What Art Is: The Esthetic Theory of Ayn Rand [Hardcover]

Louis Torres (Author), Michelle Marder Kamhi (Author)

Book Description

Publication Date: June 2000

In response to the question "What is art?", today's arts establishment has a simple answer: "anything" is art if a reputed artist or expert says it is. Many people are sceptical about the alleged new art forms that have proliferated during the 20th century - from "abstract art" and "performance art" to "Hyperfiction" and "chance music". Yet today's "experts" claim that all such work, however incomprehensible, is art. An alternative to this view is provided by philosopher-novelist Ayn Rand (1905-1982). Although best known as the author of "The Fountainhead" and "Atlas Shrugged", Rand created an original and illuminating philosophy of art, which not only offers a profound analysis of the cognitive and emotional function of art but also confirms the widespread view that much of today's purported art is really not art at all. In "What Art Is", Torres and Kamhi present the first in-depth examination and critique of Rand's aesthetic theory. Contrasting her ideas with those of other thinkers, they conclude that, despite shortcomings in detail, Rand's account is compelling. Moreover, they demonstrate that it is supported by evidence from anthropology, neurology, cognitive science and psychology. The authors apply Rand's theory to a debunking of prominent modernist and postmodernist "artists". Finally, they explore its implications for such fields as arts education, law and public policy. Fifteen years after Ayn Rand's death, interest in her life and ideas is booming. All her published works remain in print, and hitherto unpublished writings continue to appear. In 1998 the Showtime cable TV channel will air a movie adaptation of Barbara Branden's biography "The Passion of Ayn Rand", starring Helen Mirren as Rand.

Editorial Reviews

Review

"A fascinating critique of the muddled thinking of most modern artists and critics, and of the work those artists produce..." -- Reason

"A rich, opinionated melange . . . full of notes, asides, and second thoughts." --Roger Kimball, Managing Editor, The New Criterion -- The Public Interest

"At last I have found enough uninterrupted time to read What Art Is from end to end, and I report my enthusiastic appreciation and enjoyment. You have done a splendid piece of work--research, reflection, and writing are worthy of all praise. . . . Your scholarly treatment of modern art, your Appendices, your Notes are full of facts, comparisons and judgments that come to grips suggestively with the elusive double topic, Art and the arts. . . . My hearty congratulations on an admirable book." -- Jacques Barzun, Cultural Historian, author of From Dawn to Decadence

"I am not sure that I have ever reviewed a book from which I have learned so much." --Lester Hunt, Professor of Philosophy, University of Wisconsin, Madison -- Journal of Ayn Rand Studies

"Well-documented, a major addition to Rand scholarship, and a humorous debunking of twentieth-century art . . . and art theory." --Richard E. Palmer, Emeritus Professor of Philosophy, MacMurray College -- Choice (Current Reviews for Academic Libraries)

From the Author

As independent scholars and critics, we bring to our work a deep love of the arts, cultivated over more than four decades. During that time we have witnessed increasingly disturbing trends in contemporary culture. With a never-ending stream of bogus inventions concocted in the name of art, real art--especially traditionally based painting and sculpture--has been relegated to a marginal status by the cultural establishment. In the process, the very concept of art has been debased, even among philosophers.

It is our hope that What Art Is will help to reverse these lamentable trends. We wrote the book over a period of more than five years, based on a series of articles we had published on the subject in the early 1990s. From the start, we had two audiences in mind: general readers who are puzzled by or skeptical about modernist and postmodernist work, and who seek to deepen their understanding of what is and is not art; and scholars and critics willing to consider a well-reasoned alternative to the artworld's assumption that anything can be art.

See all Editorial Reviews

Product Details

• Hardcover: 539 pages
• Publisher: Open Court (June 2000)
• Language: English
• ISBN-10: 0812693728
• ISBN-13: 978-0812693720
• Product Dimensions: 9.3 x 6.3 x 1.3 inches
• Shipping Weight: 1.9 pounds
• Average Customer Review: 3.7 out of 5 stars  See all reviews (15 customer reviews)
• Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #3,715,178 in Books (See Top 100 in Books)

Customer Reviews

Most Helpful Customer Reviews

52 of 67 people found the following review helpful:

2.0 out of 5 stars What Esthetics Is (Not), June 8, 2000

By 

psychephile - See all my reviews

This review is from: What Art Is: The Esthetic Theory of Ayn Rand (Paperback)

If "art" were a term of honor, reserved solely for those few products that have the power to objectify our most fundamental values, we could witness a second renaissance, including a new appreciation of neglected artists, a new direction for aspiring artists, and a new esthetics to guide future critics and historians of the arts. To this end, the value of the term "art" must be restored, which requires not only a new definition, but also a proof that that new definition better captures the artistic function. This is the promise of "What Art Is." Sadly, however, Torres and Kamhi do not deliver.

Instead, T&K offer a pretentious (and at times inaccurate) account of Ayn Rand's esthetic theory with a critique that offers neither any good reasons to accept her theory nor any good reasons to reject it.

T&K devote the first 55 pages of their 539-page work to recount the theory that Rand presented in the first 64 pages of "The Romantic Manifesto" (a work whose style and tone lives up to that title-a manifesto). A typical passage from T&K goes like this: (quoting AR's statement on the artistic significance of a painting including a cold sore on the lip of a beautiful woman) "[that minor affliction] acquires a monstrous metaphysical significance by virtue of being included in a painting. It declares that a woman's beauty and her efforts to achieve glamor (the beautiful evening gown) are a futile illusion undercut by a seed of corruption which can mar and destroy them at any moment-that this is reality's mockery of man-that all of man's values and efforts are impotent against the power, not even of some great cataclysm, but of a miserable little physical infection." To which T&K obliquely add, "particular details do assume greater significance in a work of art than they would possess in reality, because the viewer is at least subliminally aware that their presence is intentional, and that the artist must therefore have considered them important" (T&K, 49).

Interspersed throughout such banal commentary is T&K's critique-or, more exactly, their quibbles (a critique is at least coherent), which consist chiefly of reading Rand either in the most concrete-bound or most exaggerated way possible and then criticizing her for being concrete-bound or exaggerated. An example of their context-switching gimmick can be seen in their repeated quibble that Rand misuses the term "entity." As she made clear in ITOE (264-276), Rand uses the term (as everybody does) in two senses: in a primary sense, to refer to physical, coherent objects (e.g., a ball), and in an extended sense, to refer to anything that exists (e.g., a thought). Whenever a term is used in two senses, there is the danger of equivocation. But T&K variously criticize Rand for using the term strictly in the primary sense (61), or in the extended sense (336n23), but not in both senses simultaneously (62)! How can Rand win? T&K use the same gimmick in their complaints about Rand's use of the term "Romanticism" (31-33), which is variously meant as an era in art history and as an approach to art. Thus, when Rand uses the term to describe as approach to art, they scold her for being anachronistic, and when she uses the term to describe as era, they reproach her for seeing an approach that doesn't exist. Their gimmick becomes the most absurd when they claim that Rand is a psychological determinist (41), an argument that not only relies on switching the senses in her use of the word "determine," but also in quoting Rand out of context (thereby managing a context-switching, context-dropping twofer).

If the criticisms of Rand's theory weren't bad enough, T&K's support for her theory was even worse. Note that Rand's theory rises and falls on her contention that art serves a cognitive need-i.e., to objectify fundamental value-judgments-and that the fulfillment of this need provides art with its emotional power. According to T&K, Rand's theory, unlike others', is "informed by a more accurate understanding of human cognition and emotion"(16). Presumably, then, we would learn how this is the case. Unfortunately, for the next 93 pages, T&K support this contention solely by offering corroborating claims by pop psychologist Nathaniel Branden (who was Rand's student for many years) and clinical psychologist Edith Packer (who is also a Rand follower), neither of whom cite any relevant empirical support aside from inference and anecdote. Moreover, T&K's (very short) chapter "Scientific Support for Rand's Theory" only makes matters worse by uncritically recounting the *conclusions* of well-known neuropsychologists and anthropologists (such as Oliver Sacks and Ellen Dissanayake) without presenting enough evidence to allow the reader to judge for himself. Thus, the critical support that Rand's theory requires is supplanted with scientific window-dressing (just as T&K window-dress with more than 200 pages of footnotes and appendices!).

Window-dressing, I suppose, is a harmless past-time to amuse the rubes in Poughkeepsie, but T&K are also nasty. Throughout their work, they feel compelled to take unsubstantiated swipes at Rand and many other important Rand scholars, such as Leonard Peikoff and Harry Binswanger. These smears (like much of T&K's hopelessly self-indulgent editorializing) are not only unjust but appear especially absurd alongside the incredible fawning over Chris Sciabarra's work (proclaiming Rand to be Hegelian).

According to Gotthelf's "On Ayn Rand," "[t]here is, unfortunately, not much serious interpretive value among the secondary material that has been published on Ayn Rand in books or academic journals to date." Despite the importance of their subject, T&K have done nothing to change this assessment-either of material on Rand or esthetics.

23 of 30 people found the following review helpful:

5.0 out of 5 stars Brilliant Review of a Challenging Theory of Art, June 30, 2000

By 

James X Thomas - See all my reviews

This review is from: What Art Is: The Esthetic Theory of Ayn Rand (Paperback)

Torres and Kamhi provide an in-depth explanation and critical analysis of one of the most original and controversial theories of art. Today's art commentators, while claiming no definition of art is possible, vociferously condemn contemporary artists working along 'traditional' lines. How does today's art establishment explain their 'open-minded' preference for the ludicrous yet deny the possibility of any non-subjective definition? Why are we still drawn to some works of art and not others despite what the 'experts' demand of us? What ultimately is and is not art? T&K examine Rand's approach, which start with the most fundamental. Why do people need art? Is art superfluous? Is it a subjective luxury or is it human need? What are the needs fulfilled by art?

The authors extract the essence of Rand's arguments and argue persuasively that Rand's contribution is unjustly overlooked. Unfortunately, many of her defenders have done her a great disservice by dogmatically defending errors and embarrassing shortcoming. The sensitivity and thoughtfulness of T&K are a welcome contrast that begins an honest and serious dialog.

One final note - the authors start with the core differences between art and non-art. This is not a diatribe on good art versus bad art that usually hides a rationalization of the authors' subjective tastes. Nor is this a book that quibbles on where to draw the boarder-line. The focus is on a main distinction and its importance.

2 of 2 people found the following review helpful:

2.0 out of 5 stars Monumental undertaking brought down by inexcusable misunderstandings of its subject, May 21, 2011

By 

David P. Hayes (Washington, DC) - See all my reviews
(REAL NAME)   

This review is from: What Art Is: The Esthetic Theory of Ayn Rand (Paperback)

The authors of "What Art Is: The Esthetic Theory of Ayn Rand" indicate early on that when confronting Ayn Rand's book "The Romantic Manifesto" -- the primary subject of Torres and Kamhi's work here -- "the reader is apt to be somewhat baffled." (pg. 25) That sometimes seems to describe the authors here, for although they've written over 300 pages evaluating a book considerably shorter than that, they sometimes don't seem to understand how Ayn Rand is using words.

The authors quote Ayn Rand within a passage of their own argument that, "Rand's initial focus on the concept of value-orientation as a defining characteristic of Romanticism is particularly confusing in the context of her theory of art. As she argues elsewhere, *all* art (not just Romantic art), necessarily involves values: 'It is inconceivable to have an art divorced from values. ... Values cannot be separated from any human activity. ... It is impossible ... to write a book [for example] without some kind of selectivity. ... Every time a man has to exercise a choice, he is directed by some kind of values, conscious or not.'" (pg. 31)

Here, the authors don't seem to understand the difference between unadulturated values and diluted values, for they write, "As Rand herself argued in another context, the only way the principle of volition can be fully and clearly objectified is through the presentation of characters engaged in the choice and pursuit of values over time; that is, through their purposeful, on-going actions to gain and or keep their values in the face of obstacles or conflicts, whether internal or external." (pg. 32) Ayn Rand held that writing must be purposeful but that it's possible for characters not to be. This is not her ideal, for such writing does not inspire as it might, yet the authors seem intent in trying to show that Ayn Rand is asking for an impossibility when she merely has made a point of using words to refer to their referents in their fullest sense except in instances where she indicates by a qualifier such as "some" that she is not using the word that way that time.

Discussing Ayn Rand's theory that "visual art is an intrinsic part of films" and a film "has to be a stylized visual composition in motion" (though "literature is the ruler and term-setter" as "the play provides the end, to which all the rest is the means"), the authors debate Rand without justification: "If the art of film were essentially visual, the story could be told primarily through pictures. But as anyone who has ever tried to watch a film without the sound knows how difficult it is to follow the sense of the action without benefit of the dialogue, whereas one could readily grasp the gist of the story by listening to the sound track alone." (pg. 253) First off, have the authors tried to follow an episode of the "Mission: Impossible" TV series with the picture off? It's impossible. The authors further argue: "Even in silent films a verbal scenario was necessary to establish the story for the actors and directors; and title cards were interspersed with the visual images in the finished film to clarify the action for the audience." D.W. Griffith famously produced and directed major films with the plan only in his head. As for title cards, the famous "The Last Laugh" (dir: Murnau, Germany, 1925) has just one title card, it appearing about 70 minutes into its approximately 85 minutes, and that title is unnecessary to understand the story, it indicating the attitude of the writers, reporting only that they took pity on the lead character so that his life wouldn't take the turn it would in life. (Shortly thereafter the film has an insert of text from a newspaper. The information provided therein is vital -- but only for the final scene, not for understanding what preceded it.) Still more examples: an American film noir called "The Thief" (1952) and a well-regarded Japanese drama called "The Island" (1961) are both feature-length films which tell their stories without a word spoken.

Worse than the authors not looking for counterexamples that disprove their own ideas is that they ignored the part of Ayn Rand's point that established her context: her theory addresses the best potential of film, not its muddled average. Here is what Rand wrote: "Potentially, motion pictures are a great art, but that potential has not as yet been actualized, except in single instances and random moments." Why then did Torres and Kamhi not incorporate this key piece of context into their analysis? Instead, they provide as their wrap-up to this subject the lessons they took away from a then-recent book about screenwriting: "Robin Russin and William Missouri Downs (both of whom are successful screenwriters) argue, in their superb new guide *Screenplay: Writing the Picture*, that 'all good movies depend upon well-structured screenplays.' (89)" (pg. 254) Given that Rand had written that, in movies "the play provides the end, to which all the rest is the means," Torres and Kamhi don't have a case to make. They thereby went further from the full context of what Ayn Rand had to say, even as they pretend to be answering her. Likewise, two pages later, the authors let the argument of Phillip Lopate dominate, he having written about it being desirable to limit speeches in film scripts because film has to be visual. (I contend that speeches are short in films because they are generally written before actors are cast in them; speeches can be emotional and gripping, but a prerequisite to that is that the actor be carefully chosen.)

In the above passages, in place of maintaining and understanding the original author's context, Torres and Kamhi engage in appeal to authority. That sums up what I found wrong with this whole book.