| | Robert Malcom -- No, I don't think Rand's ERROR about architecture being art but not being re-creation of reality was due to her using "art" in two different senses.
But Robert, suppose we were to grant your premise that Rand was in fact using "art" on the same page with two different meanings: (1) art is re-creation of reality and (2) art is non-utilitarian, for contemplation only. It is clear from that page of "Art and Cognition" that Rand held that (1) architecture is NOT a re-creation of reality, and that (2) architecture IS utilitarian -- and yet, my friends, that architecture still, somehow, IS ART, in spite of satisfying NEITHER of those attributes of art.
This is not just a confusion by readers (such as myself) due to Rand's carelessly mixing together two different definitions of art. That would be bad enough, considering what a careful thinker and writer she is held to be. No, it is worse than that. It is a blatant contradiction. She held architecture to be art in defiance of BOTH of the meanings she attributed to "art", OK?
And no, I am not a "Rand-hater" or an "anti-Objectivist." I'm just sick and tired of people making excuses for her ERRORS, as though she never made a mistake (other than to trust the Brandens, don't you know). And this is not the only ERROR Rand ever made and didn't 'fess up to. It's just one of the ones that aggravates me the most.
Phil Coates -- as for your concern about the dangers of my writing such a book as The Errors of Ayn Rand, or The Enemies of Ayn Rand, for that matter, don't worry! (Yes, Michael, the fine faux femme fatale was yanking the crank, but more in irritation than in playfulness.)
I'm more interested, with the time I have remaining on earth, with positive accomplishments. But since I'm pretty sure you and I are not 100% in agreement about what Rand got right or what are her "basic ideas," are you really sure you want to urge me forward to such a project? I mean, I trust my "instincts" (i.e., my internalized grasp and comfort) about Objectivism, but do you? :-)
If and when I do a book about Objectivism, it will not just be an attempt to more appealingly or persuasively "chew" her frozen-in-amber-circa-1982 system. I'm more interested in truth than in justifying the canon. Any book I do will thus be for the purpose of presenting MY version of Objectivism (which, by the way, I regard as an OPEN system). I will be building on what I think is right in Rand's system, while correcting what I think is wrong. And while there is a lot more of the former (else, why would I bother!), there's also enough of the latter to warrant more than a throw-away comment or footnote.
So, in that sense, yes, I am primarily concerned with an accurate portrayal of Objectivism -- but not without setting straight the record on the ways I think she (and others, notably, Peikoff) have botched it. For instance, when I discuss free will vs. determinism, or the mind-body problem, I will be arguing the case against the view of Rand et al in terms of the more basic ideas of hers (in metaphysics and epistemology) that I agree with. When I discuss art and architecture (as I did in my JARS essay, vol. 5, no. 2), I argued against the view of Rand et al in terms of the more basic ideas of hers (in aesthetics) that I agree with. And so on.
REB (aka AK)
P.S. -- Sorry, folks, for writing such a long, non-funny post on the Humor list, but once the dust settles after poking fun at the "metaphysically insignificant" (the vitriol sprayers and error airbrushers), the logical follow-up is with -- what else -- the metaphysically significant: getting it right!
|
|
