"Art is inextricably tied to man's survival - not to his physical survival - but to that on which his physical survival depends: to the preservation and survival of his consciousness"
I hope she did not steal it from me, or else. Boris Shoshensky To: [email protected] Subject: Rand Chapter One: Psycho-epistemology of Art Date: Sun, 16 Aug 2009 18:03:11 GMT Chapter 1 - The Psycho-epistemology of Art I was hoping Rand would dig right into the "the basis in reality" for her opinions and tell us more about the Romanticism of the 19th C that she loves so much, but instead she's begun a theoretical discussion of "psycho-epistemology": "Psycho-epistemology is the study of man's cognitive process from the aspect of the interaction between the conscious mind and the automatic functions of the sub-conscious" (page 20) Nobody uses this term except Rand and her followers, but that definition does seem to cover exactly the same territory as William's favorite subject, cognitive science, although Rand makes no reference to the discoveries made by neuroscience. (perhaps because this essay was written before that discipline became institutionalized in the late 1960's) "What is the function of art in human life" and "what is the cause of its tremendous psychological power" These are the questions that Rand is asking - and her answer is that "Art is inextricably tied to man's survival - not to his physical survival - but to that on which his physical survival depends: to the preservation and survival of his consciousness" This sounds like something Boris might say, doesn't it? -- and it sounds pretty good to me -- except that -- where is the basis in reality for such an assertion? Is it only that we have survived (so far) and can find something to call "art" wherever, and whenever we have lived? First, she presents what she calls "Metaphysics - the science that deals with the fundamental nature of reality" which answers such questions as "Is the universe intelligible to man ?", "Can man find happiness on earth", "Does man have the power of choice to direct the course of his life, or is he the helpless plaything of forces beyond his control which determine his fate?", and "Is man, by nature, to be valued as good or despised as evil?" Did she really mean to call this metaphysics a "science"? Are all of the answers to the above questions unacceptable until proven true? Either, she has set a very low bar for "science" or made a strange claim about such metaphysics. (or -- maybe not so strange -- in those societies where such "science" involves the proper interpretation of in-errant sacred texts like Torah, Confucius, Quran etc) Then she tells us that "art is a selective re-creation of reality according to an artist's metaphysical value-judgments" -- "by a selective re-creation, art isolates and integrates those aspects of reality which represent man's fundamental view of himself and of existence" How is this different from Saul's favorite philosopher, Heidegger ? : "The nature of art would then be this: the truth of beings setting itself to work" -- so that If someone is making a work that unconceals the true essence of something - that person is an artist making art They both seem to be proponents of German idealism. (one difference being that the one really was a card-carrying Nazi, while the other is frequently slandered about it.) Heidegger might also join Rand in saying that "Art brings man's concepts to the perceptual level of his consciousness and allows him to grasp them directly, as if they were precepts" -- Heidegger's term being "thingness" (although Rand takes less apparent delight in paradox) The examples which Rand then presents are drawn from literature - where an "incalculable sum of observations and evaluations of an incalculable number of men of a certain type" result in the creation of a single character -- like "Babbitt" for Sinclair Lewis, or like "Howard Roark", the super-artist-hero of Rand's best selling book. I'm not going to dispute that literary characterization may involve an author's version of "man's fundamental view of himself and of existence" (because that's why I like to read it) -- but I usually have no idea of exactly which concepts are being brought to the perceptual level of my consciousness -- even if this what literary interpretation is often attempting to do. "What does this novel really mean?" I love to answer such questions -- but freely admit that all of my answers are incomplete, and may be specific to me and others like me. I also disagree that "the reason art has such a profoundly personal significance for men is that art confirms or denies the efficacy of man's consciousness, according to whether an art work supports or negates his fundamental view of reality" At least, regarding myself, since I'm most enthusiastic about literature that seems to have expanded, rather than merely confirmed, my consciousness. Which is why I especially like literature from other cultures -- and if the SETI Institute ever translates a transmission of Extra-terrestial literature, I'll be the first to order a copy. Though, come to think of it. that "confirmation of consciousness" is exactly why some books can become best sellers -- for example, Rand's very own "Fountainhead" which re-affirms the isolated, desperate world view of many self-aware adolescents in modern society, as they get pushed out of their parents' home, and set firmly at the bottom of a competitive society, to be exploited and humiliated until they fight and claw their way to the top. Rand has presented the "psycho-epistomology" of the kind of art that she likes and makes. And what more can anyone do? BTW - I also have to mention Rand's the re-appearance of Rand's recurring narrative of cultural history: Ancient Greece, good -- Middle ages bad. "Reaching his mind and emotions simultaneously, with the combined impact of abstract thought and immediate reality, one type of art tells him that disasters are transient, that grandeur, beauty, strength, self-confidence are his proper, natural state. The other tells him that happiness is transient and evil, that he is a distorted, impotent, miserable little sinner, pursued by leering gargoyles, crawling in terror on the brink of an eternal hell" What can one say to such an opinion, other than to recommend that Ayn should look for the fatalism in Greek tragedy and the healthy beauty in medieval statues and paintings of the Virgin. Heidegger had this same enthusiasm for ancient Greek art, didn't he? It's a pity so little of it has survived. The Nazi sculptor, Arno Breker, did much better versions of it than most extant examples. ____________________________________________________________ All is not lost! Click now for professional data recovery. http://thirdpartyoffers.netzero.net/TGL2231/fc/BLSrjnxXZHY8wqQ4wngo2Fu7JiB8Nl ZuF9l482J9CfGPQ5qlq2Uxv5xRaQQ/
