Esthetics

Why should I stop listening to music and watching movies that Objectivists would think are evil and anti-life?

Before learning about Objectivism I was emersed in esthetics that you all would find horrible. I still am because I still enjoy most of it, and I don't feel the least bit bad about it. I simultaneously hold values that Objectivists would think are contradictory; A love of aggressive, dark music and Laissez-faire Capitalism and rational selfishness.

I want to know weather or not I can take the rest of Objectivism, but leave its esthetics behind because I disagree with it.

As an example of music I am referring to, here are two examples of some of my favourite music. Both tracks are in mp3 format, and are available to the public with the permission of the artists.
The first one is 18 MB, the second is 1 MB. You will need an MP3 Player to listen to them.
If there is interest in my post, I will go on to explain why I enjoy these types of music.

http://www.studio-grey.com/da/mp3/merz_da.mp3
http://www.studio-grey.com/da/mp3/endofrebirth.mp3

Post 1

Monday, May 20, 2002 - 4:34am

The question was:

"Why should I stop listening to music and watching movies that Objectivists would think are evil and anti-life?"

Followed by:

"Before learning about Objectivism I was emersed [sic] in esthetics that you all would find horrible. I still am because I still enjoy most of it, and I don't feel the least bit bad about it. I simultaneously hold values that Objectivists would think are contradictory; A love of aggressive, dark music and Laissez-faire Capitalism and rational selfishness."

I have news for you. Laissez-Faire capitalism & rational selfishness wouldn't stand a chance in a culture dominated by "darkness" & aggression. Read what's already on this site. More to come in tomorrow's PI editorial.

Post 2

Monday, May 20, 2002 - 1:23am

Wow...that's pretty bizarre. Music is kind of a strong word for it, though.

Can you take Objectivism without the Esthetics? First, you should differentiate the Objectivist theory of esthetic as a branch of philosophy from the particular art that Objectivist hold as life-affirming and positive. You can't really drop the first (theory of art), unless you conclude that the theory is wrong (but that doesn't seem to be your point).

But you're probably asking whether it's alright to still like the stuff you like? The point here is that there are reasons why you enjoy this kind of music. As you said, you have a love of aggression. The music is just a reflection of your Sense of Life.

Here's a different way of looking at it. I know people that love particular pieces of music that are sorrowful. But they don't want to listen to them all the time. They can only listen when they're "in the mood". The music speaks to them, and reflects something going on in them.

So the question shouldn't be whether it's alright to like the music you do, but what are the reasons for them? Your love of aggression might stem from a feeling of conflict with the world around you, or with particular people. It might be a sign of some inner battle.

I'm not here to psychoanalyze you. The point is that your reaction to art does reflect your sense of life, or "emotional world view". And that's really the important part. That's why Objectivists say some art is more life-affirming than others.

So can you leave behind the Objectivist esthetic? There's a price to pay if you do.

Post 3

Thursday, June 6, 2002 - 1:48pm

Alastair, I too studied a variety of esthetic theory and criticism in college. I don't know who or what you read because you have not shared any details. I remember one particular course on pomo decon theory in which I read George Bataille, Foucault, Blanchot, the Marquis de Sade, and Derrida. The esthetics of Transgression to be precise. I was not an Objectivist at the time, although I had read the Romantic Manifesto already and forgot about it. I had gone against the best within me, and for a period of time struggled face to face with evil and fear. Let me be very concise in what I say about evil. It is the absence of value (which is life, the primary value), and it destroys reason replacing it with irrationality and self-loathing. I agree with Joe that you may be experiencing some deep inner conflict, I admire your courage in wanting to share.

You know I read Georges Bataille's book on Erotism and it actually made me so depressed that I did not leave my room for three months after the semester! True I was very impressionable at the time (21). My parents finally had to entice me out of my room (in NY) by offering me a trip to the Keys (Florida for you New Zealanders). While at Key West I encountered an Objectivist and we began a relationship that gradually fed life back into my war-torn mind. I empathize with you but I do not sympathize or compromise over questions of evil, neither do I encourage that you continue to explore that side of you.

Aggression may play a role in human survival at its lowest levels (I am thinking of Herbert Spencer's "survival of the fittest", or Tennyson's "nature, red tooth and claw"), but I think that reason is the greatest undiscovered and misunderstood tool for our survival. Stay tuned to this site because, as you can see, people here are aggressive about ideas, but the particular set of ideas you will encounter here are not dark, violent, mean-spirited, or depressing.

I am an Oscar Wilde fan, and have had to counter the depths of his depression and weltschmerz in De Profundis. That is the epitome of depression and grief. I don't think there is anything wrong with grieving or feeling sorrow, especially when you have been wronged for something you cannot control. I don't condemn Holocaust survivors who view life in a sober and sometimes grief stricken manner. I applaud those who survive and demonstrate amazing courage by living beyond the ashes. To lull, however, in self pity and in a self-condemning state of mind makes you miss out on life-affirming experiences like joy, happiness, peace, tranquility, productivity, puposefulness, etc. I would not characterize your "music" with any of these attributes, although I fully recognize your right to do as you will.

In the nineteenth century, Herbert Spencer defended laissez-faire economics on the basis of character. The particular qualities of the Victorian moral estimate included: self-restraint, perseverance, strenuous effort, courage, self-reliance, thrift, and a sense of personal responsibility and duty. I personally find all of these desireable attributes in character with the exception of duty. Duty is the one that will destroy all others, unless we mean duty to oneself alone. The mistake of the nineteenth century was to treat duty to the collective as a virtue. That unfortunate moral premiss has leaked into esthetics and now people think that they have the obligation to tolerate everything that calls itself art. I think if you will continue to read Rand, you will see that if you follow her philosophy you cannot continue to reverence aggression, for it is not a value. You don't have to like "teedle-wink" music as she did either.

Post 4

Tuesday, June 11, 2002 - 8:50am

Anthony, your posts make a great deal of sense, but I'm not sure what exactly you mean by "agression". Are you using the word in a sense involving the initiation of force, or something along the lines of a drive to master one's environment as outlined in Anthony Storr's "Human Aggression"?

Post 5

Wednesday, June 12, 2002 - 11:41am

Egad Matthew. Thank you for pointing that out, and I think it is very much relevant to clarify forcefully :) what I mean by aggression.

1. I would certainly say that the initiation of force goes contrary to rational behavior, and music that suggests and celebrates it as a value (I have in mind the majority of Rap) reflects a destructive "sense of life". Interesting I did listen to some of Alistair's music but I am a chicken, got scared, and immediately turned it off. I didn't find that the primary emotion I felt while listening was aggression, but depression. Incidentally, much of the content of teedle-wink music (turn of the century Marching band) may be considered by some to be aggressive, specifically because it is often "racist" and "sexist". The over all experience of listening to it has varying effects on people.

2. Anthony Storr, I have not read and I don't want to make the mistake of commenting on "Human Aggression" when I have not even read it. Can you elaborate? Thanks

3. I did look the word up before I posted, and found its definition in Webster to be primarily of a negative connotation. But then I did say that people on this site are aggressive but not violent, mean-spirited, or depressing. HMM!

Post 6

Sunday, June 16, 2002 - 7:37am

Well, Anthony, it looks like I lost my copy of Storr's Human Aggression, and it's been a while since I read it, but I remember the book being an exploration of the theory that aggression is a survival mechanism providing man the drive needed to master one's physical environment in order to improve his life. He also suggests that aggression is often turned towards immoral channels (such as initiating force against others) if a man's natural aggression does not have a moral outlet.

According to amazon.com the book is out of print, so you'll probably have to find a good library.

As for rap; you're right in that it glorifies initiation of force as a "virtue", but then again, rap seems to glorify depravity in place of nobility. Not that heavy metal doesn't have its nihilistic/anti-life subgenres ("doom metal", "death metal", "black metal"), but I prefer Iron Maiden's proud and striving sense of life over the self-defeating "The Man be holding me down!" sense of life that most rappers seem to display. Likewise, I prefer the sense of life that bands like Nightwish, Rhapsody, and Blind Guardian evince in their music: that there is beauty and wonder to be found if one is willing to look.

Besides, I'd much rather listen to Tarja Turunen's voice than Busta Rhymes'.

As for marching band music; I myself care little for it because it sounds militaristic to me and reminds me of individuals being molded by drill sergeants into obedient Terminators willing to kill on command. It seems to me that to become a soldier, one must cease to be an individual.

Post 7

Saturday, August 24, 2002 - 1:49am

i just stumbled onto this site but am finding it very interesting--- I am not as well read as most of you but am excited to read a little Rand and see how it sits with me --my question was this, I am a visual artist and would like to know what objectivist do like in terms of visual arts what types of paintings pop media or whatever are you into?---i read the article on this site about post modern art but didnt get a strong sence that it was considerd good or bad --- i am just curious and for never having heard of this movement pretty like-minded

Post 8

Saturday, August 24, 2002 - 9:12pm

Objectivists (and most students thereof) tend to see post-modernism as worthless because we can't connect it to anything meaningful in our lives as we can with representational art. There is a new artistic movement that is shaping in the arts due to the philosophy of Objectivism. It's known as Romantic Realism and (in terms of visual art) it advocates representational forms that depict every facet of the lives of rational men and women. If you want to see several good examples I suggest you try this address : www.cordair.com This will take you to an art gallery of works by Romantic Realists. You might also look into work by Micheal Newberry. He would probably feel left out if nobody took the opportunity to do some shameless plugging ;) I hope I answered your question. If not, he should be able to.

Post 9

Tuesday, August 27, 2002 - 12:21am

Todd, I wanted to take a moment and respond to your interest in Rand. She had a very unique perspective on art and considered the novel to be the supreme artistic achievement of modern times. Although she wrote her Romantic Manifesto at a late time in her life, it explores some of the major contributions to the novel form in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. I know you are interested in the visual arts and want more information on it. Rand admired many great artists and among the painters she liked the most I can remember two off hand Vermeer and Salvador Dali. Amazing variety, kind of like my CD collection:)

What did she look for in an artist? She looked for what she called a sense of life. That sounds like it is not very complicated, and it shouldn't have to be. Although technical philosophers can go on and on about how this relates to different branches of philosophy, it need not be difficult. She thought that when you look at a painting (and she really confined herself pretty much to the fine arts category) you can get the painter's sense of life by looking at it. You can either identify with it and love it, or hate it i.e. have some emotion, or it can have no effect on you whatever. The response is different for different people.

She extended alot of her analysis of literary art to the visual arts, and openly applied the "as in poetry so in painting" theory. She felt that a work of art remained independent of utility and that the primary approach to artistic works should be metaphysical rather than epistemological. Too wordy? I meant simply that when you look at a work of art it is not "taste" that should be your ultimate concern, but whether or not you identify with the sense of life portrayed in the painting. Does that make sense? Let's give an example. You know how the German philosopher Kant wrote about the way we make assessments of works of art? His approach was what he termed a "disinterestedness". It was a critique of beauty, which was the sole basis for judging a work of art. The philsopher Nietzsche, after Kant, dismissed that disinterested approach by calling it the immaculate conception in "Thus Spake Zarathustra". What Nietzsche meant was explained in a metaphor. He described the moon at night going over the houses, how beautiful it was, and yet so out of reach so out of touch and so unapproachable. He then likened that to Kant's aesthetic approach to art. It is the idea that we can somehow get an objective view of a work of art that is devoid of any passion or emotion. It is purely disinterested. It is a critique of "beauty" which is some kind of quality detached from the observer, perhaps in the thing itself (the famous Ding an sich) Rand was like Nietzsche in this disagreement with Kant and she thought that art should have an immediacy: the sense of life. Sorry so long. I hope my mini-interpretation helps. There are some good books about Rand out there. I recommend "What Art Is" by Michelle Marder Khamy and Louis Torres. I helped do bibliographical research on that book and consider it a great example of Rand scholarship, not because I helped :) but because their analysis is excellent. Keep asking questions you may like Rand alot.

Post 10

Wednesday, May 14, 2003 - 12:35am

this is a pretty cool site, i just stumbled on it, however i cant help but wonder why so called objectivists, those who so stress the individual's perception, need confirmation if its ok to enjoy a certain art. Isnt the reason one enjoys an art because it inspires an emotion. This may be directly "life affirming" or it may be something that emphasizes aggression or whatever; the arts value though is how it enriches one's existence in humanity. Can't non "life affirming" art be beatiful or instill a better appreciation of life as it contrasts or relates to life. I thought the Romantic Manifesto was an insult to the objectivism. I could barely finish the book after the part where Rand condemned a hypothetical art work because it illustrated a beautiful woman with some sort of facial imperfection. As an artist, i feel the purpose of art is to expand how an individual relates to humanity, and as an objectivist i think all art is worthy of analysis. Isn't that a contridiction to take Rand's aesthetical biases or the so called "objectivist aesthetic" over your own, individual opinion.

Post 11

Wednesday, May 14, 2003 - 9:33am

I have checked www.cordair.com, site suggested by Adam. That kind of art is disturbing simmilar to nazi art: obvious, self flattering, concrete and Kitsch. I think we cannot confuse art with "nice" things, things that flatter ourselves and attempts to teach us that the world as it is has no flaws and is perfect. Instead, the kind of art that I find interesting is the one that challenges the way we see things and help us to question our received values. That is what I find in the works of Picasso, Munch, David Lynch, Ingman Bergman, Franz Kafka and Cervantes.

Post 12

Sunday, December 7, 2003 - 12:41pm

Without necessarily endorsing everything at the Quent Cordair site, and without necessarily deprecating it, I have to say the following in response to Jorge Luis.

The subject matter of art is metaphysical values, not the state of the world as seen through the eyes of a journalist, and one who holds conventional values at that. Romantic realism, if one wants to use the teaching metaphor, "attempts to teach us" that the world can be cleared of flaws, with an implication that it should be. If you're going to call this flattery, consider what this means about your worldview. And about your OWN metaphysical values.

Why is challenging the way we see things and helping us to question our received values an unqualified good? Isn't the most important question whether the way we see things is accurate? And whether the values we hold do indeed represent the good?

That slogan about the virtues of challenge and questioning is merely a call to perpetual skepticism. Intellectually speaking, modern irrationalist or "realist" art fully embodies culturally "how we see things" and "our received values." The intellectual hostility to Romantic realism is due to precisely the fact that it constitutes a challenge to how we see things and to our received values -- if by "we," one means the intellectual culture that is now dominant.

To invoke Ayn Rand, art does not teach, it shows. Picasso and others, despite superficial differences, show us one kind of world; Romantic realism shows us another.

Post 13

Saturday, January 7, 2006 - 8:42pm

Matthew Graybosch:

Years ago I lived in Chicago, Illinois, and one morning I heard band music from my 49th floor Marina City apartment. The music was reaching up from State Street below and 1/2 block away. The national marching band competition and parade was happening right there. I went to see and hear. Every state was represented, it seemed, and maybe more. There seemed to be more than 100 bands. I hurried down, and heard and saw possibly 30 or more marching bands. Some bands had intricate stylized dance routines, and others being more traditional had more of a stress upon the music. Believe you me, morose militarism and collectivism was not present. Mostly there were thrilling musical compositions, arrangements and great playing. The bass drums reverberated and the horns were inspiring.

Music is one of the formal arts in my theory (along with dance, architecture, some modern art (being examples of architectural design principles), and some product design, for example) and you have to actually be there to experience the directly perceptually given content from the works of the formal arts. The conceptual arts are the other basic division of the arts (and these are, literature, novels, painting, theater, drama, and sculpture, for example), and these primarily function according to what is implied from the concretes given in the works. Thus, also, the terms, Formal and Conceptual Arts. This is a theory that re-classifies the arts according to what they say, and according to all the perceptual and ideational content that the concretes permit the viewer to enjoy and appreciate. I don't mean that what Ayn Rand has has said is in any way obsolete. I simply wanted to reclassify the arts according to meaning and perceptual qualities rather than according to the durable materials that are the mediums of the traditional Fine Arts.

On marching bands? Go out there and see the best, and you will be thrilled and cheered beyond belief. RA

Post 14

Sunday, January 8, 2006 - 5:17am

NOTE: The person "wtc4fr" above is me, using one of my first screen names on this forum.

Post 15

Sunday, January 8, 2006 - 10:19am

Ralph, good to see you here! I just want to add about marching music, John Philip Sousa is great. Listen to "Stars and Stripes Forever". Did you take Allan Blumenthal's music course the same year I did? One of the pieces that blew me away was Horowitz's transcription/modification of SSF.

Phil Coates
(Edited by Philip Coates
on 1/08, 10:20am)

Post 16

Sunday, January 8, 2006 - 12:38pm