Michael,

I know what bothers me about the posts of Joe, Jeanine, Alec, Jonathan, and Matthew to some extent. You are cynical.

Oh really? My largely non-O'ist circle of friends use many words to describe me, but cynical is a new one!

Don't you have hopes of a bright future? (And I mean future, like 2 to 30 years from now.) Did you ever have dreams of achieving love, exciting work, and having so much integrity that you could effortlessly say "no" to stuff that wasn't right for you?

Yes :-)

Did you ever have them or did you find that life wasn't working out the way you wished?

I do have them, and I'm eternally confident that life will work out just great.

Anyone who is working towards a dream gives off the sense of knowing they have a lot to do, to learn, to rise up to their goal...where is that in you all?

Well, I experience it every day when I'm in college or working afterwards in my room, or I reflect for a moment at what it took to get me here (including overcoming a couple of setbacks which, in my pre-Randian state, were nearly devastating; but which now seem laughably inconsequential). But of course, you don't really know me at all do you. So, you wouldn't know any of this.

It starts to make a little sense now, no? A high achievement, a masterpiece of art...who are we to judge, what about the little guy.

Huh? Throughout my comments on prog music, I have spoken of musicians that I have JUDGED to be of the highest quality! I;ve not listened to Metallica and some of the other groups that Joe and the other posters have spoken of, so I can;t comment on them, but the entire thrust of my argument has been that although much (maybe most) rock and metal is malevolent dross, certain groups are rising and have risen far far above this. They speak of heroism, beauty, freedom and achievement. As do the best of the classical composers, as do the greatest "operatic" singers (Lanza, Pavarotti, Carreras etc), as does romantic realist art (including yours) and as do the greatest novelists.

Oprah Winfrey spoke at a college and she advised the graduating class to "dream the highest greatest vision you can." I am not a particular fan of Oprah's but her success is huge and her goodwill and optimism are very apparent.

Terrific advice Michael, but with all due respect, I already know it.

I think you guys might learn a bit by looking around at who you are posting with, find out what they have to offer you, before going over the top with accusations of fascism, cultism, and aesthetic snobbery.

Christ almighty Michael! I have accused no one of "fascism, cultism, and aesthetic snobbery". Quite to the contrary, certain (non-O'ist) acquaintances consider me a tad snobbish because I'd rather listen to Beethoven than rap, punk rock or any of the other crap many people my age are drawn to!

MH

(Edited by Matthew Humphreys on 10/06, 10:49pm)

Hi Matthew,

My apologies for "dumping" on you too, I should have said to a "small" extent than "some".

You wrote: "I think that if there is to be successful cultural change, Objectivism as well as what might be termed "high art values",  must penetrate pop culture." 

Can you back that up? To what degree is popular the standard of evaluating an art works? Would that mean that for artists who hold art as sacred that they should re-evaluated their standards and attempt to appeal to the masses? Of the popular artists who do you recommend we should emulate their methods of mass appeal? Brittney Spears, Warhol, or Michael Moore? Is a Renaissance based on popular acceptance or should it be based on the furthest reaches of humanities abilities and spirit? Do you distinguish popularity from universals? Is amplified music and voice as universal as non? Do the masses direct cultural change? I mean do they knowledgably assimilate and direct new knowledge and ideas? Or is Rand closer to the truth when she thinks that 2% of population move humankind forward? Is it not disturbing that there are not new grand operas or new symphonies with huge scope and an abundance of conviction and passion? Are they not around because pop culture is the standard of aesthetic evaluation?

Michael

To what degree is popular the standard of evaluating an art works?

Would that mean that for artists who hold art as sacred that they should re-evaluated their standards and attempt to appeal to the masses?

Of the popular artists who do you recommend we should emulate their methods of mass appeal? Brittney Spears, Warhol, or Michael Moore?

Is a Renaissance based on popular acceptance or should it be based on the furthest reaches of humanities abilities and spirit?

Is amplified music and voice as universal as non?

   Is it not disturbing that there are not new grand operas or new symphonies with huge scope and an abundance of conviction and passion? Are they not around because pop culture is the standard of aesthetic evaluation?

Matthew wrote: "First off, as I understand Rand (and please do correct me if I have this wrong) she rejected any strict dichotomy between "high" culture and "pop" culture, essentially believing that "art ought to be entertaining"."

Matthew, ummm, you have me doing your homework. But I don’t mind asking questions and looking for answers.  Rand distinguishes popular literature from Romantic by its lack of dealing with abstract problems or questions; that it does not convey explicit intellectual information but, rather, takes “moral principles as the given, accepting certain generalized, common-sense ideas and values as its base.”  (RM, pp. 110) She is discussing Fleming and others here. She doesn’t use the word “high”, but she discuses how one can view Romanticisms “virtues and potential flaws” in a “simplified, more obvious form” of popular literature. But she did give him and others, great credit for creativity and skill, in that genre.

In discussing entertainment or serious art, I believe, she was answering critics that dismissed great art that was also hugely popular because it was popular. A few great artists that were dissed by critics: Rachmaninoff, Puccini, and Rand herself. I don’t recall her saying that “art ought to be entertaining”?

I am not an expert, by any means, in music, but I think the above might also characterize the contrast between symphonic work and pop music. I recall Rachmaninoff talking about how difficult and rewarding it was to create a complex, beautiful, and unique themes. Musical themes are, I humbly guess, are the content…and through the history of music, I again guess, that there have been great originators of themes and melodies…and many, many composers that simply adapt known themes…I heard something like that the other day, yes, a new symphonic composer, American, and incongruently, there was a passage that he lifted from the Greek composer, Manos Hadjidakis.

Matthew, this is the tip of the ice berg! What does Rand mean by simplified and obvious form? Would higher art forms then among their characteristics be complex and subtle?

Also, for example I don’t have the knowledge to know how original Beethoven or Mozart are? Or how much they innovated the symphonic form? Or if rock is simply different in its medium but not nearly as original in its substance?

Enough for now,

Michael

"Good Lord. At least as far as your comments about me, both in that post and our private emails, you've sure done a lot of psychologizing based on a very very small number of words that I've written."

Hi Hong,

You wrote: "The appreciation of art is such a subjective matter!...But do I think one artist's works are better than the other's? No, I don't."

An Objectivist stance on art and one that I agree with is that the experience of art is a profoundly personal experience. I would call that experience sacred. I agree completely with Irfan's comment on the similarity of experience of music and sex (what about love Irfan?). The point being your personal loves are not debatable. Truly, there are all kinds of art works I love passionately and I don't give a fuck what anyone thinks about it, i.e. from a personal, private perspective.

I always have mixed emotions discussing, writing about, or lecturing on artworks that I love; because personal favorites has nothing to do with art appreciation. I am using "art appreciation" here in its technical sense: art criticism, art history, and the science of aesthetics.

Walk into and observe any art class and it will be obvious to you, the students, the teachers that some "artists are better than others". Not talking about "technicians" either.

Every artist you mention above is brilliant. You did not mention your recreational artist neighbor, or comparing your child's doodles to Picasso. Instinctively you are making a judgment by including them in your list but you may not have the knowledge of art history and the study of art to refine your appreciation.

I don't think you need to either but, on the other hand, I don't see how you can justify that all art is equal and dismiss with that idea that there would be no need for aesthetics, the study of art, in any form. I am jumping the gun a little bit there--but logically if all art is equal, if there is no art better than others, or qualitively different, if it were only personal response and nothing else than there would be no need for the knowledge of art.

Is that what you are saying?

Cheers,

Michael