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 5Forward one pageLast Page


Post 40

Monday, October 4, 2004 - 11:22pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
> 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.

Indeed.  What a wonderful transgressive moment!  What a narrative recapture, an epistemic revolution!

So long as one remembers the orginal context of the Torah from which the figure of David comes; that of the small figure of Israel empowered by the Lord against the forces of pride and superior strength represented by Goliath the Dorian Phillistine, then very well.  It is a figure long venerated by Jews, Christians, socialists... even postmodernists.

Of course, Michelangelo intended to reclaim the figure of David- an archetype of what Nietzsche would call 'slave morality', for a worldly and passionate ethic (though far from identical with Objectivism).  And more power to him!  But when contemporary cultural left writers do the same, reclaiming the images of the past as heroes to empower marginalized passions, Objectivists denounce it as nihilism or envy or levelling or postmodernism.

The very artwork here picked as an example of an incarnation of a triumphant Western aesthos derives its strength- undeniably- from what would now be called a postmodern motion: the reclamation of a central figure of Judeo-Christian monotheism for a renascent Pagan worldliness.  It is the 15th century's equivalent of "queer pride" or "the virtue of selishness".  Outside of this context of clashing perspectives and power structures, the work loses much of its meaning.

Today, feminist fantasy writers reclaim the figures of Morgana and Hypatia.  Gay writers reclaim Greek homoeroticism.  And others of us remember the names Aspasia and Thais with pride.  The David is a wonderful work, but like Rilke's archaic torso of Apollo, it yields multiple interpretations, and more questions than answers.  'Tis wonderful that Michelangelo could fashion the eternal underdog into the pride of Prometheus.  'Tis wonderful that Ayn Rand could make a novel about a strike into the crowning artistic vision of Promethean capitalism.  That is the point.  You must change your life.

The 'Western tradition' and the trangressives and multiculturalists should not be fighting each other.  The great art of the West was fashioned in its time with purposes far closer to those of the left-academy, the Castro, and the rock concert than to those of William Bennett.  And today's dissident culture, whether that of Umberto Eco, Gayle Rubin, or Madonna, recalls the spirit of music far better than the real 'deadheads': those cultural conservatives who prattle on about mummifying the radical 'great works' as corpses in stony catacombs.

If someone wrote Medea or Hedda Gabbler today, it would be denounced as a nihilistic feminist attack on the family and objective values.  "Rivers run back upon your courses", chants the Witch in a paean to a most postmodern discordianism.  Macbeth contains lines of bitterness to make an existentialist flinch, as does Hamlet.  Goethe, who apparently knew nothing about a benevolent sense of life, wrote Torquatto Tasso by his own confession to prevent his own suicide.  Beethoven's 7th Sympthony resonates in a panorama of dread and despair that would mark a Samuel Beckett for traditionalist assassins.  Unlike today's anti-American musicians, Dante loved his countrymen... enough to put most of them in Hell.

The great poets of the West?  Blake, Whitman, Byron, Poe, Yeats, and Matthew Arnold would all, if they wrote today, be denounced by Objectivists as whim-worshipping mystics.  The great historians?  Such as Tacitus' idolizing of a mythical Germanic virtue to remonstrate his own culture?  Shades of I, Rigoberta Menchu and Black Athena!  (I disagree with all three, for the same reasons)  Beethoven, who borrowed Schiller's drinking song?  Mozart and Tchaikovsky, who borrowed low culture 'fairy tales' for their masterpieces?  Yet today the equivalent would be denounced as egalitarian; suppose a multiculturalist advanced an Mexican or African or Japanese folktale and asserted it as the equivalent in universality as, oh, I don't know, Faust.

Gratuitous sex?  Every read Lysistrata A Thousand and one Nights?  Ovid?  Malevolent universes?  I suppose we must then discount Euripides and the Norse sagas, not to mention Wagner.  Depiction of that not worth depicting?  What about the orginal, literal, malevolent universe: "the universe of pain", the Inferno (one of my favorite pieces of art).  'Mindless' hedonism, shades of those horrible hippies?  "A jug of wine, a loaf of bread..."  Not a great work of art?  Then give credit to Allen Ginsberg.  The social customs of unassimilated Persians under the caliphate (if not the Sufis) would not have been strange, or unfamiliar, to the Beatniks with their hipster code.  (yeah, they were both *cheap*, "on principle")

Why must a double standard be applied to a D.M. Thomas, an (early) Erica Jong... or an Annie Sprinkle?  Good masculine Westerners roll their eyes when some feminist bleeds her personal relationships on paper and calls it art, yet Sharon Olds or Margaret Atwood had nothing on Catullus in this regard.  Herotica and Black Lace is porn; Sappho, Juvenal, and Petronius are great literature.

Goddess!  And Objectivists wonder how any one else could fail to see the obvious superiority of West-wing, West-handed, Western culture with its stunning single theme of the triumph of the West, as an endless approach to the summit of the beatific vision of John Galt and rational man.  Could it be that there are other heights, just as the hated multiculturalists and postmodernists claim?  Could it be that we have another case of the posh and pampered complaining that the vernacular isn't being pushed back out of their precious neighborhoods?  Could it be that others of us are well schooled in the greatnesses of Western civilization, and yet feel the value of our own narratives marginalized, and ourselves continuously dismissed in the uses of our faculties? 

Oh, of course not.  Nihilistic envy!  Ephemeral feminist nonsense!

Fancy that!


Y / ]o
P. of Cyprus


Post 41

Tuesday, October 5, 2004 - 12:14amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Very well said, Jeanine.

Post 42

Tuesday, October 5, 2004 - 6:39amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
"Could it be that there are other heights, just as the hated multiculturalists and postmodernists claim?"

Sure, like the heights of a non-rational mysticism which is factually incorrect (defies reality), and, once it become a cultural fixture, allows Socialism and Postmodern art to destroy a culture which holds life, acheivement, happiness as the standard of value, in favor of a culture of defeat, death, oppression, and ultimately, the death of any objective value at all.

The answer to your question is no, there are no other heights.

Post 43

Tuesday, October 5, 2004 - 9:13amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Wow, its a shame we can't sift through everyone's knowledge here: Joe's knowledge of the history of rock; Jeanine’s encyclopedia who's who of Western Art and popular culture (and probably all other works from everywhere); Matthew's seriousness; Jonathan's education and contemporary savvy; Alec's intent; Peter's aesthetic prowess and practice; Barbara's wisdom; Rick's humor (Michelangelo praising the brilliance of Pollock); Linz's knowledge of the voice; Scott's reason; Ashley's good life.

 

You all want to join up somewhere, my studio perhaps, or would that be too influencing a place?, I will turn all the works to face the walls (which is how I have it most of the time), have a barbeque, lots of meat (for the carnivores, gays, horny women, and Jeanine) and, for those of us with a larger scope of food's possibilities, lots of vegetables...no classical music, no rock...will anyone complain if its Ella Fitzgerald?!

 

Michael


Post 44

Tuesday, October 5, 2004 - 9:30amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Everyone knows that the greatest achievement in western art was a tie between the film Porky's 2:  The Next Day, and those classic paintings of dogs playing poker.  Get a clue, people.

I mean, seriously.  Sheesh.


Post 45

Tuesday, October 5, 2004 - 11:33amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Sheesh, Orion. I mean, C'MON...:)

Post 46

Tuesday, October 5, 2004 - 10:25amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Orion: Porky's 2? Nah, it would have to be Breakin' 2: Electric Boogaloo. (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0086999/) Better title, equally profound.

Post 47

Tuesday, October 5, 2004 - 12:41pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Joe,

 I don't quite follow how Tom (a.k.a. Scott) proved your point.  Reading his posts and yours, it appears your views are in contrast.  He is saying (and I think rightfully so) that Western culture is superior to other forms of culture, and that it is appropriate to judge art on objective standards.  It appears your views are more consistent with the multiculturalists that the majority of Objectivists disagree with.  Unless I misinterpreted what you are trying to say, it appears you are saying that different "groups" have different standards, and it is unfair to judge anything by one standard.


Post 48

Tuesday, October 5, 2004 - 12:45pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Jeanine,

You have to be the most educated (or at least well-read) escorts I know of!  Not that I know too many, of course . . .


Post 49

Tuesday, October 5, 2004 - 2:09pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
The Big 3 of Western Art:

Michelangelo, Leonardo and Snoppy
Snoopy and Woodstock

George


Post 50

Tuesday, October 5, 2004 - 4:14pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I gave this topic waaaay too much thought already...but I had one more thought as I was walking today...These are just brainstorms, food for thought...

In regards to the idea of a single great achievement in the art of the Western civilization: is this a collective single achievement, (which would be odd for an Objectivist forum) or an achievement by an individual (is this individual really speaking for the entire Western civilization?)?

I ask, because I was thinking back to something Rand said...regarding a hypothetical sub-atomic creature...she claimed that such a creature would be able to directly experience the existence an atom, whereas we have to infer their existence. I believe she said that it would take a genius among us to know what an idiot among the creature would already know. So the identification of atoms among them would not be a great achievement the way it would be for us.

Ok, my point is, certain works of antiquity may be great achievements because of the work required to achieve it, but after that, would it be an achievement, say, if I created a statue similar to David, without having been exposed to Michelangelo's work? Or if I discovered a planet that others already know about, but unknown to me at the time? Should we stop trying to create the next David, or ATLAS SHRUGGED, and instead look forward? Should DARK SIDE OF THE MOON aspire to Beethoven's ninth? We don't put down Arkansas for being un-Kansas.
Or, if the rest of said civilization is not involved in the creation of a great work, should that great work be considered representative as the greatest work of that civilization? Rand sometimes acted as if that was the case, but even she would admit to standing on the shoulders of giants. Still, if she did not believe in society as an entity, is it valid for an Objectivist to speak of the greatest achievement of Western civilization? Or ever western civilization in general?

I am reminded of Kay Gonda in IDEAL, which ties in with what Matthew wrote about not being blind to achievements in today's art...we are so fixed on a preconceived notion of what constitutes great art, that we miss it when it's in front of us.


(Edited by Joe Maurone on 10/05, 9:23pm)

(Edited by Joe Maurone on 10/05, 9:24pm)


Post 51

Tuesday, October 5, 2004 - 4:25pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Byron, I was trying to say that Scott proved my point about the attitude that claiming an ultimate truth leads towards a fascist attitude where one needs to mark his opponent as wrong (and possibly evil.) I am reminded of Chris Sciabarra's epilogue in RUSSIAN RADICAL (btw, definitely worth the cover price; what was wrong with the section on esthetics?) where he discusses the hubris of reification. I think that Objectivists are just as guilty of this as the postmodernists and feminists that Scott accuses...And in the example of DAVID, I think Jeannie made the point pretty clear that there is more that one possible interpretation. (After all, it is just a statue of a man, which leaves it open to psychological projection, which brings in that subjective element.) Again, just my personal view that we can learn a lot more from a work of art by not being trapped into a corner by claiming one ultimate ideal, or ultimate truths, which, again, reminds me of fascism. And it does seem oddly Platonic for an Objectivist to claim an ultimate ideal.

Post 52

Tuesday, October 5, 2004 - 5:36pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Joe,

You mis-read the question. You say "in regards to the idea of a single great achievement in Western civilization..." (italics mine) but the question asks for the single greatest achievement in Western Art. Art and civilisation are certainly related, but they're not identical. Thus, you're trying to make too much soup from something that's not even an onion. :-)

Your other point here is a good one, however: "[C]ertain works of antiquity may be great achievements because of the work required to achieve it, but after that, would it be an achievement, say, if I created a statue similar to David..."

Of course it wouldn't, but we can as you recognise stand on the shoulders of these giants. But in order to do that of course we must first recognise them as giants, which is what is apparently in dispute here.

And of course since later artists are standing on the shoulders of giants it would be tempting to apply a more stringent standard to them, wouldn't it? We shouldn't put down Pink Floyd for not being Beethoven for example, but of course we should still judge them as compared  to Beethoven. After all, they chose to work in a field he'd already illuminated. :-)

We could easily judge Rodin in this way for example. Standing on Michelangelo's broad shoulders he made his own works of genius, and we could judge him by expecting more from him. For me I have to say it's a toss up whether Michelangelo or Rodin was the greatest sculptor. We can look at and admire what Frank Lloyyd Wright achieved standing on the shoulders of his mentors, and realise that he so far surpassed them that they really had no idea what he was about.

Anyway, the works chosen for the poll were not chosen by virtue of being works of antiquity - they range, after all, from the Renaissance (David) to 1936 (Fallingwater) - they were chosen because they are each arguably the greatest work of art in their respective genres as judged by the standards of Objectivist aesthetics. Perhaps it is that standard that troubles you? Or does any standard applied to judging art trouble you?

You also warn against: "not being blind to achievements in today's art...we are so fixed on a preconceived notion of what constitutes great art, that we miss it when it's in front of us."  Now I agree that we are all sometimes prone to that; it's true that we can sometimes think that no good art is created today, partly because there is more truth to that statement than we would really like, and so much dross is produced that it can drown out the good stuff (good, that is, by objective standards). But the examples of Michael Newberry and David Knowles and the like show us that's not really true, and that we really don't need to drop our standards in order to appreciate what's produced today - in fact if we did drop our standards we couldn't even appreciate these great contemporary works.

The key word here then as far as enjoying great contemporary art is 'great,' not 'contemporary'; we should recognise greatness when we see (and hear) it for what it is; and if we really want to enjoy it, then we should learn to appreciate it. And when we do - when we are at home with great art -  why then would we want to make ourselves comfortable with mediocrity.


Post 53

Tuesday, October 5, 2004 - 6:06pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Yes, Peter, I did confuse art with civilization...

1936 feels like antiquity to me ;)

Since you ask, (and I really don't care to defend myself, I am writing this since I was asked...and it may put my previous comments in perspective.) I do have a trouble with Objectivist standards of art, as an artist myself. But then again, as a recovering Objectivist, I have a problem with much of Objectivism. But that's another story...But for brevity, I will just say that I read the ROMANTIC MANIFESTO, and was challenged by Ron Merril's critique in his book about Rand...as well as the ideas of Torres and Kamhi, and the firestorm of replies in the JARS symposium. And my own experiences with art contradict Rand in some places, though I think the ART of FICTION shows a side of Rand's theories that challenge the ROMANTIC MANIFESTO. What troubles me is her comparison of music to literature, she seemed to refer to lyrical music at the expense of instrumental music. I don't like her attitude towards dramatic music as being malevolent in order to champion "tiddlywink" music, even as her stories, if music, would be hardly tiddlywink music. (It is interesting that she tried to write her O Henry inspired stories, and light hearted pieces like GOOD COPY.)

I object because Rand tried to make music rational, tried to understand it as if it was a novel. She presented the notion that music was in the anteroom of understanding...I bought that for years. But now I think the opposite, I like the saying that all great art aspires to the status of music. But what would you expect from someone who's been reading Jung? I know that what I am saying is heretical to Objectivism, but my biggest problem with Rand and art is her devaluation of emotions in favor of reason. Not that I want to devalue reason, mind you. Just don't want to devalue emotion. I think back to Barbara's description of Rand's attack on her artistic choices, and Barbara's reaction to nature, for that matter. Tragic that Rand could do that to people.

Post 54

Tuesday, October 5, 2004 - 6:49pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Hey, how come no one has brought up Rand's preference of Micky Spillane to Shakespeare, or Charlie's Angels for that matter? Of her preference for Tiddlywink music? Didn't she believe it superior to Beethoven?


Anyway... I see what you're saying, Peter, abour Pink Floyd being compared to Beethoven because they both work in the field of music. But I think that is an oversimplification.(I have to add here that I think that there is a parallel between you Frank Lloyd Wright example and the Floyd/Beethoven example. The members of Pink Floyd were originally architecture students, and when they wrote their music, they brought that architecture experience with them...interesting when you consider the "music frozen in stone" theory from the FOUNTAINHEAD. Anyway, I make the same claim about the Floyd, that what they were doing was so far ahead of its time that it wasn't immediately appreciated by the establishment.) Yes, they were musicians, but the forms of music differed. Beethoven wrote lieder, sonatas, symphonies with acoustic instruments. Floyd wrote songs, song cycles, but also worked with electronic instruments and recording technology. Beethoven worked with European music, Floyd worked with that, as well as rock, jazz, country, opera. Floyd also worked with new forms of electronic music, which opened another world of sonic possibilities. Beethoven already wrote the 5th and 9th, there was no need to recreate his work with electronic equipment, like the Hooked on Classics series. They explored the possibilities of the electronics into new forms. Of course, that started with the Beatles...But they also did work with acoustic instruments. They also did movie soundtracks...They did long form, short form, they could be rough, gentle, scary, funny, adventurous, traditional...they took chances, and did not confine themselves to one ideal formula. They found multiple approaches, some worked better than others. It's apples and oranges, but if you really want to compare, fine. I think it's a testament to the album that DARK SIDE OF THE MOON stayed on the Billboard charts for 700 plus consecutive weeks. It obviously resonated, touched the proverbial chord.
But I will present a counterargument to my claims, made by one of the band members. Roger Waters referred to an interview with a member of another band, who claimed that his own work was real art, you had to sit down and listen to it, unlike, say, Pink Floyd. Waters remarked that he knew where the person was coming from, because he used to think the same way. But he thought that was the pretentiousness of his youth, that his work should be special. He had grown away from the idea of art as aggrandizement, less egocentric, and more univeral, meaning that we all have something to add. This was the Roger Waters who went on to write THE WALL, which chronicles a megalomaniacal rock star who believes the hype, and sees himself as the special artist his fans make him out to be. This manifests in a nightmare where the star becomes a fascist leading a Nuremberg-like rally, on a Wagnerian scale. But this is the Twilight of the Gods, as his ego becomes inflated in the Jungian sense of the term. Waters knew that there was something fascist in the ideal monolithic statement, that is why the wall comes down, and he now sings that "Each small candle lights a corner of the dark."

I think Paglia sums it up nicely when she talked about her unease with Rand's politics..."I don't think that...Rand is a fascist particularly, but I think there is a kind of contempt for ordinary people...I love the high achiever. I am a great worshipper of the high achiever. But I also feel at home with people of the working class. And I think that in Rand there is a little bit of a kind of snobbish elitism about those vulgar masses out there."

I concur. I think that we can have big achievements, and small achievements, and that we need to listen to the dialogue between the two in our lives. Chris Sciabarra talks about Rand being at her best as a dialectician. In the matter of art, I prefer to look to the big achievements as well as the smaller ones to learn from. And I think that the small ones can be just as important as a big one, and the big ones can't exist without the small ones.
(Edited by Joe Maurone on 10/06, 9:50am)


Post 55

Tuesday, October 5, 2004 - 7:48pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Joe:

In context, yes, there is a right and wrong, or most right, and most wrong. Either you agree with Rand that the standard of all value for man is man's life or you don't. (I do not mean you particularly). If you don't, its easy to understand why one might accord multiculturalism some credence, accept 'female logic' and the the rights of trees as against man. This, I believe, is where are fundamental difference lies. If you do hold these basics of Objectivism as true, only by ignoring context can one, straight-faced, compare a stream of conciousness emotional ejacualtion on a page to the greatest writers the West has to offer, and compare Metallica, or worse, to Rachmaninov. Or a modern primitive's cave-drawing to Rembrandt. Or a postmodern "shit-stained toilet" sculpture to Michelangelo's "David." You do not seem to ahve a clear answer to this, other than to bash anyone who does as committing 'reification' or being a facist. Well, which is it: ~do~ you hold man's life and happiness as the ultimate standard of value, or don't you? (Now I do mean you, specifically). Once we have this answer, I'll know how to further respond, because you are either life-hating or not focusing on context properly. Or maybe there is another possibility I haven't considered yet. By all means, straighten me out.

I think you do have a point, which I have tried to make several times (not in this thread but generally), about 'great art' and entertainment. What I enjoy as fluff entertainment I see as having relatively minor significance generally, and specifically, little significance as a reflection of my sense of life. I enjoyed Metallica's Black album, and I ~really! have fun at horror movies. But when appreciation of pop culture can even enter your conciousness when discussing the ~greatest~ achievements of Western civilization (and also note--we ~are~ speaking in the limited sense of Western civilzation, so why you and Jeanine need to bring up other cultures at all is puzzling) this leads me to think that this is a context issue.

Here's the problem with lending different interpretations of heretofore great art credence, without judging the merits of the observations against objective standards: you are at the whim of every crackpot and psychotic who sees Christ in every doorknob, oppression of the proletariot in every novel, and the rape of the eternal feminine by a cruel patriarchy in every Doonsbury comic strip. Down that path lies madness. But if you do not concede that any answer or estimation is any better, or more accurate, or more true than any other, well, then ok, multiculturalism deserves as much credence as insectism, socialism, doorknobism, or whatever.

"I think it's a testament to the album that DARK SIDE OF THE MOON stayed on the Billboard charts for 700 plus consecutive weeks. It obviously resonated, touched the proverbial chord."

Yeah, and for thousands of years, the belief that the world was flat 'resonated' and 'hit a chord.'

"I don't think that...Rand is a fascist particularly, but I think there is a kind of contempt for ordinary people...I love the high achiever. I am a great worshipper of the high achiever. But I also feel at home with people of the working class. And I think that in Rand there is a little bit of a kind of snobbish elitism about those vulgar masses out there.""

I wonder if Paglia actually read any Rand? Doesn't Rand say that reason and individualism is ~everyone's~ birthright? Snobbish? Because she is telling these same 'working class' peole that their lives are their own? And that happiness is within their grasp, if only they will think, and reach? Yeah, what a fucken elistist bitch that Rand was...

"...since I was asked...and it may put my previous comments in perspective.) I do have a trouble with Objectivist standards of art"

You evidently have problems with the fundamentals of Objectivism, too...

Post 56

Tuesday, October 5, 2004 - 8:28pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Scott,
Yes, I think it's obvious by now I have issues with the fundamentals of Objectivism. Again, I am not going to try and defend it in depth, but I will reference the Branden biographies, the work of Carl Jung, and the Scott Ryan book Objectivism and the Corruption of Rationality, as well as my own 8 year experience as an Objectivist, which sounds like a chapter of Bell-Villada's The Pianist Who Liked Ayn Rand.

In response to your about resonance of flat worlds,
well, I guess the fact that ATLAS SHRUGGED resonated enough to be voted the second most influential book by the Library of Congress, it means nothing since the Bible was voted umber one.
But it's not my place to straighten you out, Scott, but if Objectivism is as valid as you claim, then you won't mind a little boat shaking, will you?
(Edited by Joe Maurone on 10/06, 9:53am)

(Edited by Joe Maurone on 10/06, 9:55am)


Post 57

Tuesday, October 5, 2004 - 8:04pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
>Sure, like the heights of a non-rational mysticism which is factually incorrect (defies reality), and, once it become a cultural fixture, allows Socialism and Postmodern art to destroy a culture which holds life, acheivement, happiness as the standard of value, in favor of a culture of defeat, death, oppression, and ultimately, the death of any objective value at all.

>The answer to your question is no, there are no other heights.

Are you trying to tell me that the Old and New Testaments, Homer, Plato, the Shahname, A Thousand and one Nights, the Rubaiyat, Euripides, Aristophanes, the Norse sagas, Dante, Marlowe, Shakespeare, Shelley, Blake, Geothe, Nietzsche, van Gogh, Ibsen, Gilbert and Sullivan, Victor Hugo, Wagner, A.E. Housman, T.S. Eliot, Arthur Miller, Salvador Dali, Tolkien, Sartre (and Rand) all promote a single perspective of the highest in 'life, achievement, and happiness as the standard of value'?

Or are you trying to tell me that they do indeed stand for very different conceptions of the heights, but that we shouldn't permit ourselves to find value in most of them (as you can't possibly with any degree of literacy get even half of them to line up behind any one viewpoint), respond passionately to them, shouldn't read them, and should only read those works of art which promote 'life, achievement, and happiness as the standard of value'?

If so, please provide guidance as to which authors/artists for which I should purge my experiences of passionate happiness, in order to achieve a life of passionate happiness.

Which is the one true height there are no others than?

?

Jeanine Ring  {))(*)((}


Post 58

Tuesday, October 5, 2004 - 9:07pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
You have to be the most educated (or at least well-read) escorts I know of!  Not that I know too many, of course . . .

Byron-

I do thank you for the compliment, but I assure you that I am anything but unique among my sisters.  'Escorting' (I do not like the the term, but in America what can I do?) has a history of cultivation of the intellect and liberal arts at least as old as philosophy itself- witness the Japanese geisha, or the Greek hetaerae, or the courtesans of the Renaissance.  My own practice is in the tradition of the hetaerae and the heirodulic Ishtarishtu.

Escorts- the best of those who chose the Life voluntarily and aspire to greatness- are all but uniformly inspired by such models.  My philosophic background may be slightly unusual for a serious escort, but my literary and historical knowledge is not; and most escorts I have met have reacted to my profession of classical inspirations less with surprise than amused impatience at the moonstruck prima donna who thinks she's the first person to fall in love with the Life like this.

I greatly thank you for kind words, but the complement does not belong to me.  My elder sisters put me to shame.

Jeanine  {))(*)((}


Post 59

Wednesday, October 6, 2004 - 1:37amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Peter,

Anyway, the works chosen for the poll were not chosen by virtue of being works of antiquity - they range, after all, from the Renaissance (David) to 1936 (Fallingwater) - they were chosen because they are each arguably the greatest work of art in their respective genres as judged by the standards of Objectivist aesthetics.
In what way is Metallica's Black Album the greatest work of art in it's genre by Objectivist standards? The poll was nothing more than an attempt to piss off those of us who feel the beauty in certain forms of rock/metal.

Joe,

Hey, how come no one has brought up Rand's preference of Micky Spillane to Shakespeare, or Charlie's Angels for that matter? Of her preference for Tiddlywink music? Didn't she believe it superior to Beethoven?

Rand did indeed find intellectual value in what might be termed the popular light entertainment of her times. Someone please correct me if I'm wrong but I believe she also specifically singled out Beethoven's music as embodying a malevolent sense of life.

MH


Post to this threadBack one pagePage 0Page 1Page 2Page 3Page 4Page 5Forward one pageLast Page


User ID Password or create a free account.