Customer Reviews

What Art Is: The Esthetic Theory of Ayn Rand

5 star:		(8)
4 star:		(2)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(3)
1 star:		(2)

 

 

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.

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.

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.

That Russian-born novelist and philosopher Ayn Rand (1905-82) had some profound insights into esthetics I do not doubt, based on my evaluation of her other writings and especially the depths of her published insights into current "artistic" practices -- which have only become more pronounced since her death. That Mr. Torres and Ms. Kamhi would be highly qualified to comment on Ms. Rand's esthetic ideas I also have little reason to doubt, primarily based on their (sporadic and all-too-infrequent) publication of the art journal Aristos. But I found `What Are Is' -- nominally Torres' and Kamhi's magnum opus on Rand's definition of art and philosophy of esthetics -- curiously wanting in several areas and read more like a series of (albeit interesting) articles rather than a comprehensive work. Given Ms. Rand's rigidly integrated view of this subject matter I found this disorganization curious and ironic.

Not that the authors don't score some serious points, if nothing else for tackling Rand's still-highly-relevant definition of art, not to mention how the willful ignorance of definitions and concepts have turned the current artworld (the authors gleefully use this fabricated compound word) into a chamber of absurd horrors. The first third of this book plunges headlong into Rand's published works and statements on esthetics, covering concepts familiar to readers of her philosophy including psycho-epistemology, sense of life, and art and cognition. Herein lies the meat of the book: the authors clearly show both Rand's strongest strengths (e.g., the role of concepts and values in esthetic appreciation, why photography can't be defined as art) and weaknesses (e.g., the inclusion of architecture as art against her own definition) on the subject and -- unlike many of Rand's followers -- pull no punches when they find her self-contradictory, flippant, or even needlessly extreme. Reasoned, calm and objective critiques of Rand -- on any subject -- are painfully infrequent and Torres and Kamhi deserve high praise for giving her ideas the critical respect and attention they deserve.

When they turn to applying Rand's ideas and their own critiques to the current state of the arts, however, the authors lose their momentum. The clarity evident when discussing Rand's ideas flags noticeably throughout the balance of the book (vaguely titled "Extension and Application of Rand's Theory") when they turn their attention to the modern artworld in all its absurdities: from the roots of abstract "art" in the early 20th century to the current pastiche of "art is what any artist says it is." While their attack here should be painfully easy, the authors are handicapped by indecision--applying Rand's ideas where applicable but also throwing in their own (often unsupported) notions as well. I was often left wondering whose voice was taking a stand; this ambiguity was doubly frustrating when the authors propose a brilliant concept of their own (e.g., dubbing the aforementioned art definition by fiat the "authoritarian theory of art"). Simply put, I couldn't tell if they were "extending" Rand's ideas or "applying" them. I would assume both, but too often they came across with neither.

Nevertheless, `What Art Is' provides a strong riposte to the current comical state of the fine arts. The search for clear, consistent definitions is more than welcome and the authors go to no small trouble to show how Rand's theories provide an excellent guide. If they had had the gumption to form their *own* ideas based on the solid foundation Rand built -- rather than selectively and confusingly applying the two - their work would have been a more reliable guide.

Cutting through the confusion of the last century, Torres and Kamhi, present a lucid, extended, and in-depth discussion of the fundamental nature of art. As art is often intensely personal for both artist and audience alike, the authors present their ideas with consideration and tolerance; they show amble appreciation for the breath of human artistic achievement. They also review the contempt of the art establishment towards the views and needs of the vast art audience, as these experts have denigrated the creation of representational painting, tonal music, and traditional art in general.

One needs a theory of art to distinguish Art from Non-art; esthetic endeavors from psychotic behavior and garbage (see Madness and Modernism by Sass as a companion text). The book is excellent, read it. I only want to make a few additional comments. There is a cultural war going on today. If you think that the televangelists are the only ones taking advantage of hordes of naive and gullible people, take a look at, for example, the NY art establishment (the cultural center of the nation), the museum directors and art critics and try to criticize their take on art. You will be labelled a crude buffoon lacking in spriritual sensitivity. I visit the art museums and galleries regularly and I am still amazed; e.g., at the people in the Modern Art Museum who sit in awed silence observing a huge canvess with nothing but a blue square on a white background, and on the other huge wall a huge white canvass with a giant red dot on it. What does this mean? Besides being a huge public con, where a lot of money is involved, from tax rightoffs for museum donations to selling to the idle rich with more money than brains, it is another form of that pervasive Political Correctness that is now pervading our society. [how can you critcize what you can't understand? It's all relative, etc.etc. Doesn't the heroic schizophrenic with a paint brush have a right to call his doodles art?] But the real point is you have to listen and obey. If the art critics and their political allies choose to call it art (like when the character in 1984 says 2+2=5, you had better agree.).

I think this book is good (whether you agree with all points or not: you are allowed to form your own opinion), because it is ammunition against the pretentiousness and lies that pervade our cultural life.

One valuble thing the book pointed out to me is: if I go into an art museum and I have to read a long dissertation of Artsybabble to even understand what the work of art is supposed to be about, and it still makes no sense, then the artist sure as hell hasn't done a good job of conveying his intentions. We don't need a new class of high priests to interpret reality for us. This book will help you understand why.

Even though it is an empirical truth that works on Objectivism by «independent scholars» are usually pretentious wastes of time, I was particularly eager to read this 500-page treatise on the Objectivist theory of art. Call it a victory of hope over experience. My first disappointment was to discover that about one third of the book is composed of footnotes : about 1,500 of them, over 150 pages ! Academics tend to consider footnotes as a badge of superior scholarship, but let's face it : they are nothing more than material that the author has failed to integrate into the body of his work, clutter from the cutting room floor whose inclusion merely serves to hamper the linear process of reading. In this particular case, about 80 pages into the book, I had to quit reading them, so as to concentrate on the flow of the authors' argument. My second disappointment was that M&K's book is not what it purports to be, i.e. an analysis or a systematization of Rand's esthetics. Much of the relevant source material has been left out or poorly exploited. Rand's art itself could have been studied as an application of her esthetic principles, but it is not. This is all the more unjust as the authors devote four pages to an unproduced scenario which «has been judged by many film professionals one of the best screenplays ever written, if not the best», while they have virtually nothing to say about Rand's own screenplays for «The Fountainhead» and «Love Letters». Most of the references to Rand's esthetics are concentrated in chapters 1 through 4, which analyze the four major essays in Rand's «Romantic Manifesto». The authors agree with the fundamentals of the Objectivist esthetics, but the criticisms they do make are often very unfair or unsubstantiated. As an example of the former, they refute Rand's statement that Vermeer (one of her favorite painters) often chose as subjects «folks next door... to kitchens» by remarking that «only one of his paintings, «Maidservant Pouring Milk», even suggests the vicinity of a kitchen». Isn't that a little too literal a reading ? As an example of unsubstantiated or gratuitous criticism, here is how they reject Rand's classification of the screenplay as a form of drama : «[Rand] may have been somewhat off the mark in considering the screenplay as a species of drama. As Susanne Langer suggests, the strucure of film is closer to narrative fiction that to drama» (p361 n 62.) What we have here is an arbitrary disagreement supported by an argument from authority. This is all the more irresponsible as M&K's rejection of Rand's theory of the screenplay as drama renders them unable to understand why voiceovers and lengthy monologues are inappropriate in film. My third disappointment with the book is that it is mostly focused on negatives, rather than stressing the positive. In fact, M&K are merely using Rand as a springboard (or selling argument ?) to launch their own attack on modernist «art». However cogent and salutary this attack is, I think Rand's own attitude towards modernist «art» was much more rational : there's nothing to say about it, it belongs on a rubbish dump, let's move on to something that makes sense, shall we ? In «What Art Is», you will learn more than you ever wanted to know about so-called «artists» who have friends shoot them in the arm in public or have their cervix examined by the audience as a form of «performative art», while nothing is said of the genuine artists who, under Rand's influence, are currently ushering in a second Renaissance in the arts. Finally, my fourth disappointment with «What Art Is» is that it fails to give credit where credit is due. While adopting virtually all the essentials of Rand's eshetics, M&K spend more time criticizing or smearing Rand than recognizing her greatness. When mentioning the prospect of the exctinction of non-art and the rebirth of art, they do not mention the role of Objectivism in that process but hope that their book «will play some small role in hastening that renaissance». Even more blatant is their injustice towards Leonard Peikoff, whose great accomplishments all «independent Objectivist scholars» invariably belittle. Not only is Peikoff's chapter on Art in «Objectivism : The Philosophy of Ayn Rand» more or less disregarded, but his 1993 lecture on «Modernism and Madness» (published in «The Intellectual Activist», November 1994) is dismissed to a footnote (n. 6 p391) which is not even listed in the index. Such an oversight is all the more troubling as much of "What Art Is" is only a lengthy paraphrase Peikoff's argument in this lecture. For all my strong reservations, however, I am not saying that this book should not be read. Its thorough documentation of the irrationalism of the culture of the twentieth century may provide intellectual ammunition for more focused arguments, and the book does have a few good points to make on Rand's esthetics. M&K's comment on architecture, for instance, could be reduced to a valid syllogism : if (1) «art is a selective re-creation of reality according to an artist's metaphysical value-judgments» and (2) «architecture... does not recreate reality» (two statements from Rand's «Romantic Manifesto»), then (3) architecture is not an art. However, I think it is as unjustified to call this book «What Art Is : The Esthetic Theory of Ayn Rand» as it would be to call a Rand-influenced catalogue of the horrors of the gulag «What Capitalism Is : The Political Theory of Ayn Rand».

What Art Is: The Esthetic Theory Of Ayn Rand surveys philosopher/novelist Ayn Rand (1905-1982) commentaries on the nature and meaning of art, contrasting her theory of esthetics with those of other thinkers. The authors conclude that, in its basic principles, Rand's account is compelling, and is corroborated by evidence from anthropology, neurology, cognitive science, and psychology. Rand's theory is applied to a debunking of the work of prominent modernists & postmodernists. Highly recommended, insightful, and challenging reading for students of philosophy and arts criticism, What Art Is concludes with an exploration of the implications of Rand's ideas for the issues of government and corporate support of the arts, art law, and arts education.

...Who is she... some sort of joke?"

2 amateurs attempt to re-write art history to honor their chosen savior.
This grand embarrassment of a book is not humanist in the least. It closes off opportunities and possibilities, attempts to squelch the unstoppable creativity of art in the last 75 years, and proposes a recipe limiting that which by nature is unlimited. Its claims against art are as delusional and grandiose as the illusion of expertise by its authors.
The tremendous lack of understanding and misreading of modern and contemporary art it pukes forth is as laughable as its complete ignorance about postmodernism.
Read it for a laugh if you have time to waste, but in the end you'll know the verdict on this bile loud and clear.
"Nay." (plop, plop. plop.)

I did not expect to like this book. Rand's esthetics are the part of her philosophy I find most deplorable. And although Torres and Kamhi are not slavish admirers of Rand who follow her every word, I can't say I cared much for their dreary essentialism. Rand was part of the Aristotlean tradition in philosophy. Her philosophy is more telogically centered than the naturalism of the pre-Socratics or modern science. It also embraces a form of "methdological essentialism," as the philosopher Karl Popper dubbed it, which I find hard to take, especially in strong doses. Methodological essentialists stress the importance of "What is" questions and the definitions of words. Torres and Kamhi, like Rand herself, are uncompromising definition mongers and "what is" analyzers. But I don't think esthetic questions can be solved by answering such questions as "What is art?" or "What is literature?" or by claiming that the bad, non-representational art of modernism and post-modernism is not really art at all, but a kind of fraudulent non-art pretending to be art. Torres and Kamhi stress the importance of defining art, but I have little use for this mode of analysis. Emphasis on definitions simply leads to hopeless arguments about words. I would much rather know why some works of art are successful and some not than know how art should be defined. Art is far too complicated to be summed up in essence of some definition. What I want to know is how does this or that piece of art function aesthetically, and if it functions well or poorly, than why? Science and naturalism emphasize "why" and "how" questions. This is what I would have liked to see from Torres and Kamhi. But being from the Socratic/Aristotlean tradition in philosophy, they have a different methodological point of view on this matter, one I find hopelessly inferior to the methodological nominalism of the sciences.

Nevertheless, despite these criticisms, I urge all those who are interested in art to read the book, regardless of what they think of Rand. The book is written on a much higher level than most pro-Rand books that are published nowadays. Torres and Kamhi, unlike Rand's orthodox disciples, at least are sound scholars with an appreciation for empirical evidence and close logical analysis. They are fair to opposing viewpoints (unlike Rand herself, who treated opponents as if they were sub-human), and they provide an excellent overview of the excesses of modern and post-modern art. Merely as a phillipic against bad art (or, as the authors would insist, "non-art"), I would give this book a five star rating. But because of the methodological essentialism, I have to drop it down to four. The emphasis on definitions really can get annoying.