As Charles Oliver of Reason wrote in March of 2001:
Torres and Kamhi treat Rand's aesthetics with respect, though not with slavish devotion. They don't hesitate to correct her when they think she is wrong, or where she substitutes simple personal preference for ostensibly rational theory. One great irony suffuses What Art Is: Though Rand as a political philosopher advocated mostly untrammeled liberty, Torres and Kamhi's book hints that defending her "objective" standard of art may provide support for censorship.Broadway Boogie-WoogieBefore explaining their own views on art, Torres and Kamhi address the most typical extant definition of art. Art, say many, is that which artists produce--a perfectly circular definition. What is an artist? Someone who produces art. So what is art? You get the picture. A similar problem faces a related set of questions: Art is what hangs in museums or galleries. What are galleries or museums? Places that display art. Following Rand, Torres and Kamhi seek to avoid such tautologies and fashion a proper definition of art by asking what purpose it serves.
Let's take a look at one of the most important of the modernists of the first half of the 20th century, Piet Mondrian, who transformed his art from a sort of muted Dutch impressionism to blocks of pure red, white, yellow, blue and black colors in rigorously geometric shapes. Charles Oliver writes:
"Rand...implies that so--called abstract art is not art at all, since it reduces the visual field to 'mere sense data,' in effect by eliminating the representation of objects or entities," Torres and Kamhi write. They agree with Rand on this point and go on to provide a fascinating critique of the muddled thinking of most modern artists and critics, and of the work those artists produce. Piet Mondrian, for instance, famously argued that physical objects "must be banished" from art, which must represent only "pure relationships." Of course, Mondrian wasn't too clear about how relationships could be portrayed without showing the things that were related.Reading the book, I'm sort of in a quandary-some of examples of pop art gone over the edge--for example, John Cage's "4:33", his famous silent composition, are, on one level, silly, and you won't get any disagreement from me over Rand's condemnation this sort of conceptual art. But I have a real love of the modernists of the first half of the 20th century. For example, I understand that in terms of sheer technique, it's precipitous drop from Da Vinci to Mondrian. And yet, I love Mondrian's works, and bought and framed several prints of his most famous paintings for my apartment while I was in my mid 20s.
![The Fountainhead [VHS]](http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51WJA5B035L._SL120_.jpg)
Article comments
1 - Al Barger
I would strongly disagree that Rand's views on aesthetics would provide an argument for censorship. They do not. Not thinking that something is really art doesn't mean that you would believe in censoring it.
Somehow, you failed to mention her main work on aesthetics, The Romantic Manifesto.
Her basic arguments about meaning and representation and values in art are quite good, but as she was sometimes want to do, she could be rather arbitrary and just refuse to see other points of view.
Thus, she saw absolutely no value in Elvis Presley, or anything in the rock tradition. That's not because there's not skill and values, but she just didn't see them or relate to them, and thus insisted that they didn't exist.
Ah well, nobody's perfect.
2 - Ed Driscoll
Al,
I haven't read it, but I almost included an Amazon link to it. Based on the description on Amazon, it sounded much more like a criticism of literature than painting or sculpture. Guess I should have included it!
Ed
3 - Mac Diva
Ayn Rand was about as conservative as a person could get. There is no inherent conflict between being an atheist and being a conservative. Besides, Rand had a God -- money. As for Rand's opinions of art, there doesn't seem to be much there. Looks like writers desperately in need of a topic, so they made one up, to me. Imagining what Ayn Rand would say about a future she lacked the imagination to even envision? Please.
4 - Al Barger
The Romantic Manifesto is her broad treatise on aesthetics and beauty. She used more examples to make her point from the written word - partly because that was her personal milieu - but it's more concerned with general principles of art, and how to judge better from worse.
If you are interested in her ideas on art and literature specifically, this would be a good place to start.
5 - Shark
Coupla minor things:
"...its precipitous drop from Da Vinci to Mondrian..."
If you've ever seen Mondrian's early works, you'll understand that the 'drop' is not so 'precipitous'. Like most modern masters, he was quite a talented painter, illustrator, etc. when it came to relatively realistic depictions.
"...Warhol...or Roy Lichtenstein... there's a far cry from the unbelievable amount of blood, sweat, skill and sheer craftsmanship required to generate a portrait or landscape of near photographic detail (one or two or three hundred years before cameras of course) and silk screening a hundred perfect copies of an existing label or illustration."
You're on pretty fragile, subjective ground here: "blood, sweat" etc. are kind of an arbitrary way for you to define the value of an art work-- and an error, imo. Art is also about creativity, ideas, concepts.
Besides, if one wants a 'portrait or landscape of near photographic detail' --- then one can take a photograph. (heh)
Much of modern art was a response to the rise of photography.
Thanks for the review, tho!
Carry on...
6 - Shark
Couple of examples
Check out the windmill (to appear later more abstract) and the flowers.
Awesome!
7 - None
Ed,
Certainly you mean "tenets" NOT "tenants"?!?
8 - Eric Olsen
no, that's what he meant: they were renting out the basement (smile)
9 - Diane Barnes
I have a couple of very good objectivists friend. While, I can agree with some of Rand's philosophy of life, there are a few places that I highly disagree. One was her view of what art is. The objectivists I know only like the symphony,they could not tolerate any other type of music, especially rock or *Gasp* country music. They very much enjoyed art like the photography of Ansel Adams, but could not stand anything like Van Gough or Matisse.
Seems a narrow way to look at art.I just don't think that a philosophy of life can include something as subjective as the "right" kind of art or music.
The other point I disagree with Rand on is her view of women and sex. But, I suppose that's for another post.
10 - Nick Jones
Having disliked The Fountainhead (that rape scene - WTF?), and having given up on Atlas Shrugged after a few dozen pages, I'd like a recommendation on a book or two which explains Objectivism. I know I'll probably hate it, but I like to explore other points of view from time to time.
11 - DrPat
If you've already been through The Fountainhead - assuming you did not give up after the "rape scene" - you may want to check out online sources like Ayn Rand.org - you only need enter her name in Google to get a long list of references from both sides.
There are also numerous comments in reviews on BlogCritics about Rand, her works and her philosophy.
12 - Nick Jones
But is there any one book that sums up her philosophy in toto, a kind of "Objectivism 101"?
13 - DrPat
The Romantic Manifesto is fairly thorough in regard to how the philosophy fits with consideration of art.
Philosophy: Who Needs It? is a good starting place, although since you have read through The Fountainhead, you might want to start with The Voice of Reason: Essays in Objectivist Thought.
Other people's writings about Objectivism are usefull, too: Peikoff's Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand and Binswanger's The Ayn Rand Lexicon.
14 - Nick Jones
Thanks for the reading list.