- ISBN13: 9780451149169
- Condition: NEW
- Notes: Brand New from Publisher. No Remainder Mark.
Product Description
Underlying this treatise is the objectivist philosophy which has placed Ayn Rand in the mainstream of American thought.
Related posts:
- Cakes for Romantic Occasions
- Romantic Birthday Ideas: How to Plan a Romantic Birthday
- Creative Romantic Gift Ideas: Hot Ideas for Unusual Romantic Gifts
- What is the most romantic thing anyone has ever done for you?
- Romantic Things to Say – Simple But Heart-warming Romantic Lines
Perhaps it’s because I’m a photographer and Rand insists that photography isn’t art that I find her characteristically longwinded pronouncements on art to be somewhat muddled. First, she states that art must represent more than a powerfull image, emotion or mood. Then she calls Vermeer “the greatest of all artists”, noting that he devoted his unquestioned skills to “a single theme: light itself”. Welcome to my world, Ayn, that’s all photography is, a two demensional representation of real light. But her Vermeer argument is badly weakened by that famous work of 17th century pornography, Girl with Pearl Earing. In this work, Vermeer shows he has more than light on his mind, producing about as powerful an image of raw sexuality as the time would permit. There’s nothing intellectual about either beautiful light or a sexy girl. They’re both about image, emotion or mood; that is, all the things Rand herself insists are not art.
Rating: 2 / 5
The Romantic Manifesto
Don’t let all of Rand’s talk about being the fountainhead of the next cultural renaissance fool you. As any careful reader of this tome will see all too clearly, Rand despises most of what passes for great art in Western Civilization. Flaubert she dismisses as “carefully superficial”; Thomas Wolfe she describes as “a chaos of floating abstractions”; Tolstoy gives her “the feeling of an unsanitary backyard which I do not care to enter”; the Impressionists she accuses of “silliness”; she regards “The Blue Danube Waltz” as worse than a funeral march (and what, may I ask, is wrong with a funeral march?). Thomas Mann’s novel “The Magic Mountain” and Theodore Dreiser’s “An American Tragedy,” two of the most brilliant novels to come out of the twenties, are held up by Rand as examples of bad novels! “Anna Karenina” is derided as “the most evil book in serious literature.” Among serious writers, only Victor Hugo and Dostoevsky meet with Rand’s full approval. Nearly all others, including Shakespeare, are guilty of “naturalism,” which Rand arbitrarily defines as the category of art that denies “volition.” What this alleged denial of volition actually means in terms of empirical reality is anyone’s guess. After weeks of study and prayer, I came to the following conclusion as to its meaning: by “denial of volition,” Rand merely means anyone who rejects her theory of human nature. But what is her theory of human nature? Rand’s theory of human nature asserts that man is a “being of self-made soul.” According to Rand, God did not create man, man created man. Rand’s aesthetics is, in many respects, merely a rationalization of her theory of human theory. All art which portrays men as Rand wished them to be is, to her way of thinking, good. All art which portrays men as they really are is, to her way of thinking, flawed or bad. Since most great art portrays men as they really are, not as Rand wished them to be, Rand was, ipso facto, opposed to most art. This is corroborated by Rand’s biographers, Nathaniel and Barbara Branden, who claim that Rand persecuted those of her acquaintances who liked art she disapproved of. I believe that Rand’s narrow, philistine views on art do her millions of adoring fans a disservice. Instead of encouraging them to explore the great world of books, she tells them that there is hardly anything worth reading beyond Victor Hugo, Dostoevsky and herself. In effect, she urges them to close their minds to the great cultural heritage of Western Civilization. I doubt that she ever did anything worse than this.
Rating: 1 / 5
The Romantic Manifesto
I believe Ayn Rand’s writings are very destructive. And this isn’t because of her highly un-original philosophy. No, the reason for this is the powerful grip the books has on her followers. In her books they find justification for behaving in a anti-social manner that is slowly destroying the fabric of the societies of the Western World. This egoism is supposedly derived from “reason”. In the real world however there is no reason for people not to find fulfillment and meaning from helping others and caring for their family and friends. The accusation that “altruism”, i.e. decency and goodness, leads to tyranny is nothing but products of a very paranoid mind. The craziest thing about this though is the fact that Ayn Rand has been raised to a saint-like status by her followers. No disagreement with her writings is ever accepted and if you disagree you are an evil communist/collectivist. To be a true individualist you must agree with everything she has ever written. Isn’t this collectivism in a true sense? No, says her followers, those views are derived by reason and must therefore be share by all intelligent human beings. Pretty scary!! Note that Objectivism, like Marxism, Freudianism and Jungianism, is a closed system of thought in the sense that any critisism of the system is automatically seen as a symptom of unreason. This is what makes Objectivism a religion rather than a philosophy or scientific method. And this is also the reason for the fanatical behavior of her disciples.
Rating: 1 / 5
The Romantic Manifesto
This book attempts to give an apology for the Romantic movement in art and literature, and the author describes herself as part of this movement. For readers who are familiar with her novels, her adherence to this movement will be obvious. Those who have not read them, but instead are merely interested in studying this book because of their interest in aesthetic philosophy, may find the coverage too scant and the dialog too harsh for their tastes. This is not to say that there are not some interesting discussions in the book. For example, the chapter entitled “Art and Cognition” should catch the attention of readers with a background in artificial intelligence, psychology, or neuroscience. In this chapter the author, interestingly, asserts that humans need art simply because their cognitive faculties are conceptual in nature. The acquisition of human knowledge is done via abstractions, and art assists in the need in bring these abstractions to perceptual awareness, argues the author. Art makes concrete the fundamental views that each human has of their place in existence. Art gives information on which parts of human experience are regarded as fundamental or important by a particular individual. Painting, drawing, music, literature, sculpture, etc. are thus a consequence of the cognitive abilities of humankind. Hence entities that employ similar abilities would also tend to engage in artistic endeavors, whether they are human or not. Unfortunately, the author does not offer any evidence to support her assertions connecting artistic activity with cognition. Such evidence would ideally come from studies in neuroscience, and would be of great interest to those curious about the need for art in performing conceptual analysis, and vice versa. Indeed, even one of the most intense of cognitive activities, mathematics, requiring a high degree of both creativity and logic, has been deemed by some to be more of an art, rather than a purely logical activity.
Since the author is a philosopher, and not a scientist, it should not be surprising to see that scientific evidence for its claims is not included. Most books on the philosophy of aesthetics do not include such evidence. However, the author makes claims in many parts of the book that such evidence is there, in fact, a “great deal” of such evidence, that offers support to her claims. However, absolutely no references are given for the interested reader. In addition, most authors of philosophical treatises on aesthetics approach the subject with a calmness of spirit that is not exhibited by the author of this book. It does not help the reader understand the issues in the philosophy of aesthetics by referring to certain areas of art as being a sign of a “bankrupt” culture.
Much time is spent in the book as an apology for the Romantic school of art, as of course its title implies. The Romantic school is to be differentiated from the Naturalistic one, with the former being more desirable or “rational”. The author describes today’s literature as being in a state of “eclectic shambles”, and, with only a few exceptions, no literary movement of any value and significant influence. Only “bewildered imitators” and charlatans are representative of today’s literature, she asserts. Needless to say this kind of language has no place in philosophy, science, literature, or any other field of endeavor. Ironically, the author has herself received a vituperative commentary in the print media, which she herself has objected to.
A radical revision of this book would be needed if it were to meet the standards of scientific evidence that the author in many places claims exists for it. With its thought experiments and wide variability in its language, philosophy typically misses its mark in its descriptions and its search for truth. This work is no different in this regard, and does not deliver a successful theory of aesthetics or a sound apology for a particular school of art or literature.
Rating: 3 / 5
The Romantic Manifesto
This book contains Ayn Rand’s theory of art. It’s not a bad book, by Randian standards, but that’s not saying much. The theory presented is integrated with Rand’s epistemology (actually, her theory of concepts) and therefore has all the problems that her epistemology entails. In addition, like Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology, it contains much gratuitous and unwarranted speculation about how the children, adults and animals think.
The above being said, Rand has some interesting things to say. For example, the chapter Art and Sense of Life is provocative. Rand states: “An artist does not fake reality-he stylizes it. He selects those aspects of existence which regards as metaphysically significant-and by isolating and stressing them, by omitting the insignificant and accidental, he presents his view of existence.” [p. 36.] This strikes me as correct, but I seriously doubt Rand was the first to view art this way.
My biggest problem with book is Rand’s definition of romanticism. As usual, she makes up her own definition (think of her definitions of “selfishness” and “altruism”.) She states: “Romanticism is a category of art based on the recognition of the principle that man possesses the faculty of volition.” [p. 99.] While this is one aspect of romanticism, it certainly doesn’t define the movement. Clearly much of romanticism is directly contrary to her professed philosophy. Indeed, one dictionary defines “romanticism” (in part) as “a stress on immediate sensation . . . a distaste for the orderly, rational, intellectual and moderate . . . ” [Angeles, Dictionary of Philosophy, ad loc.]
Rating: 1 / 5
The Romantic Manifesto