Customer Reviews

The Romantic Manifesto

5 star:		(25)
4 star:		(10)
3 star:		(3)
2 star:		(3)
1 star:		(7)

 

 

This is a compelling work on the nature and meaning of art. Besides containing Rand's manifesto, it is also a highly entertaining piece of criticism and analysis of art, culture and psychology.

In the introductory chapter: The Psycho-Epistemology Of Art, Rand defines art as a selective recreation of reality according to the artist's metaphysical value judgements. Art brings one's concepts to the perceptual level of conscience and enables one to grasp them directly as if they were precepts.

Chapter 2, Philosophy And Sense Of Life, deals with the "merciless recorder" that is the integrating mechanism of the subconscious mind. The next chapter, Art And Sense Of Life, opens with a fascinating observation on a hypothetical painting. Here Rand further explains the concept of a sense of life as it manifests in art. She argues that the emotion involved in art is automatically immediate and that it holds a deeply personal value-significance to the person experiencing it.

Art And Cognition is devoted to the question: What are the valid forms of art, and why? Here the author explores literature, painting, sculpture, music and architecture in turn. I find her speculations on music particularly thought-provoking.

Rand refers to Aristotle in discussing the attributes of the novel in Basic Principles Of Literature: theme, plot, characterization and style. Chapter 6 provides a definition of Romanticism, which recognizes volition, as opposed to Naturalism which denies it. She identifies determinism as the basic premise of naturalism in The Aesthetic Vacuum Of Our Age and hails the appearance of the novel in the 19th century as the vehicle of Romanticism.

Other essays include discussions on bootleg romanticism and moral treason in art, whilst the actual manifesto appears in chapter 11: The Goal Of My Writing and chapter 10: Introduction To Ninety-Three. This essay is an abbreviated version of the introduction she wrote for a 1962 edition of the book by Victor Hugo. The Romantic Manifesto concludes with The Simplest Thing In The World, a short story that illustrates the nature of the creative process.

Throughout this fascinating book, Rand provides examples of different manifestations of art plus informed criticism of personalities and a wide variety of works like Anna Karenina, Thomas Aquinas, The Avengers, Balzac, Dostoevsky, Lord Byron, Camille, Günter Grass, Salvador Dali, Don Carlos, Dumas, Flaubert, Ian Fleming, Gone With The Wind, Goya, O Henry, Alfred Hitchcock, Victor Hugo, Boris Karloff, Fritz Lang, Ira Levin, Michelangelo, Edgar Allan Poe, Friedrich Schiller, Shakespeare, Tolstoy, Jan Vermeer, HG Wells, Thomas Wolfe and Emile Zola. Both high and popular culture is covered.

One does not need to agree with Rand's analyses and manifesto to find this a most stimulating and highly entertaining read. Many of her insights are valid and quite relevant to the state of culture and civilization today.

Don't listen to Greg Nyquist. Ayn Rand is actually quite fair in her valuations of art. She does have strong opinions, but she makes it clear that although she doesn't enjoy certain authors (for various reasons), she is still able to appreciate their literary abilities. I think some people hate Ayn Rand simply because she's straight-forward and honest, both with herself and with others. Ayn Rand is not afraid to speak her mind. If this bothers you, then don't read this book. But if you want one woman's calm, rational, and well thought out opinion on art in its various manifestations, then I guarantee that you will enjoy this book.

Are you an artist? A painter, a sculptor or a writer perhaps... In this, the icing on the cake of all of Rand's works, you will discover EXACTLY what makes something qualify as a work of art or not and why.

Throughout her work, Rand analyzes the different types of art, mainly Romantic art and Naturalistic art. In short, Rand defines Romantic art as a painting, sculpture or writing which portrays LIFE not as life is but as life COULD and SHOULD be. For example: An artist's work displaying a painting of a building as it could and should be is a romantic art work. Rand tells of how Romanticism lived for only a brief period of time in the 19th century and possibly early twentieth century and how today it is nearly non existent. She reccommends reading, as a beautiful example of the romantic form of art, the works of Victor Hugo. Rand tells of how today the predominant form of art is what is called Naturalistic art.

Naturalistic art, says Rand, is work which portrays life as it is, exactly as it is and nothing more. Rand tells of how, in art schools of today students are encouraged to do only naturalistic works. She also mentions several authors of today's era who have come close to creating some ROMANTIC art but have fallen short.

Rand discussed how it is the PHILOSOPHY of today which promotes and encourages naturalism and deters Romanticism. This discussion will perhaps be most appreciated by those readers of Rand who appreciate and admire her works, but wonder as to what, upon careful analysis, would be the cause of the bitter political and sociological debates which rage over her ideas and works. This book is BEST for those who have read and liked her works but it is fine, standing on its own, as an analysis or what makes great art great!

I've become a fan of Ayn Rand since being dazzled by Anthem and The Virtue of Selfishness. Sadly, I did not enjoy this volume of interwoven essays as much as the aforementioned works. First and foremost, this book does NOT teach you how to rationally interpret art or force it's views upon you - although it does come on strong. A familiarity with Rand's philosophy (Objectivism) and themes will go a long way in helping a reader understand where she's coming from (and potentially agree or disagree).

The beginning is exceptionally interesting. Almost effortlessly, it offers the reader a clear, concise definition of art (amid some philosophical-terminology). Rand gets off to a riveting start with her discussions about the purpose of art, sense of life, art and philosophy, and art and cognition. As the book progresses, it slows down a bit but offers insight into Rand's opinion of famous creators and their works - from Victor Hugo to Alfred Hitchcock and from Dostoevsky to Ian Fleming. However controversial her opinions are, they are usually justified or at least attempts at reasoning her criticisms out have been made.

Her ballsy assertions such as "Is photography art? No." are not without merit. If anything, they got me to play devil's advocate with myself - on the one hand using her reasoning and arguments, on the other hand being more accepting and trying to think of counter-examples to her logic. She grows partial at times and has a few moments of adulation for her favorites (most notably, Hugo) but I believe that just shows her devotion and emotional investment in the struggle to reason about art. I would think the people who thoroughly disliked this work would probably accuse her of being completely cold and numb if not for her slight fanaticism over certain works.

The problem with the overall stretch of this book is that it feels like it's almost running on empty near the end. It is worth finishing and thinking about but Rand's intensity and clear, masterful handling of phenomena that few good writers could describe is simply lacking in the later parts of the book. Besides the great suggestion of a reasonable, systematic, and objective system of judging art - I fail to recall any really great ideas from the beyond the first four chapters. This book whet my appetite but it simply did not keep me hungry 'till the end. Nonetheless worth reading...with an OPEN mind (be willing to put your ideas to the test against Rand's).

Is merely an accident in real life. On a painting it's obscene. Why? Because the artist CHOOSES. He does not 're create' real life. He always makes a statement, knowingly or not. Therefore, choosing to portray beauty marred by a sore lip is ---

What am I doing? I can't explain it better than Rand!

Read this book if you are interested in the nature of art. And especially if you've ever wondered about the phenomenon of 'modern art.'

It's a great series of essays despite (or because of) Rand's prejudices--she was a strange combination of teenage ugly girl duckling sexual fantasies out of Danielle Steele combined with the mind of an Aristotle and the Romantic triumphalism of a Victor Hugo.

For all artists, and especially writers, ( Er. . .remember those tiny details like theme, plot, and character? ) this short work is outstanding. Many will choose to worship, others to ridicule her views; while still others will grant her grudging admiration.

But all should read it.

Someone once defined a classic as a pop hit that remains 'on the charts' as time goes by; e.g. Beethoven may not be the number one hit in the recording industry this year, but he's not in any danger of running out of new listeners who will continue to purchase his music. Hence, he's a bonafide "classic." Got it?

Likewise, there's a reason why Ayn Rand, decades after her death, remains THE most widely read novelist in the world. The sales of "Atlas Shrugged" alone continue to number in the hundreds of thousands.

Perhaps she was on to something. . .

When discussing the theory of art in Outdoor Monuments of Manhattan: A Historical Guide, I cited only Ayn Rand's esthetics. An early reader suggested I "balance" the presentation by mentioning other writers on esthetics.

But here's the problem: no one surpasses or even equals Ayn Rand in the field of esthetics. Rand treats art with the same rigor she applies to metaphysics, epistemology, ethics and politics. She begins her discussion by stating what art is and what purpose it serves for human beings. Her definition, "a selective re-creation of reality based on an artist's metaphysical value-judgments," indicates that an artist chooses his subject and style based on what he considers important, and creates something recognizable so that others will see it and grasp his message: "THIS matters - pay attention to THIS."

Rand lays out the fundamentals of the field of esthetics. Using her definition of art plus her theory of knowledge (see Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology: Expanded Second Edition), one can determine what is and is not art: driftwood, paint splattered on a canvas, the Parthenon frieze? One can determine the esthetic requirements for good art: Is a portrait by Rembrandt better than one by Picasso in his Cubist phase? One can even explain why people often react so violently to works of art: "It repulses me but I can't turn away!"

I have read hundreds of books by art critics and historians, many of whom have an encyclopedic grasp of their subject and descriptive abilities that make me wildly jealous. Not one of them offers a proper definition of art. The fifth edition of Janson's widely used Janson's History of Art: Western Tradition (7th Edition), for example, says a work of art is "an esthetic object" and that "esthetic" means "that which concerns the beautiful." The term is, he promptly admits, unsatisfactory, but "will have to do for lack of a better one."

When I'm visiting a gallery or reading a novel, I can and do revel in art without first subjecting it to rigorous esthetic analysis. I've found, though, that I can extend my enjoyment if I THINK about a particular work as well. For purposes of thinking about art and conveying my ideas to others, a proper definition is indispensable. In that respect, I have found Ayn Rand's essays on esthetics in Romantic Manifesto, The Art of Fiction: A Guide for Writers and Readers, The Art of Nonfiction: A Guide for Writers and Readers, and Ayn Rand Answers: The Best of Her Q & A(the esthetics section) invaluable and irreplaceable.

This review is mainly (perhaps wholly) about the other reviews given, particularly those that seem to disagree with Ayn Rand, or those that cast her in an unfavorable light.

Ayn Rand's strong opinions regarding art and literature--especially her proclamations of hatred towards some which are highly regarded or even called "great" or "masterpieces"-- is due to her belief in an absolute morality based on absolute reality and on absolute truth (yes... absolute truth... certainty).

That is to say: if a piece of work propagated values that presented false ideas or irrational thinking (the absence of thinking), she simply didn't place any value in them (i.e. Tolstoy's characters seem to be helpless, subjected to fate completely, without the ability to exercise their will and pursue joy/happiness... more than that: without the ability to exercise reason, make sense of false premises, realize truth and then move forward). Furthermore, if these said false ideas threatened to spread what she considered truly harmful ideas, she placed negative value on them and proceeded to thrash them like a ravenous mother bear.

She had no tolerance for false ideals, no matter how pretty the language... she had no tolerance for her fellow man's living in obscurity, as if he'd been born with no faculty to do anything, no mind to figure things out, or will to manifest thoughts into concretes... when literature or art fell before her eyes, she did more than most of us do; she went beyond the superficial and asked "Do I really believe this? Do I believe this is the way the world is? Do I believe this is the only way it can be? Do I believe this is the way it ought to be?" And when the answer was "No," she did what most would not dare... she rejected it (she did not see it as part of absolute truth and so her conscience could not without violating itself accept it).

If you're going to bash Rand, please be more objective about it. It is not good enough of an argument to get on her case simply because she doesn't like Shakespeare's representation of man as fated (unable to use his mind, even his God-given mind, to escape, his volition leading always to tragedy and only chance to happy endings... how could an advocate of the mind, of free-will, of self-responsiblity like something that is to those values so nonsensical and ridiculous?).

I've said enough.

I want to start out by saying that I am a major Ayn Rand fan. Atlas Shrugged is my favorite book, and I agree with most every point of her philosophy (except when you go beyond the books she wrote, and see how she tried to force the world into being her ideal world, which of course was unsuccessful immediately and resulted in her unhappiness). I was very disturbed by only one part of Atlas Shrugged, which was when Eddie Willers dies (I assume, based on where the book left him). This aspect of her greatest novel shows through in "the romantic manifesto" and makes it, of all the writings I've read from Ayn Rand, the worst of her work. She basically dismisses all art that is not in line with her opinion. I agree she is a wonderful expert in literature, but I got the feeling that she was attacking painting and other types of art as well throughout this book. She invalidates all Impressionist painters, and just about every writer except herself and Victor Hugo. Now, I've read many great books by many great authors outside of that narrow realm. It seemed as if she wanted to enjoy certain music and works of art, but fought within herself to forbid herself to enjoy it because it was "immoral" or something. I don't quite understand why she thought it was necessary to destroy all art except that which is objectively "fitting." I hold her view of life, but I love Van Gogh, and I think his paintings are MUCH more emotion and thought inducing than Vermeer... sometimes, the blurry paintings are the ones that induce the most clarity and the highest number of connections in peoples' minds. And often, art that displays misery, anguish, and pain is so beautifully and intricately done, in so clear and advanced a manner, that I can love viewing or hearing it without "agreeing" with it-- and I can love it just as much as I love an artistic work that agrees with my philosophy of life. What I mean to say, is that Ayn Rand's Objectivism is the only real way to achieve your goals and live your life fully and happily; however, objectivism shouldn't eliminate all that is weird and different and special about the world-- it should be limited to a way to live life on Earth. It is not meant to explain how the universe actually behaves at the subatomic level, or in the far reaches of space. Instead, it is a way to prevent chaos and uncertainty and fear from overcoming our own lives on Earth.

"The Romantic Manifesto" is a book which ought to be read by every person intereseted in art - especially serious literature.

The clarity, rationality, precision and straight-forwardness with which Ayn Rand has presented her philosophy of art is a major literary achievement in itelf.

She has delved into the very depths of the process of artistic creation and brought to light certain fundamental aspects of art which the world had never known before.
She has introduced concepts such as "sense of life" and revolutionzed the entire way of handling aesthetic issues.

Her analysis of the meaning of art,its function in man's life,the basic principles of literature,the criteria for jugding art works - all are presented in a logical,structured manner - starting with the definition and explanation of terms such as "concepts" , metaphysics etc.,proceeding step-by-step to a thoroughly rational analysis of what constitutes great art.

Most illuminating is her analysis of the fundamental premise of the Romantic novel (the premise of volition).

She has also presented the goal of her own fiction writing which would clear the doubts of her admirers as well as her critics.

The point here is that it is all so convincing!! Except for a few statements here and there - such as a derogatory dismissal of Tolstoy's works,or a sarcastic remark regarding a "Hindu dance" (I am an Indian-and belong to a Hindu background-though I'm an atheist-and there is no such thing as a "Hindu" dance),her arguements are unequivocal and irrefutable.

The main drawback of "The Romantic Manifesto" is that it is not comprehensive enough and at least left me wanting more.
I think that Ayn Rand should have not only given more examples, but more importantly, given a more detailed analysis of the already mentioned examples. For instance,she has named "The Scarlet Letter" one of the best Romantic novels, but has not mentioned another word with respect to its theme,plot-theme,characterization etc.

Nevertheless,this book is so forceful that it can change anybody's understanding of art, or at least add a new dimension to it.Otherwise too,it is a very interseting read of the non-fiction genre.

At the end,I would,without hesitation call it one of the most original,profound and enlightening books of ideas of our times.

Nothing surprising from Ayn Rand after having read " The Fountainhead" and " Atlas shrugged ". The author is more concise in this book (which is a welcomed breath of fresh air as Rand can unfortunately be too verbose in her writings...). No 70 pages fo John Galt speeking this time. Remember that interminable discourse!!!!!