Rating: 
Summary: okkkk....
Review: I want to start out by saying that I am a major Ayn Rand fan. Atlas Shrugged is my favorite book, and I agree with most every point of her philosophy (except when you go beyond the books she wrote, and see how she tried to force the world into being her ideal world, which of course was unsuccessful immediately and resulted in her unhappiness). I was very disturbed by only one part of Atlas Shrugged, which was when Eddie Willers dies (I assume, based on where the book left him). This aspect of her greatest novel shows through in "the romantic manifesto" and makes it, of all the writings I've read from Ayn Rand, the worst of her work. She basically dismisses all art that is not in line with her opinion. I agree she is a wonderful expert in literature, but I got the feeling that she was attacking painting and other types of art as well throughout this book. She invalidates all Impressionist painters, and just about every writer except herself and Victor Hugo. Now, I've read many great books by many great authors outside of that narrow realm. It seemed as if she wanted to enjoy certain music and works of art, but fought within herself to forbid herself to enjoy it because it was "immoral" or something. I don't quite understand why she thought it was necessary to destroy all art except that which is objectively "fitting." I hold her view of life, but I love Van Gogh, and I think his paintings are MUCH more emotion and thought inducing than Vermeer... sometimes, the blurry paintings are the ones that induce the most clarity and the highest number of connections in peoples' minds. And often, art that displays misery, anguish, and pain is so beautifully and intricately done, in so clear and advanced a manner, that I can love viewing or hearing it without "agreeing" with it-- and I can love it just as much as I love an artistic work that agrees with my philosophy of life. What I mean to say, is that Ayn Rand's Objectivism is the only real way to achieve your goals and live your life fully and happily; however, objectivism shouldn't eliminate all that is weird and different and special about the world-- it should be limited to a way to live life on Earth. It is not meant to explain how the universe actually behaves at the subatomic level, or in the far reaches of space. Instead, it is a way to prevent chaos and uncertainty and fear from overcoming our own lives on Earth.
Rating:
Summary: okkkk....
Review: I want to start out by saying that I am a major Ayn Rand fan. Atlas Shrugged is my favorite book, and I agree with most every point of her philosophy (except when you go beyond the books she wrote, and see how she tried to force the world into being her ideal world, which of course was unsuccessful immediately and resulted in her unhappiness). I was very disturbed by only one part of Atlas Shrugged, which was when Eddie Willers dies (I assume, based on where the book left him). This aspect of her greatest novel shows through in "the romantic manifesto" and makes it, of all the writings I've read from Ayn Rand, the worst of her work. She basically dismisses all art that is not in line with her opinion. I agree she is a wonderful expert in literature, but I got the feeling that she was attacking painting and other types of art as well throughout this book. She invalidates all Impressionist painters, and just about every writer except herself and Victor Hugo. Now, I've read many great books by many great authors outside of that narrow realm. It seemed as if she wanted to enjoy certain music and works of art, but fought within herself to forbid herself to enjoy it because it was "immoral" or something. I don't quite understand why she thought it was necessary to destroy all art except that which is objectively "fitting." I hold her view of life, but I love Van Gogh, and I think his paintings are MUCH more emotion and thought inducing than Vermeer... sometimes, the blurry paintings are the ones that induce the most clarity and the highest number of connections in peoples' minds. And often, art that displays misery, anguish, and pain is so beautifully and intricately done, in so clear and advanced a manner, that I can love viewing or hearing it without "agreeing" with it-- and I can love it just as much as I love an artistic work that agrees with my philosophy of life. What I mean to say, is that Ayn Rand's Objectivism is the only real way to achieve your goals and live your life fully and happily; however, objectivism shouldn't eliminate all that is weird and different and special about the world-- it should be limited to a way to live life on Earth. It is not meant to explain how the universe actually behaves at the subatomic level, or in the far reaches of space. Instead, it is a way to prevent chaos and uncertainty and fear from overcoming our own lives on Earth.
Rating: 
Summary: An astonishingly clear manual for writers of fiction
Review: I'm an aspiring writer. I also like Ayn Rand enough to be considered a "randroid" (love it, and props to whoever came up with it) by some. However, that aside, reading the Romantic Manifesto was truly a life changing experience. Her fiction has inspired me on many levels, but I would not say they have been life altering. However, this book, this manifesto, has shown me, in easy to understand terms, what makes good fiction, and what kind of art I want to participate in. So much of the crap that is held in esteem at my university is utterly nonintelligible. Why? Great ideas can have simple explanations. That is, I think, Rand's greatest gift. Passionate simplicity. The Romantic Manifesto contains within a blueprint for writers, a blueprint that I already carried in my heart and in my head, but lacked the words to put to paper. For the first time, I'm truly proud of what I write, and I know where it will take me. Thanks Ayn. Any aspiring writer of fiction should read this.
Rating:
Summary: An astonishingly clear manual for writers of fiction
Review: I'm an aspiring writer. I also like Ayn Rand enough to be considered a "randroid" (love it, and props to whoever came up with it) by some. However, that aside, reading the Romantic Manifesto was truly a life changing experience. Her fiction has inspired me on many levels, but I would not say they have been life altering. However, this book, this manifesto, has shown me, in easy to understand terms, what makes good fiction, and what kind of art I want to participate in. So much of the crap that is held in esteem at my university is utterly nonintelligible. Why? Great ideas can have simple explanations. That is, I think, Rand's greatest gift. Passionate simplicity. The Romantic Manifesto contains within a blueprint for writers, a blueprint that I already carried in my heart and in my head, but lacked the words to put to paper. For the first time, I'm truly proud of what I write, and I know where it will take me. Thanks Ayn. Any aspiring writer of fiction should read this.
Rating: 
Summary: Read something--anything--else first
Review: In a sense, this book is fascinating: it could be used in a college class on psychopathology. As was typical of Rand, with her grandiose Messianic complex, she placed her own second-rate writings as the epitome of _all_ fiction (and her own essentially uninformed opinions as the epitome of all art theory.) Since Rand was a narcissist, everything in art (and in life, including people) were either all good or all bad; nothing inbetween at all. Naturalism: bad, bad, bad! Romanticism: good! good! good! Using this theory, anyone who writes a superb clinical description of a nearly-insane, drug-addicted, adulterous writer who damaged many impressionable young people, and ended her life utterly alone because she really believed her own nonsense, is a _bad_ writer. Unless of course, this writer was to cheerfully portray such a life as 'what life ideally should be.' Then, I suppose, such a writer would be a Romanticist and therefore a good writer. Applying her views to drawing and painting, I can only conclude a Smiley Face, with its clear, distinct lines and optimistic 'sense of life,' is far superior to Van Gogh, who was all fuzzy and kinda sad. As for music...well, roll over, Beethoven; we're all gonna imitate Rand and march around out apartments spinning a baton and listening to the music that is the _best_ in man...Rand's own 'tiddlywink' music.
Rating:
Summary: The Way It Ought To Be
Review: In THE VIRTUE OF SELFISHNESS, Ayn Rand put forth three cardinal values: reason, purpose, and self-esteem. THE ROMANTIC MANIFESTO identifies and explores the purpose of art. Rand finds that it's a necessity, not a frivolous luxury in a person's life. That like food, it has a definite role to play and that this defines the form it should take--not in terms of medium but in terms of message. Much of what currently is claimed to be art is abruptly refuted, like poison posing as food. Rand draws the connection between values and art, inferring the objectivity of the latter from the former. She identifies where, for example in music, further scientific research is required before objective judgement is possible. Rand is not writing this as an art critic. Her aim is more ambitious than that. The opinions she does offer illustrate through concrete examples valid and invalid art. A reader of THE ROMANTIC MANIFESTO will acquire the ability to clearly explain why skillful construction alone is insufficient to deem a piece of art as good, and consequently why nearly every "critically acclaimed" novel or film being released is worthless.
Rating:
Summary: An Objective Definition of Art
Review: In this brilliant analysis of the nature of aesthetics and the importance of art in an individual's life, Ayn Rand provides an Objective definition of Art. The Romantic Manifesto is profound in its insight and clear in its presentation.This work represents the first serious treatise on the nature of Art since the Renaissance. It is an answer to the nihlism inherent in modernism's and post-modernism's destructionist approach to esthetics, and is intelligable to both scholar and layman. The Romantic Manifesto is an oasis in what has today become an aesthetic wasteland.
Rating:
Summary: Who says rationality doesn't apply to art?
Review: In this great book, Ayn Rand shows how to rationally interpret art. That's not to say one piece of art can be rationally "better" than another, because rationally evaluating art involves comparing it with the values of the viewer. Since different people have different values, they can rationally disagree about art. For example, my high valuation of reason is largely responsible for my appreciation of this book.
Rating:
Summary: Who says rationality doesn't apply to art?
Review: In this great book, Ayn Rand shows how to rationally interpret art. That's not to say one piece of art can be rationally "better" than another, because rationally evaluating art involves comparing it with the values of the viewer. Since different people have different values, they can rationally disagree about art. For example, my high valuation of reason is largely responsible for my appreciation of this book.
Rating:
Summary: A sore on the lip of a beautiful woman
Review: Is merely an accident in real life. On a painting it's obscene. Why? Because the artist CHOOSES. He does not 're create' real life. He always makes a statement, knowingly or not. Therefore, choosing to portray beauty marred by a sore lip is --- What am I doing? I can't explain it better than Rand! Read this book if you are interested in the nature of art. And especially if you've ever wondered about the phenomenon of 'modern art.' It's a great series of essays despite (or because of) Rand's prejudices--she was a strange combination of teenage ugly girl duckling sexual fantasies out of Danielle Steele combined with the mind of an Aristotle and the Romantic triumphalism of a Victor Hugo. For all artists, and especially writers, ( Er. . .remember those tiny details like theme, plot, and character? ) this short work is outstanding. Many will choose to worship, others to ridicule her views; while still others will grant her grudging admiration. But all should read it. Someone once defined a classic as a pop hit that remains 'on the charts' as time goes by; e.g. Beethoven may not be the number one hit in the recording industry this year, but he's not in any danger of running out of new listeners who will continue to purchase his music. Hence, he's a bonafide "classic." Got it? Likewise, there's a reason why Ayn Rand, decades after her death, remains THE most widely read novelist in the world. The sales of "Atlas Shrugged" alone continue to number in the hundreds of thousands. Perhaps she was on to something. . .
|
