. And one of my oldest and most profound disagreements with Ortho Objectivism."

Alec, and also Joe, because I think you are basically saying about the same thing. What do you think "high art" should be if not the "ultimate ideal?" I am not really trying to be confrontational, I am sincerely curious. Do you think art is anything that makes an effort at being "artistic?" Do you not think anyone but the so-called "artist" has a right to define the "art" - I know that many people believe this.

Do you seek out that which is less than ideal in other areas of your life? Do you prefer to have a meal which is less-than-memorable? Would you rather date women/men who look a bit plainer? Would you just as soon watch television as a sunset? Hopefully not. Because the people who populate this forum have a very specific sense of life. The have a fire in their guts for what is BEST in this life. Not just what is adequate. They *do* have a narrow range of what will satisfy them, and the ULTIMATE IDEAL is precisely it. I hope it has permeated this entire thread. I hope it permeates this entire FUCKING GROUP! Don't settle, lads!

Post 26

Monday, October 4, 2004 - 5:18pm

Joe: "The British prog bands focused more on the lyrical content, which was almost Wagnerian..."

PC: Um, no it wasn't. It was generally only high-school maunderings; in fact they focussed more on the music. But if you think it's truly inappropriate to compare musics, why then try and claim Wagner 's stature for prog rock's schoolboy twiddlings? Are you then conceding Wagner's greater stature? :-)

One: Peter, I used the term Wagnerian to suggest the scope of the work, which was in the spirit of Wagner's large scale works. That is not a value judgement in itself.(Though you are justified for making such a statement, and it was my point to show that the British prog bands wanted to achieve what they considered to be high art.Personally, I like large scale works, but I don't think large scale works generally mean superior; ATLAS SHRUGGED could be considered large scale crap, so could the Bible, WAR And PEACE, etc. Again, what is the criteria?) And by the way, I don't see the need for such a contest. I don't care for the Grammys, Emmies, Oscars, etc. or the top 10 lists because I don't see it art as a game, but as an expression of the soul. Oh, and as far as Wagner's greater stature: Are we talking Wagner the artist or Wagner the racist Nazi prototype?

And as to your claim that the lyrics were high school maunderings; in some cases, yes, in others, no. Let the lyrics speak for themselves...I use, as an example, what I consider a great Yes song, which is based on the story of Pygmalion. A hymn to artistic creation itself.

Turn of the Century

Realising a form out of stone
Set hands moving
Roan shaped his heart
Thru his working hands
Work to mould his passion into clay
Like the sun

In his room, his lady
She would dance and sing so completely
So be still, he now cries
I have time, oh let clay transform thee so

In the deep cold of night
Winter calls, he cries, don't deny me
For his lady, deep her illness
Time has caught her
And will for all reasons take her

In the still light of dawn, she dies
Helpless hands soul revealing

Like leaves we touch, we learn
We once knew the story
As Winter calls he will starve
All but to see the stone be life

Now Roan no more tears
Set to work his strength
So transformed him
Realising a form out of stone, his work
So absorbed him
Could she hear him
Could she see him
All aglow was his room dazed in this light
He would touch her
He would hold her
Laughing as they danced
Highest colours touching others

Did her eyes at the turn of the century
Tell me plainly
When we meet, how we'll love, oh let life so transform me

Like leaves we touched, we danced
We once knew the story
As autumn called and we both
Remembered all those many years ago
I'm sure we know

Was the sign with a touch
As I kiss your fingers
We walk hands in the sun
Memories when we're young
Love lingers so.

Was it sun thru the haze
That made all your looks
As warm as moonlight
As a pearl deep your eyes
Tears have flown away
All the same light

Did her eyes at the turn of the century
Tell me plainly
When we meet how we'll look
As we smile time will leave me clearly

Like leaves we touch, we see
We will know the story
As Autumn calls we'll both remember
All those many years ago

Michael asked "I assume you all like Rand's work. Can you think of rock that matches the depth, scope, and integration that is in Atlas Shrugged? If so, could you state why?"

Joe replied: "I will preface this with the fact that I have personally grown away from Objectivism, and I am constantly rethinking much of what I believed. So this question does not really resonate much with me anymore."

PC: So is this a yes or no then? Whether or not it 'resonates' with you or not is surely irrelevant - there either is rock music that matches the depth, scope and integration of Atlas ... or there isn't. I think we both know the answer is the latter.

Again, I think you are wrong, unless you go with the claim that some make, that rock music that aspires to anything more than 3 chords of sex and drugs is not rock and roll.

(Edited by Joe Maurone on 10/04, 6:28pm)

(Edited by Joe Maurone on 10/05, 5:33pm)

Post 27

Monday, October 4, 2004 - 5:37pm

Ashley, since you're curious...
I understand where you are coming from with your search for the ultimate ideal. I used to share the desire. Personally, my experience tells me that many of the world's ills are because of such a belief in an ultimate ideal, and that it leads to a fascist mindset. Again, I ask, ultimate by whose ideals? Whose standards? Who's value-system? I've come to the personal belief that there are multiple ideals. But also, that everyone can contribute something to the world, that not all art has to be the ultimate expression of the ultimate ideal. Sometimes, bigger is not better.
Let me ask you, Ashley, since you ask if I would look for someone plainer. How would you feel if you were dumped for someone better looking, and you were told that it would be wrong to settle? Would you be stoic, like Reardon being dumped for Galt, or would you say, HEY! What's so bad about me? There is an expression, "The good is always the enemy of the better." I don't react to a work because it's the ultimate expression, rather, I react to a work of art because it resonates with me on some level. It creates a dialogue with my soul, which includes my rational thoughts as well as my feelings.
My point is, again, that there does not need to be a competition, rather, we can learn from many contributions from the art world, and each other. I am not saying that Metallica is better than Rachmaninov, or vice versa. I am saying that Metallica resonates with me better than Rachmaninov. (And btw, when I made my DARK SIDE OF THE MOON reference to Linz, it was in jest, hence the smiley face. Talk about your anal retentives...)You don't need to find the ultimate ideal expression in art, and you don't need to proclaim a person the ultimate ideal in beauty, moral stature, etc. In the words of Roger Waters, "Each small candle lights a corner of the dark."

Post 28

Monday, October 4, 2004 - 6:04pm

I respond to you all (and I agree with Joe), though regretfully not as in-depth and more simplistic than I would like, for time purposes:

Peter:

almost a truism to say that art represents to us our real values

This is sometimes true, but most of the time "values" are irrelevant to the purpose of a work of art. Much good art is about "illustrating" some interesting aspect(s)--truth, irony, complexity, contradiction, mystery, conflict--in life or mankind or reality. An "aspect" is not necessarily something small.

I don't necessarily disagree with the other things you say, but you're criteria is too simple. the wider its scope, depth and integration -- by such measures, anything of short length could never be great art. I think that art has to be judged according to its purpose.

Ashley:

What do you think "high art" should be if not the "ultimate ideal?"

My answer, in very concise terms, is above. The elusive truths and realities of life and humanity--and how to deal with them--are hardly always consonant with our "ultimate ideal." And they are often much more intriguing, especially if we already know what our "ultimate ideal" is.

Do you seek out that which is less than ideal in other areas of your life?

Like the rest of your final paragraph, this line ignores the issue. Let me pose a question: Do you ever have to deal with that which is less than ideal in any meaningful area of your life?

Would you rather date women/men who look a bit plainer?

Where I live, far too many people describe themselves as women/men. I usually prefer one or the other, or two of one and one of the other. But, like all of the following, an irrelevant analogy.

Would you just as soon watch television as a sunset?

I actually enjoy sunsets, which is why I'm glad they only last 20 minutes a day.

Hopefully not. Because the people who populate this forum have a very specific sense of life...

That's a very scary description. I've always had a problem with the term "sense-of-life", but let me tell you how your words sadden me. If people have a very narrow, specific "sense" through which they experience life, then they're sure missing out on a whole lot. I know this isn't the definition of Randian "sense-of-life," but this is what it often comes to in practice.

With a fire in my pants,
Alec

Post 29

Monday, October 4, 2004 - 5:46pm

Ashley: "Do you seek out that which is less than ideal in other areas of your life? Do you prefer to have a meal which is less-than-memorable?"

Not me. I've come to the objective conclusion that fillet mignon with lobster is the ideal meal in all contexts. I now eat nothing else. Breakfast, lunch and dinner, nothing but surf and turf. I am more morally and aesthetically pure than all of you.

Ashley: "Would you rather date women/men who look a bit plainer?"

Damn. You got me on that one. I'll leave my sweet, intelligent, ambitious, loving wife tomorrow and start looking for one that's not so "plain." Thanks for helping me get my priorities straight, Ashley.

Ashley: "Would you just as soon watch television as a sunset? Hopefully not."

No. I don't do anything but watch sunsets. Ever. My plain-Jane wife was once interviewed on the McNeil-Lehrer news hour, but I had to miss it because the sun was setting at the time. But now I don't feel so guilty about it since I'm going to be leaving her for someone prettier anyway.

Ashley: "Because the people who populate this forum have a very specific sense of life. The have a fire in their guts for what is BEST in this life. Not just what is adequate. They *do* have a narrow range of what will satisfy them, and the ULTIMATE IDEAL is precisely it. I hope it has permeated this entire thread. I hope it permeates this entire FUCKING GROUP! Don't settle, lads!"

So what you're saying, Ashley, is that no one should settle for a building designed by Organon Architecture because there are thousands of better architects out there, and we shouldn't buy paintings by Michael Newberry because there are thousands of better artists? Sorry, but I can't go along with you on that one.

J

Post 30

Monday, October 4, 2004 - 6:34pm

Let me straighten you clowns out once and for all. ;>) It begins and ends with the nobility, beauty and power of man. What better testament to man's greatness than David--a beautful subject, beautifully executed, with wondrous technical merit. And the subject of the art from a parable about a normal man heroically triumphing over a superior foe.

I laughed through Shrek, and enjoyed Metallica's Black album. But we are talking about the great acheivement in western art. C'mon, nothing in the poll says anything about choosing something just to piss Linz off, as entertaining as that can be!

Post 31

Monday, October 4, 2004 - 7:04pm

Jonathan: in your attempt to be nasty and sarcastic, I think you missed the context. In my previous post I acknowledged that I am entertained by precisely the kind of music that Alec and Joe are talking about - I just don't consider it art and I think it is a waste of time to argue that it is. If you would stop posturing and read what I actually said you might come off a bit less angry.

Post 32

Monday, October 4, 2004 - 7:06pm

Tom, if the sole criteria were power, ability, and nobility of man were the predefined, or sole criteria, of great art, I would accept your assessment. And it's plain that an objectivist would use those criteria. But I see no reason why that should be the sole criteria.And what if someone did not see that depicted in DAVID? Or, better yet, what if there were other traits seen besides those? Gays could see a homoerotic ideal, but puritans would not. Italians could see a Mediterranean ideal, but maybe an African would not. You could then say that an issue of race is irrelevant, that DAVID is a particular form of an archetypal ideal available to all races. Fine. But you could also argue, as Paglia does in SEXUAL PERSONAE (there she is again in this thread!) that along with those traits of nobility, power, and ability are the traits of aristocracy and cruelty; indeed, the smile of the statue suggests an air of superiority...then again, maybe this is appropriate for the "greatest work of Western civilization, since we've already implied that the non-western world is not even worthy of consideration?

I also think it strange that Objectivists would be so concerned about defending works of antiquity against newer forms. I think back to Roark's struggles against the established architectural norms of his day. Why should Roark try to do anything different than the classical masters? They've already achieved everything that needs to be done. All that's left is to copy them...

Post 33

Monday, October 4, 2004 - 7:27pm

Joe, this is an Objectivist site--of COURSE we're going to use those criteria! If you were an Objectivist, you would understand the Objectivist position that those are the only criteria that matter- or that matter most. A feminist would say that it is a patriarchal image of oppression. A socialist would say that the statue should be renamed "Oppressor of the Proletariot." Who cares? They are wrong.

The poll specifically limits itself to Western civilzation, so I do not know wherere you are going with the suggeston that anyone is implying anything about any other civilization (I mean, I would--they are all crap compared to Western civilization).

I also think you are way off base regarding the idea that Objectivists support the notion that all good art has already been done by the Masters of antiquity. Its just that, in art, postmodernism has set in such that, while, for example, science and medicine are more or less still predominantly guided by the ideals of the Age of Enlightenment, art is not. That's why we continue to have scientific and medical advances, and a toilet or dead bodies are heralded as the pinnacle of genius in the world of art.

Post 34

Monday, October 4, 2004 - 7:27pm

Ashley, a personal note:
I understand that you think it is pointless to argue the status of rock as art, but I disagree (obviously). The point is that we obviously have different values. But I want to say that I take this seriously, which is why I argue it. Imagine if Rand accepted that line of argumentation; many people claim that her work is not literature, that it's trashy pop-philosophy, that it's not serious art. Whether or not that's true, she believed the opposite, and fought for her work. And she did not believe that art could not be entertainment, or vice versa.

Post 35

Monday, October 4, 2004 - 7:29pm

Tom, you prove my point.

Post 36

Monday, October 4, 2004 - 8:02pm

Joe, is there a particular reason you address me as Tom? Its ok, I dont think 'Scott' particularly suits me, and maybe we could take a vote and maybe Tom could be my new Objectivist name or something---but why Tom? I'd prefer Mysterio, Mysterious Man of Mystery! Or something like that! ;>)

Post 37

Monday, October 4, 2004 - 8:36pm

Um, you look like a Tom?
Seriously, don't know where that came from, sorry. No disrespect intended.

Post 38

Monday, October 4, 2004 - 9:55pm

Answering this poll incorrectly should earn the voter a complementary bitch-slap.

(Edited by Orion Reasoner on 10/05, 9:28am)

Post 39

Monday, October 4, 2004 - 10:57pm