h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Entry: Objectivism: Abstract Art - A1296010
Author: Researcher 244552 - U244552

What do you think?

Interesting, but unconvincing. You're saying that abstract art is not true art. In doing so, you're attacking a huge number of modrn artists and their work, as well as the millions of people who respond to abstract works as if they are art. If you're going to do such a thing, you ought at least to have a good case. But while your point of view may be valid point one, I really don't understand why you agree with it. If you were to retitle your piece "What Objectivism says about art", it might be OK. But you are actually trying to argue the case for the objectivist stance, and I am not convinced by it.

You introduce a dictum at the end of your piece:

"That is the fundamental purpose of art – to bring concepts down to the perceptual level and in doing so allow men to grasp them as though it was a precept."

Why so? Nothing in your previous paragraphs demonstrates that this idea must be true. As far as I can tell, you agree with this statement simply because Ayn Rand said it. This is not good enough; treating a philosopher's words as if they are the word of god is neither objectivist nor logical.

Here is a statement from me:

"True art is whatever you want it to be. It can be about bringing concepts down to a perceptual level, or it can be about creating beautiful patterns with no inherent meaning. Either way, it is still art, because art is simply that which an artist thinks is beautiful or important." - (The Singing Badger, 2003)

If you can explain why I am wrong, and why Ayn Rand is right, your article will be far more interesting.

Whoops, sentewnce 4 should read "But while your point of view may be a valid one..."

You ask why: "bringing concepts down to the perceptual level and in doing so allow men to grasp it asthough it were a precept" is the purpose of art.

This may seem like a bad argument, but I think it is the easiest way to get my point across to you: what other purpose could art have? You say, to give men pleasure - but that is done exactly by bringing their metaphysics down to the perceptual level.

This is a fascinated conversation, and I do hate to interupt, and point out that this is an opinion piece, albeit an well argued and objective one. And according to the writing guidelines then pieces for the edited guide have to be balanced.

Perhaps you should submit this to the AWW where the UG people are looking for well written entries that don't fit the writing guidlines.

Z: you have a point, although don't you think the piece might work as a guide entry if it was rewritten as "What Objectivists Say About Art", rather than as an opinion piece?

244552: as Z has pointed out, edited guide entries need to be balanced; in other words, you need to include alternative points of view. In your case, you would need to explain what abstract artists believe about art. So my queries about your ideas are meant to be helpful!

As I understand it, you're saying that abstract art is not true art because it doesn't represent concepts. I reply that it is true art, because it's pretty. You respond that if it gives me pleasure then it must be because my metaphysics have been brought to a perceptual level. We seem to have a contradiction: either abstract art brings concepts to a perceptual level or it doesn't. Which is it to be?

Look, but this is the last time I am going to say it - art is pretty because it brings a man's basic metaphysical value-judgements and allows him to grasp them asthough it was a precept. There is no other valid reason why art could be considered beatiful.

Look, but this is the last time I am going to say it - art is pretty because it brings a man's basic metaphysical value-judgements and allows him to grasp them asthough it was a precept. There is no other valid reason why art could be considered beatiful.

Look, but this is the last time I am going to say it - art is pretty because it brings a man's basic metaphysical value-judgements and allows him to grasp them asthough it was a precept. There is no other valid reason why art could be considered beatiful.

Sorry that my last post was repeated twice, it was a computer glitch.

Nonsense, there are plenty of other reasons. For example, we could say that a Mondrian painting is pretty because it organises colours into carefully composed patterns thereby instilling a sense of harmony in the viewer. That's got nothing to do with metaphysical concepts but it certainly describes why I think Mondrian paintings are pretty.

I'm not denying the POSSIBLE validity of your suggestion. I just don't think it's as obviously true as you think it is, and I don't see why you think other possibilities are logically invalid.

And I don't have a problem with people theorizing about art. It's fun. I just don't see why you would label it 'Objectivism', when as far as I can see it is merely your subjective opinion.

Hi Badger

just my

Ayn Rand used the term "objectivism" to describe her views on the world. I suspect that the title and views expressed are intended to bolster Ayn's views on art, although personaly I am more familiar with her stand on religion and economics.

Yeah, I've vaguely heard about Rand and her philosophy, although I don't know the details (as I understand it, the basic thrust is 'religion is bad, capitalism is good' right?)

Why did Rand choose the name 'Objectivism'? Is it because she believes there are objective truths, or is she using the word in some other sense? The gentleman who posted the article seems to think that it's OK to make blanket statements about the world and then say that things could not possibly be otherwise; this could be described as 'objectivism' with a small 'o', but I'm not sure what its value is in a debate ...

You have the gist of it, Ayn and her family fled the Bolshevik revolution when she was quite young and I think that colored her philosophy.

There is an edited entry that gives the highlights;

A455311

Her movement involves intellectualisam and I am sure she thought her views the only ones that were objective. So do most of her followers.
An interesting study, but hardly an answer to 42.

Interesting... thanks for the link. Right-wing libertarianism, gottit! Well, I think the moral is that Objectivism is all very well, but not a useful tool with which to write an encyclopedia entry. More subjectivism, please, 244552!

It's worse than right wing libertarianism. "Objectivists" think that it is morally wrong to give money to charity, or to help strangers. Not just that there's no duty to do it, nor just that the state shouldn't do it, but that it's morally wrong for individuals to do it.

Blimey. I wonder whether a true Objectivist would approve of voluntary, helpful, altruistic peer reviewers who give up their time to help their fellow writers?

Why do people submit things to PR, respond to a couple of comments, and then run away?

I don't know, why do people....

Oh, it wasn't a joke line, sorry, I misunderstood.

Shall we move this over to the Flea Market?


Geggs

That seems a reasonable idea to me