RANDom question (haha, bad pun): why doesn't this discussion bring in engineering or architechture as a form of art? because from what I've read in 'Fountain' and 'Atlas,' Rand certainly considered us brainy creationist types as artists as well. It seems odd that both novels focus more on technological innovators whose works are artful and beautiful because they fulfill a purpose in a way that is uniquely efficient or useful. Not to say that fine arts don't fulfill this purpose, but your statement "When Rand talks about art, she talks about the philosophy behind art, the original meaning of 'aesthetics' in the Greek system, and her dealings with art are limited to the fine arts, definitely." is decidely confusing to me.
I considering engineering in it's purest form to be an art form (purest form = not my current job). And Rand seems to agree when she describes Roark's buildings as efficient, and aestically pleasing because of their efficiency and their appropriate use of their natural surroundings. And her descriptions of Rearden steel turn me on, in a sense probably similar to your theory-whore!ness.
apologies if i misunderstood. my head is stuffy today. and you use a lot of big words they didn't teach us in the college of engineering. :P
If, in Rand's view, 'the primary purpose of art... is the meaningful objectification of whatever is metaphysically important to man', then we can look at it like this:
More practical or industrial endeavors (things that definitely do not fall into the fine arts category, such as architecture, steel production, or what have you) are not technically considered artistic pursuits in and of themselves, but in exceptional cases, people who practice them can be considered artists, because the end result of their labors is a 'meaningful objectification of whatever is metaphysically important to man'.
In Rand's world, these metaphysically important things could probably labeled with names like 'logic', 'efficiency', 'practical usefulness', etc.
I haven't gotten far enough yet for that to be discussion -- apparently I'm still learning about psycho-epistemologies and cognitive melodies. However, Ch. 10's titled: Architecture: 'Art' or 'Design?' so I think I'm heading in that direction.
I did skip ahead a bit, to have a glance through the first few pages of that chapter, and saw this:
"In her preparatory notes for [Fountainhead], she wrote that architecture is 'the most important of the arts' [...] Yet, in her essays on art, Rand says virtually nothing about either the theory or the practice of architecture" (189). According to these guys, Rand didn't go back to it unless she was making the clarification worse, because it would require extensive revision of her opinions on either Fountainhead or aesthetic theory as a whole.
They go into some detail on Batteux and D'Alembert, but any serious discussion on Rand's aesthetics would, yes, have to revise this statement. Her earlier statement, that "architecture is in a class by itself, because it combines art with a utilitarian purpose and does not re-create reality, but creates a structure for man's habitation or use" (190) is problematic and flawed. But still interesting.
That's probably more than you wanted to know, but I think it's interesting as well, and no, you didn't misunderstand anything. This is part of what scares me about generating a new theory -- all the loops and holes that I might write myself into, the potential for self-contradiction. I think I'm more scared of that than I am the research.
I'll be sure to revisit the question when I actually get to this chapter.
I don't think a disparity exists in her thought, just in the way she expressed herself.
As I said above, an exceptional practical creation can be considered art by the 'metaphyical importance' definition, if you consider things such as logic and efficiency metaphysically important, as Rand so obviously does.
I guess my only question would be: does that sentence which defines the primary purpose of art as the meaningful objectification of whatever is metaphysically important come from Rand herself, or from the authors of that book?
The sentence in question comes from Rand herself, in a series of lectures/essays she wrote. The authors of the text go on to say "For Rand, every art work--whether of painting, sculpture, literature, music, or dance--is a "selective recreation of reality" that serves to objectify, in an integrated form, significant aspects of its creator's basic "sense of life" (15).
Re: the architecture aspect: "For her, must as for Tolstoy and for the nineteenth-century philosophers in general, 'art' means primarily painting, sculpture, music, and literature (fiction, poetry, and drama)" (14). In her notes for Fountainhead, she writes that architecture is "the most important of the arts," but then "what little she does say about the nature of architecture in "Art and Cognition" is obviously inconsistent with her theory of art" (189). Purely focusing on her aesthetics, architecture doesn't belong, and the authors of this particular text quote Scruton when they're trying to justify Rand's evasion. I'm going to quote verbatim, because this is fascinating, so bear with me.
"From the outset Scruton acknowledges that architecture presents an "immediate problem" for any aesthetic theory, since "through it's impersonal and at the same time functional qualities [it] stands apart from the other arts, seeming to require quite peculiar attitudes, not only for its creation, but also its enjoyment" (5). More specifically, he observes that: "representational arts, such as painting, drama, poetry, and sculpture, give rise to an interest unlike the interest aroused by such abstract arts as music and architecture. But...music has expressive, sensuous and dramatic powers in common with the representational arts. Only architecture seems to stand wholly apart from them, being distinguished from the other arts by certain features that cannot fail to determine our attitudes toward it" (5).
Which, of course, does nothing to answer your question; it just seems that a few other people have had this problem besides Rand, and she did sort of work herself into a corner by writing Fountainhead and placing architecture as the greatest of the arts before she fully formulated her aesthetic theory.
The biggest difference between the arts and architecture (according to these authors and their sources) is the function. If a building does not serve it's function, it doesn't matter how beautiful it is. The arts don't have this problem, as their function is specifically to express. The architect designs for others, not what is metaphysically important to him; he's not autonomous. In that regard, though, commissioned artists are the same way, so where's the line?
I'm not sure. I don't think I've gotten that far into the book yet.
The architect designs for others, not what is metaphysically important to him; he's not autonomous.
Considered along with the above sentence, we have the key to reconciling Rand's aesthetics with her statement that architecture is the most important of the arts (at least up to a point).
See, Howard Roark does exactly the opposite of the above statement in FH and is portrayed by Rand as a hero. He is quite autonomous and his design concepts do objectify what is metaphysically important to him. This puts him in stark contrast with Peter Keating & co.
That is why, in the framework of Rand's aesthetics, it is possible to call Howard Roark an artist, and to say at the same time that Keating is not one. Inside this framework, considering architecture an art form doesn't mean that everyone who practices it is automatically an artist, but it does leave room for them, in exceptional cases.
As for architecture being the most important of the arts... well, that is still VERY much arguable from my point of view. But to play devil's advocate for Rand one more time, she could justify it by saying that architecture is the only art form that serves a really practical purpose.
Also, in a way, it is the most accessible, with a building being viewed by anyone who happens to pass by. Perhaps by tens, or even hundreds, of thousands of people per day in some cases, for as long as the building stands.
I considering engineering in it's purest form to be an art form (purest form = not my current job). And Rand seems to agree when she describes Roark's buildings as efficient, and aestically pleasing because of their efficiency and their appropriate use of their natural surroundings. And her descriptions of Rearden steel turn me on, in a sense probably similar to your theory-whore!ness.
apologies if i misunderstood. my head is stuffy today. and you use a lot of big words they didn't teach us in the college of engineering. :P
Reply
also, did you know about this:
http://www.objectivistcenter.org/cth-13-1759-AtlasShruggedMovieNewsHomepage.aspx
Angelina Jolie??
Reply
And...huh.
Reply
More practical or industrial endeavors (things that definitely do not fall into the fine arts category, such as architecture, steel production, or what have you) are not technically considered artistic pursuits in and of themselves, but in exceptional cases, people who practice them can be considered artists, because the end result of their labors is a 'meaningful objectification of whatever is metaphysically important to man'.
In Rand's world, these metaphysically important things could probably labeled with names like 'logic', 'efficiency', 'practical usefulness', etc.
Reply
I did skip ahead a bit, to have a glance through the first few pages of that chapter, and saw this:
"In her preparatory notes for [Fountainhead], she wrote that architecture is 'the most important of the arts' [...] Yet, in her essays on art, Rand says virtually nothing about either the theory or the practice of architecture" (189). According to these guys, Rand didn't go back to it unless she was making the clarification worse, because it would require extensive revision of her opinions on either Fountainhead or aesthetic theory as a whole.
They go into some detail on Batteux and D'Alembert, but any serious discussion on Rand's aesthetics would, yes, have to revise this statement. Her earlier statement, that "architecture is in a class by itself, because it combines art with a utilitarian purpose and does not re-create reality, but creates a structure for man's habitation or use" (190) is problematic and flawed. But still interesting.
That's probably more than you wanted to know, but I think it's interesting as well, and no, you didn't misunderstand anything. This is part of what scares me about generating a new theory -- all the loops and holes that I might write myself into, the potential for self-contradiction. I think I'm more scared of that than I am the research.
I'll be sure to revisit the question when I actually get to this chapter.
Reply
As I said above, an exceptional practical creation can be considered art by the 'metaphyical importance' definition, if you consider things such as logic and efficiency metaphysically important, as Rand so obviously does.
I guess my only question would be: does that sentence which defines the primary purpose of art as the meaningful objectification of whatever is metaphysically important come from Rand herself, or from the authors of that book?
Reply
Re: the architecture aspect: "For her, must as for Tolstoy and for the nineteenth-century philosophers in general, 'art' means primarily painting, sculpture, music, and literature (fiction, poetry, and drama)" (14). In her notes for Fountainhead, she writes that architecture is "the most important of the arts," but then "what little she does say about the nature of architecture in "Art and Cognition" is obviously inconsistent with her theory of art" (189). Purely focusing on her aesthetics, architecture doesn't belong, and the authors of this particular text quote Scruton when they're trying to justify Rand's evasion. I'm going to quote verbatim, because this is fascinating, so bear with me.
"From the outset Scruton acknowledges that architecture presents an "immediate problem" for any aesthetic theory, since "through it's impersonal and at the same time functional qualities [it] stands apart from the other arts, seeming to require quite peculiar attitudes, not only for its creation, but also its enjoyment" (5). More specifically, he observes that: "representational arts, such as painting, drama, poetry, and sculpture, give rise to an interest unlike the interest aroused by such abstract arts as music and architecture. But...music has expressive, sensuous and dramatic powers in common with the representational arts. Only architecture seems to stand wholly apart from them, being distinguished from the other arts by certain features that cannot fail to determine our attitudes toward it" (5).
Which, of course, does nothing to answer your question; it just seems that a few other people have had this problem besides Rand, and she did sort of work herself into a corner by writing Fountainhead and placing architecture as the greatest of the arts before she fully formulated her aesthetic theory.
The biggest difference between the arts and architecture (according to these authors and their sources) is the function. If a building does not serve it's function, it doesn't matter how beautiful it is. The arts don't have this problem, as their function is specifically to express. The architect designs for others, not what is metaphysically important to him; he's not autonomous. In that regard, though, commissioned artists are the same way, so where's the line?
I'm not sure. I don't think I've gotten that far into the book yet.
Reply
The architect designs for others, not what is metaphysically important to him; he's not autonomous.
Considered along with the above sentence, we have the key to reconciling Rand's aesthetics with her statement that architecture is the most important of the arts (at least up to a point).
See, Howard Roark does exactly the opposite of the above statement in FH and is portrayed by Rand as a hero. He is quite autonomous and his design concepts do objectify what is metaphysically important to him. This puts him in stark contrast with Peter Keating & co.
That is why, in the framework of Rand's aesthetics, it is possible to call Howard Roark an artist, and to say at the same time that Keating is not one. Inside this framework, considering architecture an art form doesn't mean that everyone who practices it is automatically an artist, but it does leave room for them, in exceptional cases.
As for architecture being the most important of the arts... well, that is still VERY much arguable from my point of view. But to play devil's advocate for Rand one more time, she could justify it by saying that architecture is the only art form that serves a really practical purpose.
Also, in a way, it is the most accessible, with a building being viewed by anyone who happens to pass by. Perhaps by tens, or even hundreds, of thousands of people per day in some cases, for as long as the building stands.
Reply
Leave a comment