Rating: 
Summary: Philosophy of aesthetics or manual for Randroids? It's both
Review: Despite having some helpful things to say about literature and other forms of art, this collection of essays is in the end an extended "proof" that there's something wrong with you if you like any other authors (a) better than you like Ayn Rand or (b) better than Ayn Rand likes them. If you're a careful and critical reader, you'll find much food for thought here. But if you're not, this book will lead you to start judging all your friends' and acquaintances' "psycho-epistemologies" by their emotional responses to _The Fountainhead_ and _Atlas Shrugged_. Not Rand's best work; fortunately, she's interesting even at her worst.
Rating: 
Summary: Rand the Philistine
Review: 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: 
Summary: Art without confusion
Review: For those who like theory and integration, this book is unavoidable. It brings wonderful simplicity to art, long considered a subject that defied definition. Objective standards of judging art are introduced (and elaborated upon in the posthumously compiled "The Art Of Fiction"). I am one of the "shruggers" who some years ago abandoned art because I did not like the nonobjective standards used today. This book makes me wish I had stayed.It provides or suggests objective answers to many questions. Why couldn't Shakespeare construct plots? Is Modern "Art" really Art? Why did Dostoevsky create so many evil characters? What is the significance of a hero's death at the end of a story? The one sequence I particularly adore is where literary Romanticism (volition-oriented literature) is classified from Hugo and Dostoevsky down through Scott and Dumas to Ian Fleming and Mickey Spillaney. If you are really interested in becoming an artist, I would advise reading this book along with "Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology" (I am using the latter for my present purposes). The writing is abstract, but once the meaning is absorbed into your consciousness, it could be a great help.
Rating:
Summary: The Soviet theory of art, applied to Objectivism
Review: Here's the skinny of Rand's theory: the human mind uses perceptual concretes to stand for concepts, so art is supposed to provide us with them. The proper conclusion of this reasoning -- though Rand does not draw it -- is that art is supposed to encourage you to think in words and images instead of ideas. (Don't think through your problems; just imagine "What Would Howard Roark Do." And don't ask why this technique doesn't work with the sterile, cardboard figure of John Galt.) Why this is supposed to be a _defense_ of "reason in art" is beyond me. In fact it reduces art to its strictly utilitarian purposes -- just like Soviet art, but in the service of Rand's "Objectivist" State rather than the Soviet State. And as the Soviets could smell heresy in Shostakovitch, Rand can smell it in just about everybody other than Mickey Spillane and Ian Fleming. Art may not imitate life, but Rand's theory of art certainly imitates her own life. The upshot of this book is that there must be something wrong with you if you (a) like any artists better than Rand likes them or (b) like any artist better than you like Rand herself. And Rand treated all of her "friends" and acquaintances accordingly. The fact is -- and it _is_ an objective, rationally intelligible fact -- that how you respond to an artist depends a good deal on your own _subjective_ (not "arbitrary": subjective) tastes and capacities. It does not reduce to a simple matter of "style," as though everybody who enjoys the Impressionists (whom, incidentally, Rand seems to think were pointillists) has a murky, anti-cognitive "sense of life" and everybody who enjoys Beethoven (which I don't) has a sort of ominous feeling about the "malevolent" universe. This stuff is nothing but rationalization -- rationalization of why Rand's doorstop (excuse me; "novel") ATLAS SHRUGGED didn't receive widespread critical acclaim, and rationalization of why other people didn't respond to real artists with the same sort of heresy-sniffing emotionalism Rand herself did. (It _couldn't_ have been because there was something wrong with _her_ . . . ) But I must add that I've found it to be extremely handy in my own criticisms of Rand's incompetent "epistemology." The essays in this volume have helped to make it extremely clear that Rand didn't think things through very well. For details, visit my website and/or drop me a line.
Rating:
Summary: Has nothing to do with romance, and even less with "reason"!
Review: 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:
Summary: Perhaps an unexpected benefit
Review: I bought this book because when I was looking through it I saw that Ayn Rand was giving her insights into the elements of art and writing in particular. I don't think anyone can deny what an excellent writer she is, despite anything else. To read what someone else thinks about an issue like this (an excellent insights too, I do think) is worth the five stars. People should TEACH from this book. Of course, if you are the type of person who likes to agree with every little smidgen of what an author says, then maybe this book isn't for you (unless you are an Objectivist). Otherwise, consider it a discussion. It is indeed an excellent one. You don't even have to pay attention to the part about Romanticism if you don't want to, though it is interesting as well. Probably everyone would benefit from reading this book.
Rating: 
Summary: If you aren't threatened by Miss Rand's ideas, read this one
Review: I have read reviews posted below. Miss Rand has always engendered envy and animosity from those who are afraid of ideas. There seem to be some below who fit that category. If you are interested in Ayn Rand's philosophy, or would like to judge it for yourself, this is a good place to start. If you don't like Ayn Rand's ideas, this book will not change your opinion. It is silly for those of you who are engaging in a little battle of words to do it here.
Rating:
Summary: Sorry the others didn't get it.
Review: I read some reviews posted by others and it seems pseudo-intellectual jealousy has motivated them. For those of you who would like to learn to think for yourselves, this is an interesting and accessible read. You'll find much that is worth your time. To the others who reviewed this book with such venom, ask yourselves why. What's missing from your own lives? You've come across as very bitter and unhappy. Maybe a little fresh air would help.
Rating:
Summary: Truth and Beauty: Art Expresses Philsophy
Review: I think that Ayn Rand's greatest contribution to art is the idea that art is the product of philosophy. What we believe and what he hold dear is what makes up the sum and substance of our art. Furthermore, art affirms our philosophy,. In this way, she bridges the gap between truth and beauty. We hold the beautiful to be beautiful because it is true. Sadly, Any Rand is one of the few artists that has a coherent philosophy. Others include J. R. R. Tolkien (Catholic), C. S. Lewis (Anglican), Steven Spielberg (Jewish), and Orson Scott Card (Mormonism). The reason why I find myself gravitating to these artists is that they believe something, and it is their passion that shows through. But as Rand points out, it is not just passion, but a specific passion about humanity and human potential. Having slogged my way through "Atlas Shrugged," I believe that Rand is correct. It is a character's ethics and values that drive them. We want to believe, and these characters that achieve-be it Frodo, Peter and Lucy, or Ender Wiggam--affirm our belief. This book is great text on aesthetic theory, but it should be read after reading "Philosophy--Who Needs it? Rand does her usual lucid, concise, and very intelligible job of explaining her philosophy, and connecting it to art. And, of course, Nick Gaetanos' robust cover art is worth the price of the book.
Rating:
Summary: Truth and Beauty: Art Expresses Philsophy
Review: I think that Ayn Rand's greatest contribution to art is the idea that art is the product of philosophy. What we believe and what he hold dear is what makes up the sum and substance of our art. Furthermore, art affirms our philosophy,. In this way, she bridges the gap between truth and beauty. We hold the beautiful to be beautiful because it is true. Sadly, Any Rand is one of the few artists that has a coherent philosophy. Others include J. R. R. Tolkien (Catholic), C. S. Lewis (Anglican), Steven Spielberg (Jewish), and Orson Scott Card (Mormonism). The reason why I find myself gravitating to these artists is that they believe something, and it is their passion that shows through. But as Rand points out, it is not just passion, but a specific passion about humanity and human potential. Having slogged my way through "Atlas Shrugged," I believe that Rand is correct. It is a character's ethics and values that drive them. We want to believe, and these characters that achieve-be it Frodo, Peter and Lucy, or Ender Wiggam--affirm our belief. This book is great text on aesthetic theory, but it should be read after reading "Philosophy--Who Needs it? Rand does her usual lucid, concise, and very intelligible job of explaining her philosophy, and connecting it to art. And, of course, Nick Gaetanos' robust cover art is worth the price of the book.
|
