All this talk of a 'sense of life' makes me uneasy. It sounds too much like a Weltanschauung, and therefore leaves no room to separate ideology from rational discourse, let alone allow for any form of discussion or debate. In fact, it sounds vaguely fascist (See Klemperer's book, Lingua Tertii Imperii <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lingua_Tertii_Imperii>). It strikes me that Rand is less developing an aesthetics, or a theory of criticism, or even a theory of taste, as she is preaching an impoverished discourse of elitism, not unlike the kinds one finds in all totalitarian propoganda. How could this be interesting? How is her 'sense of life' different from the idealised 'sense of life' of socialist realism, of the strength of the worker, and the beauty of collective life? Where is the distinguishing feature between Fascism, Socialism, and Capitalism, according to Rand?
On Thu, Aug 20, 2009 at 9:45 AM, Chris Miller <[email protected]>wrote: > >It seems her evaluation of art and artists stops short of refined > sophistication. As a writer Tolstoy is one of the best ever, but not as > philosopher when he starts to do it outside the arts. Vermeer is not a > naturalist, and it seems she misunderstood cubism. (Boris) > > > So far, Boris, Rand has been reluctant to come to a singular judgment of > any > work other than her own. She allows that a book may have high literary > quality even if it is wrong, evil, and boring, so in that sense, she might > even agree that "Tolstoy is one of the best ever" > > (BTW -- I don't share such reluctance, and have no interest in opinions > that > are disconnected from strong feelings of like or dislike.) > > > Regarding Naturalism, she writes: > > "The place of ethics in any given work of art depends on the metaphysical > views of the artist. If, consciously or subconsciously, an artist holds > the > premise that man possesses the power of volition, it will lead his work to > a > value orientation (to Romanticism). If he holds the premise that man's fate > is > determined by forces beyond his control, it will lead his work to an > anti-value orientation (to Naturalism)" > > So, presumably, she calls Vermeer a "Naturalist" because she feels no > great > drama in his images. Things are the way they are, they do not need to be > changed. Heroic effort is not required. > > Is such a view unsophisticated? > > Regarding Cubism, her interpretation will certainly not be found in > histories > of art, as they are now written. Indeed, she's not so much interested in > the > history of art, as in the history of "sense of life". And can't a cubist > painting "disintegrate man's consciousness by painting objects as man does > not perceive them"? > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > Click here for free info on prostate cancer prevention and treatment! > > http://thirdpartyoffers.netzero.net/TGL2231/fc/BLSrjnxYHukzTaT0coWYGEpx2MRCob > RBHq13eG5tOHmDQK11aZYfITvl66k/<http://thirdpartyoffers.netzero.net/TGL2231/fc/BLSrjnxYHukzTaT0coWYGEpx2MRCob%0ARBHq13eG5tOHmDQK11aZYfITvl66k/>
