I think that it was actually Mary Anne Sures that called modern art "the messy ones, and the neat ones" - although I suspect Ms Rand would have approved of this evaluation.
I think the interviewer missed the point of Roark's originality. Roark didn't object to learning from others (he studies and, to some extent, emulates Cameron) or their work, but to copying others' works without independently understanding the design choices behind their decisions. Roark believed that the beauty of a building was directly linked with the way that building fulfilled its function. Because of the capabilities and limitations of the materials, a building made out of steel, concrete, and glass is not going to fulfill its function in the same way as a building made of marble. At least, not if the architect is using the materials to their full potential. If you built a copy of the Parthenon out of modern materials, you're going to get a less useful building than if you used the same materials to build a skyscraper, so why copy the Parthenon? It's not going to be more beautiful, according to Roark, because the beauty flows from its usefulness.
Wonderful conversation! Very engaging and interesting. My opinion on the painting issue is that Vermeer is the highest form of positive vision of life in painting. The clear style is confident and heightens reality and philosophically aligns much more with objective reason and positive self esteem than Rembrandts mottled brown blurry lines which always seemed to suggest sad and depressing worldview. So I can see why she thinks that Capuletti or Dali were also better aesthetic also because at a time of disgusting meaningless modern art Dali remained true in detailed execution and adoration of classical beauty and harmony of the old masters such as Vermeer. So I see no contradiction in her valuing of painting. As far as architecture I think anyone with a sense of beauty would rather live in that Frank Loyd wright sketch which looked beautiful to me, than some boring dull brutalist concrete block of apartments. Art should be inspiring. Anyway great talk I hope to find more like these!
I think she would've been upset by it but her focus would be rather on the wealth of accurate information now available. Many people have taught themselves a new skill entirely from the internet.
Paintings comprised of squiggles, lines and splotches are childlike paintings, though perhaps "childish" is the better word to use, as surely only naïve art can get away with being called childlike! Some "artists" choose to do this type of art perhaps because they *have* no real talent...but what they do have is a strong social dominance drive, and they desperately want to be seen by the world as "artists," so they do smoke and mirrors art to hide the 'no talent' fact. It could be said that they, and their entourage of parasites who make a living off their lies, are like the weavers in *The Emperor's New Clothes,* story! Sadly, there are also some talented artists who choose to hide their light under a bushel in order not to displease the art police (Odd Nerdrum did a very good lecture on the topic), so they too draw and paint squiggles, lines and splotches, in order to fit in! Sad, sad world: all forms of creativity that require talent and freedom of oppression from Weavers, the Thought Police and the Art Gestapo, i.e. freedom to breathe, have been hijacked and are being held in a state of arrested development! "The wicked envy and hate [and in some way seek to diminish and destroy what they envy and hate]; it is their way of admiring." - Victor Hugo
Rationality is the antithesis of Dogma. Perhaps the dogma since the Impressionists regarding black as an evil colour is no different to the dogma against having a blue on your palette. One great thing about being a human that differentiates us from other animals is the capacity to make a choice beyond what one has become accustomed to.
I'm sorry this reply has no REAL substance, it's just that I heard the "difference between man and animal is choice" from East of Eden by John Steinbeck not too long ago.
But the shapes that Mondrian created is part of the objective reality! Just as much as painting a tree, you could paint a square. Why should one portrait be inferior to the other? When it comes to Jackson Pollock things become a bit different however. Because he didn't paint, he just poured paint on a canvas, there is a difference. I am a supporter of "neat" art, but not the "abstract expressionistic art".
Ayn Rand’s books are good toilet reading. Interesting how philosophy (objectivism vs. subjectivism) is still stuck on ideological thinking and ignores the breakthroughs in systems theory and biology. There are cognitive variations due to biodiversity. In addition, there are different perspectives due to socioeconomic factors, culture, etc.. Heidegger’s thrown-ness so to speak. So, claiming that objectivity is possible in a philosophical sense, is a dangerous proposal. Correspondence between cognition and the environment is a matter of fitness, not truth. False premises can work and become self-reinforcing until a catastrophic change in the environment cancels such premise. Since somewhat like 97% of species go extinct in the long run, most adaptations to the environment, including cognitive adaptations, are not viable in the long run. Gödel’s paradox of completeness should be enough to demolish the work of Rand. Not to mention Bertalanffy, Maturana, etc..
There is no basic distinction between fitness and truth for man. Cognition always and everywhere precipitates value-acquisition and the determination of life-conducive values *as* values. For man, truth-tracking is his basic means of survival. Object-relative or "objective" cognition is his essential mode of biological efficacy. Correspondence to the "environment" always precedes man's adapting his environment to himself; "nature to be commanded must be obeyed". And to obey here means to grasp and *know*, to have one's mental artifacts correspond to the real. In what possible sense does Godel's work or anything else from the other theorists you name have to do with anything essential to Rand, let alone "demolish" her?
"there is failure, therefore truth doesn't exists", if truth does not exists why bother communicating it since it literally wouldn't matter because you can't be right and you can't be wrong. Why waste your time with all the philosophy and science? Is it just entertainment to you?
Everyone who listens to this must feel privileged and grateful!
That was a very enjoyable talk. Thank you.
What a beautiful and educational talk!!
37:45 what an amazingly profound and yet easily comprehensible definition of art!
I think that it was actually Mary Anne Sures that called modern art "the messy ones, and the neat ones" - although I suspect Ms Rand would have approved of this evaluation.
I think the interviewer missed the point of Roark's originality. Roark didn't object to learning from others (he studies and, to some extent, emulates Cameron) or their work, but to copying others' works without independently understanding the design choices behind their decisions.
Roark believed that the beauty of a building was directly linked with the way that building fulfilled its function. Because of the capabilities and limitations of the materials, a building made out of steel, concrete, and glass is not going to fulfill its function in the same way as a building made of marble. At least, not if the architect is using the materials to their full potential. If you built a copy of the Parthenon out of modern materials, you're going to get a less useful building than if you used the same materials to build a skyscraper, so why copy the Parthenon? It's not going to be more beautiful, according to Roark, because the beauty flows from its usefulness.
Wonderful discussion .
Thank You .
Wonderful conversation! Very engaging and interesting. My opinion on the painting issue is that Vermeer is the highest form of positive vision of life in painting. The clear style is confident and heightens reality and philosophically aligns much more with objective reason and positive self esteem than Rembrandts mottled brown blurry lines which always seemed to suggest sad and depressing worldview. So I can see why she thinks that Capuletti or Dali were also better aesthetic also because at a time of disgusting meaningless modern art Dali remained true in detailed execution and adoration of classical beauty and harmony of the old masters such as Vermeer. So I see no contradiction in her valuing of painting. As far as architecture I think anyone with a sense of beauty would rather live in that Frank Loyd wright sketch which looked beautiful to me, than some boring dull brutalist concrete block of apartments. Art should be inspiring. Anyway great talk I hope to find more like these!
Imagine if Ayn Rand had lived to see social media. I think it would have broken her spirit completely.
I think she would've been upset by it but her focus would be rather on the wealth of accurate information now available. Many people have taught themselves a new skill entirely from the internet.
I think she would have understood that we are living in a scientific renaissance and take full advantage of the resources available.@@CuriousCattery
Thank you so much
Can you interview Dr. Harry Binswanger on this topic?
Paintings comprised of squiggles, lines and splotches are childlike paintings, though perhaps "childish" is the better word to use, as surely only naïve art can get away with being called childlike! Some "artists" choose to do this type of art perhaps because they *have* no real talent...but what they do have is a strong social dominance drive, and they desperately want to be seen by the world as "artists," so they do smoke and mirrors art to hide the 'no talent' fact. It could be said that they, and their entourage of parasites who make a living off their lies, are like the weavers in *The Emperor's New Clothes,* story! Sadly, there are also some talented artists who choose to hide their light under a bushel in order not to displease the art police (Odd Nerdrum did a very good lecture on the topic), so they too draw and paint squiggles, lines and splotches, in order to fit in!
Sad, sad world: all forms of creativity that require talent and freedom of oppression from Weavers, the Thought Police and the Art Gestapo, i.e. freedom to breathe, have been hijacked and are being held in a state of arrested development!
"The wicked envy and hate [and in some way seek to diminish and destroy what they envy and hate]; it is their way of admiring." - Victor Hugo
Rationality is the antithesis of Dogma. Perhaps the dogma since the Impressionists regarding black as an evil colour is no different to the dogma against having a blue on your palette. One great thing about being a human that differentiates us from other animals is the capacity to make a choice beyond what one has become accustomed to.
I'm sorry this reply has no REAL substance, it's just that I heard the "difference between man and animal is choice" from East of Eden by John Steinbeck not too long ago.
Thank you so much!!!!!
Jan-Ove Tuv is the embodiment of confirmation bias.
You can use google translate on the article.
Love this 💯
If it exists, can anyone provide the link to Martinsen's article?
Here is the article (in norwegian):
vegmar.wordpress.com/2010/11/15/immanuel-kants-innflydelse/
Bruh just her esthetics? It’s her WHOLE philosophy that will save us!
Literally!!
Unless you're an average American!
But the shapes that Mondrian created is part of the objective reality! Just as much as painting a tree, you could paint a square. Why should one portrait be inferior to the other? When it comes to Jackson Pollock things become a bit different however. Because he didn't paint, he just poured paint on a canvas, there is a difference. I am a supporter of "neat" art, but not the "abstract expressionistic art".
👍⭐️👍👌⭐️
Ayn Rand’s books are good toilet reading. Interesting how philosophy (objectivism vs. subjectivism) is still stuck on ideological thinking and ignores the breakthroughs in systems theory and biology. There are cognitive variations due to biodiversity. In addition, there are different perspectives due to socioeconomic factors, culture, etc.. Heidegger’s thrown-ness so to speak. So, claiming that objectivity is possible in a philosophical sense, is a dangerous proposal. Correspondence between cognition and the environment is a matter of fitness, not truth. False premises can work and become self-reinforcing until a catastrophic change in the environment cancels such premise. Since somewhat like 97% of species go extinct in the long run, most adaptations to the environment, including cognitive adaptations, are not viable in the long run. Gödel’s paradox of completeness should be enough to demolish the work of Rand. Not to mention Bertalanffy, Maturana, etc..
There is no basic distinction between fitness and truth for man. Cognition always and everywhere precipitates value-acquisition and the determination of life-conducive values *as* values. For man, truth-tracking is his basic means of survival. Object-relative or "objective" cognition is his essential mode of biological efficacy. Correspondence to the "environment" always precedes man's adapting his environment to himself; "nature to be commanded must be obeyed". And to obey here means to grasp and *know*, to have one's mental artifacts correspond to the real.
In what possible sense does Godel's work or anything else from the other theorists you name have to do with anything essential to Rand, let alone "demolish" her?
"there is failure, therefore truth doesn't exists", if truth does not exists why bother communicating it since it literally wouldn't matter because you can't be right and you can't be wrong. Why waste your time with all the philosophy and science? Is it just entertainment to you?