I'm sure that Rand would agree with you, Imago Asthetik, that "an incoherent or contradictory position is worse than one someone simply disagrees with",
But I don't, at least, regarding aesthetics, where the most important issue, aesthetic quality, cannot be rationally explained. So I'm more interested in discussion that raises relevent issues, rather than attempts to thoroughly resolve them, and would expect different language and different theories to accompany different genres of art. And, ultimately, the value of the discussion to me depends upon the value of the art (rather than vice versa) This is why I find Goodman's explication of Warhol to be worthless, regardless of how philosophic you may find it. Unfortunately, I have yet to find anything of value made by self-identified Randians (including Ayn herself) -- but perhaps some will eventually come along. I'm sure that Ayn would have been a big fan of Jacque Louis David (clarity, idealism, and drama -- well, perhaps without the connection to left wing politics) , and there's no reason why someone can't paint like him today. I was just surfing some more objectivist websites yesterday. These enthusiastic people are not stupid, insensitive, or uneducated -- and eventually a great artist is going to serve them. ******************** >I am not sure I understand your response (below), Mr Miller. Surely, an incoherent or contradictory position is worse than one someone simply disagrees with, or one that turns out to be materially false. In point of fact, if Rands proposal for aesthetics entails contradiction or incoherence, it is hard for me to see how it has any merit at all. One might as well say, that squared circles work well enough (are serviceable, as another lister might say) to convey some idea that resides at the core of ones theory of geometry. The very thought makes no sense. >From a theoretical perspective incoherence or contradiction annihilates theory. And so Rand cannot be considered in the same circle of thinkers as Goodman, Aristotle, Ranciere, or any of the other thinkers this list has discussed with some measure of depth. That something works for her is not a criterion for determining its merit or its truth. In any case, it seem to me that Rands disagreements with certain artworks have absolutely nothing to do with them qua artworks, nor are they aesthetic. She disagrees on ideological grounds. Bad metaphysics. Arouses sympathy for those who do not work hard enough. Expresses broken sense of life. etc. Whatever the backwardness of Tolstoys nationalism and Religiosity, for instance, the Death of Ivan Ilyich is structurally perfect. Quite literally perfect. What difference could it make, therefore, to say that it does not exalt an individual's effort? Where does such a criterion come from, and what could it possibly have to do with the work being considered? How could such a claim be objective? Whither Rands Objectivism? There seems to be little more than a pretence to philosophy, rather than anything philosophical. ____________________________________________________________ Click to find affordable LASIK eye surgery. http://thirdpartyoffers.netzero.net/TGL2231/fc/BLSrjnxVEgZxgUbwVuTLxhqdv6Le44 D8VERpyHOzYJOVwkCkwtzCVW8JKko/
