Rating: 
Summary: A brilliantly reasoned book by a great thinker
Review: "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.
Rating:
Summary: A brilliantly reasoned book by a great thinker
Review: "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.
Rating:
Summary: A brilliantly reasoned book by a great thinker
Review: "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.
Rating:
Summary: The brilliant minds of the world give such excellent reviews
Review: After ordering a few new copies of Ayn Rand's books to replace older note-ridden ones I took some care to read these reviews. To all who are not fluent with philosophy, please remember there is much philosophy in this world and I suggest you read as much of it as you can, and remember philosophy is not a popularity contest. Some of the reviews you read here throwing around such words as fascism are merely insane. We all know "fascist" in italian is leader, ie dictator etc... It is form of government not a philosophy. Ayn Rand advocates no specific form of government. This is particularlly amusing with this book, obviously about art, and having nothing to do with government at all. In any event, I will save my breath. If there is one thing Ayn Rand advocated, it is that YOU make your own decisions. Don't let bored, bone headed fools make your decisions for you. Read the book, then decide.
Rating: 
Summary: Reviews Reviewed and Critiziced
Review: After reading several on-line reviews of Ayn Rand's books at Amazon.com, I come to realise that there are the two usual categories of people doing the reviewing: the one's who love her ideas and the one's that hate them. Fine with me, but why can't the people who hate her give any other arguments that she is 'fascist', 'dangerous' or 'takes a strong grip on her readers'? Fascist - she is not (look up a definition of fascism in any dictionary), dangerous - for whom?, and the 'grip' she delivers is a positive sense of life and that, of course, captures a lot of people. I believe that Mats Landstrom (from Sweden) and others with him should try to ask themselves what it is that they 'hate' about Ayn Rand and when doing so they will hopefully reach an answer about themselves (or of their psyche), and how they see life. Then they (hopefully) could give any reasonable, authentic 'arguments' why they dislike Ayn Rand - instead of all the predictable, untrue, and highly non-personal views. Thanks for listening to my words. Think about them.
Rating: 
Summary: Poppycock and balderdash
Review: Although I can't add very much, in terms of quality review, to Mr. Nyquist's review of January 15, 2000, I felt I had to do my part to lower the "rating average" for this slim, but decidedly too lengthy, tome. Ms. Rand comes across as very clear and precise; there is nothing obscure about her "art criticism", as there is in, say, Ezra Pound. But clarity, self-satisfaction (of which she has an egregious amount) and simplicity do not add up to truth. Mr. Nyquist hit the nail directly on the head: she is attempting to "liberate" man from the bondage of his Creator. A careful perusal of C.S. Lewis' "The Abolition of Man" will show why she is misdirected. Her use of terms like "rational" and "objective" are simply blinds: her theories, in this case of art, are as subjective as it is possible to be. What is actually the most surprising fact of this book is Ms. Rand's hubris at setting herself up as a competent critic of "art" as a whole (with the exception of poetry - which she graciously ignores - though it was the very engine of "romanticism"). I was enthralled with her artistic trap when she made clear that a man of a certain "nature" would act only in consistency with that nature. For example, she used a piece of dialogue from "The Fountainhead" (a fantastic novel, by the way - and maybe an example of the fact that just because someone is a good writer, it doesn't necessarily follow that they are a good critic) and showed how it would have muddied the character of Roark for her to write it differently than she did. While true, I find it fascinating for the implications of her theory of "free will". In other words, her very artistic rules, designed to explicate human free will, seem to demand that she characterize her subjects in a way that does not allow for free will. Strange, no? Basically, if you are looking for a decent analysis of the romantic movement in art - look elsewhere. If you feel Ms. Rand is the sum total of all perfections, then, of course, you will like this book. C'est la vie. Kelly Whiting
Rating:
Summary: Individualistic ideas, bad forum
Review: Although this book serves a steadfast purpose for those who are Ayn Rand zealots, which most reading the book probably are, the book is extremely repetitive. The points presented in it mimic the entirety of the more widely-known Ayn Rand fiction selection. Nonetheless, Ms. Rand continues her fascinating insights into humanity and art. Although I do believe that much of Rand's work was written as Objectivist propaganda, I also find that some self-evident truths of human nature can be found buried in this book. The work pits the traditionally accepted romantic viewpoint with the views of Rand's philosophy in something of a neo-classist mess. The novel projects the sense that you aren't listening to only Ayn Rand but a variety of her fictional characters. Howard Roark laughs In any sense of the work, it puts Rand's message across clear, but abrasive to those not willing to accept Objectivism.
Rating:
Summary: This book is Rand's analysis of what art is.
Review: 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!
Rating:
Summary: This book presents a clear view of the ideals of art.
Review: Ayn Rand's creative genius once again shines through. She shows her commitment to the expression of her philosophy in a practical reality.
Rating:
Summary: Forget Oprah..., THIS book is pure, philosophical OXYGEN!
Review: Before reading this book in 1985, the only "definition" of art I had ever heard was the worn-out catch-phrase "I may not know what art IS, but I know what I LIKE." My observation is that this arrogantly subjective definition is preferred by would-be artists and art-critics who would (if they thought they could get away with it) put baboon poop on a golden platter and pass it off as a "profound" idea... the kind of people who want to declare that random paint splatterings on a canvas are the modern equivalent to Michelangelo's Cistine Chapel, or that 12-tone music is actually somehow distinguishable from a insane cat running up and down a piano keyboard, or that "5 minutes of SILENCE" is the artistic equivalent of Mozart's greatest works, or that a garbage-can lid is a musical instrument... If you are one of the apparently few people who believe that art has the potential to be MORE than just an arbitrary "knee-jerk" personal preference, then The Romantic Manifesto will be to you what an oxygen mask is for an astronaut in the vacuum of space. If you are one of the apparently few who realize that the purpose of pointing at something and declaring "That is art" is to distinguish it from all the things one considers "non-art," then buy this book and prepare to be revitalized by a deep breath of philosophical oxygen. The Romantic Manifesto has TWO LEVELS, giving the book a subtlety ignored by anti-Randian critics. First, Rand articulates an ingenious definition of the concept "art" which can be applied accurately and fairly..., even to artists that Rand herself disliked. The second level of the book is where Rand APPLIES her objective definition of art within the context of her personal values (that is, Objectivist values). Unfortunately, Rand's greatest mistake as a philosopher was her claim that "If you accept ANY part of my philosophy, then you must logically accept ALL of it." Once this erroneous claim is rejected, we are free to apply her abstract principles to specific artists and their works at the same time we are free to reject some of Rand's own inaccurate applications of her principles. (By the way, by rejecting Rand's erroneous claim above, one can avoid making the mistake made by many anti-Randians... Which I refer to as "The Fallacy of the Jackass." That is, instead of using Rand's true statements to dismiss her false ones, this fallacy takes a false statement, assumes it to be true, and then uses it to "disprove" other ideas that actually are true). For example, according to Rand's definition of art, Van Gogh was a moderately-skilled artist. But within the context of Objectivist values, he was a BAD (and "metaphysically unimportant") artist because he projected human pain, torment and angst NOT as obstacles to be overcome, but as subjects worthy of obsessive comtemplation. I have to agree with her on that one. On the other hand, Rand likes tap-dancing and James Bond, while I am personally bored to tears with both. Contrary to what anti-Randian critics would have you believe, Rand's personal evaluations of numerous historical artists include BOTH praise AND condemnation. For example, in a discussion of "style," she says that on one hand, Salvador Dali "projects the luminous clarity of a rational psycho-epistemology," while on the other hand "his subjects project an irrational and revoltingly evil metaphysics." Vermeer, she says, "combines a brilliant clarity of style with the bleak metaphysics of Naturalism." Cubism, she declares, is a "rebellion against consciousness" because it "seeks specifically to disintegrate man's consciousness by painting objects as man does NOT perceive them (from several perspectives at once)." Years before I read The Romantic Manifesto, I had disliked cubism, but it was this book that helped me to pinpoint the precise reason for my dislike. In spite of its imperfections, The Romantic Manifesto is the ONLY viable alternative, throughout the recorded history of mankind, to the morass of egalitarian mediocrity that still seeks to hide behind the shameful confession "I may not know what art is, but I know what I like." Thanks to Ayn Rand, there is no longer any excuse for "not knowing what art is." Rand's definition of art is applicable, revealing and meaningful even outside the context of Objectivist values. Buy it. And breathe deeply.
| 
