Rating: 
Summary: A work for Rand fans, not for scholars
Review: It has been suggested that some of the critical reviewers are so caught up in our political disagreements with Rand that we can't review works like "The Romantic Manifesto" objectively. But this is gratuitous criticism. My own objections to Rand have little to do with her politics. I could live with Rand's politics. Her aesthetics is another matter. The negative reviewers have pretty much hit the nail on the head. The trouble with Rand is that, a few exceptions notwithstanding, she really didn't like art. She disliked Shakespeare, Beethoven, and Tolstoy, among others, and probably most of the other major figures in Western Art. Among serious novelists, only Hugo meets with her full aesthetic approval, with Dostoevsky, Hawthorne, and Sienkiewicz warranting honorable mentions. I fail to understand why someone who, from all appearances, doesn't really like art qualifies as an aesthetic theorist. In addition to this issue, there is the problem of Rand's scholarship, or, rather, lack of it. Rand's views of Romanticism and Naturalism are appallingly ill-informed. It is evident that she knew little, if anything, about what these terms mean historically. Those who want to understand what Romanticism really is, historically, need to read Jacque Barzun's "Classic, Romantic, and Modern," the best work on the subject. Barzun, unlike Rand, was an extraordinary scholar with a truly encyclopedic grasp of his subject. My problem with Rand has little if anything to do with her ethical or political views. No, what I object to is that she pretends to be an expert about things she knows nothing about. It hardly seems unreasonable to object to this deficiency in Rand.
Rating: 
Summary: Rumors of It's Faults are Greatly Exaggerated
Review: It is a shame that some people get so caught up in their political disagreements with Ayn that they are unable to review any of her works objectively (no pun intended) (Greg Nyquist).In my first literature class to look at literature from a historical perspective, I noticed that the styles did swing back and forth, occilating between two basic styles that she calls Naturalism and Romanticism. Perhaps these aren't the best names for them, but they are not the worst. That she then uses these names to cover other arts, such as music, painting, and sculpture feeds the critics, even though the basic ideas in each art are what enabled her to establish her groupings as she does. As in all of her writings, she works off of the basic question of whether or not man is good, and sees all art through the lens of that question. This makes for excellent politics and an enjoyable gallery of art, but does not necessarily make for a good review of art. It is none the less a compelling collection of ideas, worth reading for anyone serious about art.
Rating:
Summary: Romantic Fascism
Review: Rand was a Romantic Totalitarian. Those who call Rand a 'fascist' are correctly recognizing her totalitarian tendencies - as is easily demonstrated by 'other arguments' based on her own 'Romantic' writings. For example, Rand argued (in 'The Nature of Government') that a proper government holds a monopoly on the legal use of force and that all citizens delegate their rights of self-defense to it, utterly forswearing the personal use of retaliatory force. (The mere existence of the Second Amendment indicates that Rand didn't have any too firm a grasp of the intentions of the Founding Fathers of the U.S. in this regard.) Even more surprisingly, she actually expected *objective legislation* to result from this ludicrously lopsided arrangement of incentives. Why in the world such a government would pass nice 'Objectivist' laws was beyond her meager powers to explain. (To paraphrase her: 'The laws are here. How did they get here? *Somehow*.') Her 'Romantic' literature? ATLAS SHRUGGED is, after all, about the *destroying* (Rand's word) of the world by the withdrawal of the 'best minds.' And as she makes painfully clear, 'destroying' means destroying; the people left behind are supposed to *die*, and many of them do. (See the infamous 'train tunnel' scene.) No, she was not literally a 'fascist.' But anybody who ever so much as met her became quickly aware of her psychological terror tactics. In everything *except* politics, she was totalitarian to the core - and, as I indicated above, even her politics were *implicitly* totalitarian even though neither she nor her 'followers' seem to have noticed. In this book, Rand explains that she was up to exactly what I have described: the projection of a stylized ideal world in conformity to her own values - meaning a world in which everybody who disagreed with her *died*. She was right to denounce 'selflessness'. What she and her 'followers' have failed to recognize is that sycophantic devotion to a deified cult founder is the most abject form of *selflessness* there is. Hard-core Rand-worshippers are such 'selfless' Randroids themselves that they fail to recognize how badly Rand wanted everyone else dead, dead, dead.
Rating: 
Summary: Finally, an author that not only understands art, but man
Review: The best thing about this book is that the author does not think that my work, my creations, come from some "divine inspiration." She also recognizes that man's mind is the center of his life and of his creative process. Her book asserts that man's mind must be trained through the acquisition of knowledge and practicing that knowledge. Thanks to reading this book, I have made a great effort to draw or paint everyday to expand that knowledge. Although the author is dead, I say, "Thanks, Ms. Rand, for writing this book." And thanks to her intellectual heir, Leonard Peikoff, for assuring that her work will never be lost.
Rating:
Summary: The bridge between language and society
Review: The main theme of the works of Rand is the bridge between language and society. The characteristic theme of Rand's essays on art and social realism is a mythopoetical paradox. In a sense, Rand promotes the use of the dialectic paradigm of consensus to deconstruct archaic perceptions of class. If one examines dialectic libertarianism, one is faced with a choice: either reject subcapitalist capitalism or conclude that truth is part of the absurdity of narrativity. Therefore, Rand's essay on dialectic libertarianism states that the goal of the writer is deconstruction. The subject is interpolated into a postcapitalist demodernism that includes art as a paradox. But the primary theme of the works of Rand is the bridge between society and class. Several discourses concerning subcapitalist capitalism may be found. In a sense, the characteristic theme of Rand's model of postcapitalist demodernism is a self-falsifying totality. In _Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal_, Rand examines dialectic libertarianism; in _The Romantic Manifesto_, though, she reiterates the cultural paradigm of reality. It could be said that the premise of postcapitalist demodernism suggests that truth has significance, given that pretextual material theory is valid. If one instead examines social realism, one is faced with a different choice: either accept premodern rationalism or conclude that sexuality serves to exploit minorities. Rand uses the term 'psychoepistemology' to denote the role of the artist as reader. Thus, any number of discourses concerning the common ground between sexual identity and truth may be found. This subject, unlike dialectic libertarianism, is interpolated into a premodern rationalism that includes culture as a totality. However, the primary theme of the works of Rand is the collapse of postdialectic society. The premise of social realism suggests that context is created by the collective unconscious, but only if truth is distinct from language. It could be said that the subject is contextualised into a premodern rationalism that includes culture as a paradox. The characteristic theme of Rand's critique of social realism is the difference between class and reality. In this sense, the subject is ultimately interpolated into a premodern rationalism that includes art, mot merely as a paradox, but as a totality.
Rating:
Summary: The most fun (?) of Rands works
Review: There's a section on the integration of the hearing of music into a rational experience. It is one of the few places in Rand's writing where she seems to freely speculate on something that neither she (admittedly) nor modern science is ready to form hypotheses. It's wonderful; most of the time, Rand's writing is based upon bulletproof and beautiful reasoning. Here, we get an opportunity to observe her allowing herself more conjecture and guessing.
Rating:
Summary: The most fun (?) of Rands works
Review: There's a section on the integration of the hearing of music into a rational experience. It is one of the few places in Rand's writing where she seems to freely speculate on something that neither she (admittedly) nor modern science is ready to form hypotheses. It's wonderful; most of the time, Rand's writing is based upon bulletproof and beautiful reasoning. Here, we get an opportunity to observe her allowing herself more conjecture and guessing.
Rating: 
Summary: Needs considerable revision
Review: 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:
Summary: More of the Same
Review: 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:
Summary: Ideals or Ordeals
Review: This review is mainly (perhaps wholly) about the other reviews given, particularly those that seem to disagree with Ayn Rand, or those that cast her in an unfavorable light.
Ayn Rand's strong opinions regarding art and literature--especially her proclamations of hatred towards some which are highly regarded or even called "great" or "masterpieces"-- is due to her belief in an absolute morality based on absolute reality and on absolute truth (yes... absolute truth... certainty).
That is to say: if a piece of work propagated values that presented false ideas or irrational thinking (the absence of thinking), she simply didn't place any value in them (i.e. Tolstoy's characters seem to be helpless, subjected to fate completely, without the ability to exercise their will and pursue joy/happiness... more than that: without the ability to exercise reason, make sense of false premises, realize truth and then move forward). Furthermore, if these said false ideas threatened to spread what she considered truly harmful ideas, she placed negative value on them and proceeded to thrash them like a ravenous mother bear.
She had no tolerance for false ideals, no matter how pretty the language... she had no tolerance for her fellow man's living in obscurity, as if he'd been born with no faculty to do anything, no mind to figure things out, or will to manifest thoughts into concretes... when literature or art fell before her eyes, she did more than most of us do; she went beyond the superficial and asked "Do I really believe this? Do I believe this is the way the world is? Do I believe this is the only way it can be? Do I believe this is the way it ought to be?" And when the answer was "No," she did what most would not dare... she rejected it (she did not see it as part of absolute truth and so her conscience could not without violating itself accept it).
If you're going to bash Rand, please be more objective about it. It is not good enough of an argument to get on her case simply because she doesn't like Shakespeare (... in all his plays man is fated, unable to use his mind, even his God-given mind, to escape, his volition leading always to tragedy and only chance to happy endings... how could an advocate of the mind, of free-will, of self-responsiblity like something that is to those values so nonsensical and ridiculous?).
I've said enough.
|
