Welcome to #GeekSpeak. Before we begin, I'd like to remind you that all channel logs are the copyright of the channel owners: Pankaj Saxena and Tom Wright. Logs may not be redistributed in any form without the prior consent of the channel owners. Tonight's topic is "Introduction to Esthetics - Part II", and is a continuation of the discussion of June 14th. In the first part we defined art as the "selective recreation of reality in accordance with the artist's metaphysical value judgements" - which are the artist's emotional responses to reality - to the nature of the universe, and man. We discussed the basis of man's "sense of life", and the role it plays in art, and we agreed that the artist's goal was to concretize his metaphysical ideal. We distinguished between "subject" (showing the artist's metaphysical value judgements) and "style" (indicative of his psychoepistemological sense of life). From the first discussion, we have a handle on the philosophical and psychological foundations of art. Tonight, I'd like to take those concepts and draw conclusions from them with regard to specific schools of art. So I'll start by asking the question: What is Romanticism? What premises about the universe and man is it based on? Romanticism is based on the premise that man has volition in both the cognitive sense and the existential sense. the premise it is based on is that man has volition. Cognitive sense? subetai: huh? I like Tom's definition. However, I don't think "cognitive" is the right word. Man has volition regardifng the development of his character and in regard to acting in the world. oops Character is basically the self-styled cognition of the individual. Okay. Wouldn't the word "consciousness" be better than "cognitive"? Man has the freedom to develop and mold his consciousness. Sure...they mean the same thing... Unless, by "cognition" you mean just the explicit thoughts and ideas (but not the subconscious). In other words, he has the freedom to *be* what he chooses (consciousness) and to *do* what he chooses (existence). Okay .... howabout: volition w.r.t. body and soul joe: That's not exactly it. mental action + physical action] Freedom w.r.t existence is more than just freedom to move the body as you choose. It implies that actions are efficacious, and therefore includes a certain view of existence. Comments? Subetai: That existence is open to man's usage? Sure. I agree okie .... Subetai:where does "focusing" come in? JET: In romanticism? JET: Focus means delimiting one's attention. -r+R Focussing is a necessary preliminary to thinking. Subetai:in consciousness jet: that would correspod to volition in the realm of consciousness. ok JET: Okay, you're referring to Rand's statement that the first choice is the choice to focus. Subetai:yes That's included as an assumption in what we've said about volition. OK And now we've said it explicitly .... okay ... onwards... Sub: so what about a definition of Romanticsm Joe: Like Tom said, but I'd change the word cognitive - the kind of art that's based on the premise that man has a volitional consciousness and that his actions are efficacious in dealing with reality. Subetai: Well, they don't *have* to be efficatious to be romantic. ok. Now: We've talked about two freedoms. I'd like to consider each at a time, concretely. The hero can be shown to have freedom of will and of action, but be defeated at the end, such as _We the Living_. (And most of Victor Hugo's works). Do they have to be heroic? Tom: We the Living shows actions as efficacious. What keeps them from being fulfilled are actions of other people. JET: Yes, heroism is essential to romanticism. Subetai: Ok, but they did not accomplish what they set out to do...because they didn't have political freedom. However, there's a variety of art where man has volition, but his actions are -metaphysically- inefficacious, eg: Byron. Tom: Right, but that's not what "efficacious" means in this context. Thanks for giving me the opportunity of clarifying, though. Subetai: Please clarify further...I dodn't follow what you mean if not accomplishing a task they set out to do. It's also possible to have the reverse: a belief that man's actions are efficacious, but he has no volition. Tom: The thing about "We the Living" is that none of the bad things that happened to Kira or Taganov *had* to be. That means, their actions in dealing with reality were really efficacious, but bad things happened due to the actions of other, volitional people. Subetai: No, it wasn't a deterministic novel, to be sure, but it was not efficatious oriented either...by my understanding of it. Ok, I think we are talking past one another...next point. That's different from the Byronic view, for example, where man must be a hero to be good, but he'll forever be a doomed hero, because his actions are metaphysically inefficacious. next .... Tom:So, Ulysses wasn't heroic or romantic because his actions "had" to be? JET: I don't think I read that novel...who wrote it? Homer! JET: Oh, you mean Odysseus..."Ulysses" was the name give to him in a other book. What's the alternative premise to Romanticism, and what art form does it lead to? Determinism and naturalism JET: No, _The Odyssey_ was not romantic since it didn't focus on the things Odysseus chose to do per se, it was more descriptive than normative. determinism -> natualism That man is inefficacious. It leads to naturalism +r Someone define Naturalism for me. JET: But it wasn't fully naturalistic either...it was pre either school of literature. That art should be a reproduction of reality. (Naturalism) The school of literatue premised on determinism? Tom:Rand calls it a "saga". I like Joe's definition better. yay! JET: Yes, almost purely descriptive (like naturalism) but still whittled down to some sense of essentials and had a hero (to some degree). Glenn: Saying that it's a reproduction of reality makes it sound journalistic. That may or may not be true. You can have the journalistic type of Naturalism, where you try to describe reality as closely as possible. In romanticism, the plot is driven by the main characters...in naturalism, the characters are driven by the situations. Subetai: I meant in the sense of describing the warts on the neighbors next door. But you can also project abstract characters that you've never seen before, and still end up Naturalistic. Glenn: I understand. Can someone give me an example of the second kind? Subetai: The begining of "Braveheart" was naturalistic...the endding was romaniticism. "Braveheart" was largely made up, since few records of his life were kept (at least of his early life). Rand gives the example of Shakespeare. His characters were abstract projections, like characters from Romantic literature. But they were intrinsically flawed and unable to overcome those flaws (a deterministic outlook). Or, look at Shakespears plays...they dodn't really depict "life as it actually was in such and such century", it's made up, but is very deterministic. Tom: Right. Most art has both naturalistic and romantic elements. Okay. Can anyone name other styles of art besides romanticism and naturalism? AR mentions symbolism, but I'm not quite clear on that. Cubism. Surrealism. classicism? Dada. joe: Most fantasies would fall under that catagory, like the movie "Neverending Story." There are tons! Impressionism Baroque, Expressionism Gothic. Okay. Some of these forms are subtypes of naturalism and romanticism, having stylistic differences only. Hold on here! we are discussing schools of literature, not schools of visual arts. Are these all examples of representational art? Theatre of the absurb. absurd! We're discussing all forms of art, but with a focus on literature. joe: Well, I don't read much DaDa literature...but any fantasy would be symbolic...such as most science fiction litereature. OK, can I ask a question? Joe: Sure. Colby wants to know why you capitalized the second "d" in "Dada." Jason wants to know if we're going to talk about music at all. Or music. Beethoven was both romantic and malevolent. Kelly: Mostly a typo...but heck, why not...in DaDaism, anything goesd, right? ;) Hi, Lyceum. I asked this here before: how are Romanticism/Naturalism expressed in the visual arts? I have problems understanding why Romanticsm is a school of art. I would think it is only a school of literature. Jason says that JET's point about Beethoven is WRONG. Dead wrong. Okay. We've established that art can start from the premise that man has volition, or not. Or it can eliminate that question altogether and focus on copying or executing certain rules that have been handed down through tradition, such as classicism. Hi TomM joe: In visual arts, romaticism would be Michelangelo; naturalism would be any photographic type of painting. Jason: both parts? Why? TomM: explain please. I don't think Michelangelo is NOT a romantic. joe-: The issue of volition vs. determinism is reflected in style and choice of subject in visual arts. Within each category, you can have styles. For example, you may have an impressionistic painting in a romantic or a naturalistic style. The style indicates the psychoepistemological sense of life of the artist. Jason says: Why is his music "malevolent?" joe: don't forget the "might be and out to be" premise behind romaticism. It's focus is not on what is right now, but look at things in this manner. Alright... we're running out of time. Let's move on. cat: cannot open intro7 I meant to say that Michelangelo is not a romantic, sorry. For the second half of this discussion, I'd like to turn the question of esthetic evaluation around and ask: what can you tell about a person from his taste in art? Obviously, it tells you something about one's sense of life and psychoepistemology. How do you determine -what- it tells you? How can you be sure? The reason why I added this is because I've heard a lot of accusations hurled recently of the kind "you can't be an Objectivist if you liked those movies". Generally, they're stupid and rationalistic and not worth considering. However, there are legitimate conclusions that -could- be drawn from one's taste in art. How do we draw them? Subetai: That has a lot to do with psycho-epistemology sense of life. You are attracted to the type of style that most matches your sense of life. I remember the time a person told me I had a bad sense of life because I liked the movie "Howards End." I think this is one point that people should be more careful about. I think you can determine what kinds of things are important to someone, based on what virtues in art appeal to them, and what weaknesses they are willing to tolerate. What would you consider when evaluating someone's else's taste in art? You must be careful drawing a conclusion based on one or two art works liked by the individual, but if they highly praise it, you can be it reflects the way they come at the world. you can bet It's important to determine which element o the work the person is responding to. I try to find what the person sees, and why he likes/dislikes it. It's usually not that hard to do. Tom - You must be VERY careful when deciding whether someone is "highly praising" something or not. I think there's something even more basic than the points you all have raised. For example, if someone likes very mundane works of art, you can almost be assured that that persons does not like conflicts, for instance. I think you have to find out WHY they liked what they did -- you may be surprised. If a person actually enjoys naturalistic, deterministic art, it could indicate that he had given up on his goals or that he did not believe that goals are achievable. bazyar: They will usually come dout and tell you. TomM: I don't see the connection. I think the first question to ask is "What did this person notice?" TomM - how is that? I think you guys are reading WAY too much into some of these things. Subetai: Like I said. Adam says: I have a bad sense of life and I'm proud of it! That person might be responding to something you don't see or consider important. Or may not have noticed the things *you* consider most important. Mark: Right. An artist will depict the world in a certain manner based on his grasp of existence and his method of thinking about it. And the individual "view" responds in kind if he likes it. I don't think that liking a naturalist piece of art necessarily means that a person has given up on their goals. That's reading way too much into the psychology of the person involved. He said it *could* mean that. KellyT. I said it "could be" an indication of that. But why would you even bring that up? It's such a small possibility. Kelly: That really depends if the perosn likes naturalism *exclusively*. Some naturalism can be beauitiful, if the artist captured a beautiful scene almost ver batum. Unless you're the person's shrink, why are you worried about "could be's" like that? bazyar: Because we're trying to answer the question. bazyar: heck, i work in a picture framing shop...lots of experience confirms what Rand has said abodut persons responding to types of art. You might be considering a long term relationship with that person. I'm wondering, were definitions already discussed? BEcause I'm wondering about the definition you people are using for "naturalism." What?? Let's not get into analyzing what specific content means just yet. Are we all agreed that the first thing to ask is "What does this person notice? What is he responding to?" If I'm considering a long-term relationship with a person, I don't think the fact that they like Tolstoy is going to be a deciding factor. Also, you must find out if they are responding to the *scene* or the *style*...a very important distinction. Kelly: It would be for me ;) That's what I'll get into next, Tom. KellyT: But taste in art means something to you, doesn't it? Well, that figures, TomM. Yes, taste in art does mean something but I'm not going to decide by saying, "Oh, they like a naturalist writer, they may have given up on their goals." That's just stupid. The next thing is to analyze which of the two the primary response is to: subject or style. That's true, Kelly. On the other hand, a person's liking Tolstoy could indicate something deeper. It may not--but one way or another, you're going to find out what that something deeper is. Hey, I'm selective. As a romantic writer myself, my "partner" must love romanticism, or we ain't a match. I take taste in art as one piece of an ongoing process of noticing what a person is all about. It is sometimes one of the more revealing indications. Give me a break. I never said I wasn't selective! You folks need to back up a bit. This is a moderated discussion. We'll proceed in order. I wouldn't dismiss somebody because they enjoyed a naturalist writer. I don't see anything wrong with that, in itself. subject is the primary. style is secondary. Kelley: Didnd't mean to imply that you were not...just indicating one means of filtering out persons who don't match. Well, I think it's a silly means. joe-: I don't agree with that, at all. You have to look at the whole thing, a person's whole taste, not just one or two things, for one thing. Style is based on subject. I want to establish some basic principles here. We can't go into what each specific style indicates about the personality of the perceiver. I mentioned two things. Find out what he notices. Separate that into .... 1. Is he responding to esthetics or something else altogether (maybe he just likes movies about Roman times because of historicity). 2. Is his response primarily to subject or style. One denotes metaphysical value judgements, the other denotes psychoepistemological sense of life. After that, I'd ask the question ... How seriously does he take it? How seriously must one take a work of art? joe: I don't think so...I think style is most important. Like do you like the Sierra Nevada as painted by Bierstadt or some expressionistic dribbles. Tom: Back to my questions, please. Subetai: I agree with your principles outlined...both subject and style are important factors. Subetai: One may draw implications from any of those things. This is a *moderated* discussion. You can argue about what each specific style means later. I think the primary response is to _subject_, because it is subject that primarily carries the art work's meaning. For instance, if someone likes paintings of woods as a primary, you can wonder if he likes man at all. What???? If you are interested in an individual, and you are trying to analyze him/her from the art he/she deems important,art alone will not give you enough information because of variables. What is wrong with liking paintings about woods? Tom: Okay. So for example, someone might like a movie because it has a heroic character (subject) even though stylistically, it's moronic? joe-: Style is equally important, and carries as much meaning. joe: The subject carries the theme of the work, but the style carries the theme of the thoughts behind the subject (i.e. it's deeper). You're being a little intrinsicist here. joe-: In some cases, it carries much more. Subetai: yes, that's possible. The style carries the theme of the thoughts behind the subject? What exactly does this mean? Alright. What would you say to a person who says he considers casual entertainment and doesn't care to dig into deep meanings? Subetai: Yes. In such a case, I often come to the judgment that the person has their heart in the right place, but has lousy taste. consider a slightly fuzzy (monet or renoir) painting of a strong heroic figure, versus the same style depicting a cowering, mideavael peasant. The primary response is to the subject. Kelly: Not just wooods per se, but someone who likes scenes of nature *exclusively* I think has some desire to not be human...or to have man blend back into nature. Based on what? Subetai: I'd say that they are not getting much out of the experience. (let me run out to get my copy of Romantic Manifeto from my car...) Subetai: Well, that persons is respeonding on a strickly sense of life manner...that's about all you can say. Joe: The response can be to either subject or style, or both. What's important is that you know what they're responding to before you judge them. Tom, what are you basing that assessment on? Is such a person irrational? Subetai: Not necessarily. Subetai: Just shallow. Anyone else? Subetai: No, many persons know very little about art...all one can say is they have dnot given it much thought either way...no big deal in most cases. The type of style that a person liked would indicate the clarity of his thinking. Does he like blurred images or clarity and precision. Tom, what is wrong with someone who really loves the beauty of nature? OK: RM, p.166: " subject is not the only attrib of art, but it is the primary one; it is the end to which all others are means". KellyT: I, for one, am not using "naturalism" in that sense. Okay. One last question. What do you need to know before you can say to someone "If you liked those movies, you must be irrational". Kelly; Nothing per se...so long as it does not indicate a lack of respect for man...and most artist who paint nature scenes really dod not like man in the picture...they think man ruins nature. I've heard that stupid statement used here a lot. I don't think you should EVER say that. Do they? How do you know that? OK, responses to subject and style must be judged separately. You sure seem to know a lot about people's psychology from their interest in art. joe-: And I think either one could be more important in a given case. joe: That is contextual...if you want to know about someones respect for their own mind, then style becomes most important. You would have to know what aspect of the picture they were responding to. TomM: ok, sure. Jason says: Why do you want to divorce subject from style? If the person expressed the *why* of his/her like of the movie and the *like* was anti man anti values Mark: ok - depending on the work involved. joe: To the artist, though, certainly subject is most important...style is usually not under conscious control (though it is revealing). Style is ALWAYS under conscious control. Pretty much, anyway. No answers? Well, I think that before you can make that statement, you need to know a heck of a lot about their context, what they're responsing to, why, to what degree, etc. Since most of us don't know that about anyone else online here, it's a stupid statement 99% of the times it's used. Kelly: Nobody is divorcing anything. I love Bierstadt paintings, even though man is seldodm in them...*but* I don't like him exclusively (because of the lack of man centeredness). responding Subetai: Sure, just because someone likes a movie you think is stupid is no grounds for saying they are irrational. Okay, formal discussion is over. Go ahead and argue styles all you want now. Yay! Thanks subetai - well done discussion. Subetai: However, you can make *some* assesment of that person's respect for humna dignity. Thanks, Joe. Yeah, good moderation. sube moderates in moderation. I'm still waiting to find out how TomM knows so much about the psychology of peopel who like nature paintings. Tom: It depends on what you know about the person. Too often people respond to superficials and don't connect to what's really happening. For example, with that nature painting stuff...... Subetai: Cdontext of what else you know about the person is very crucial. Subetai: No, persons who like nature paintings exclusively have some distaste for man...they are like the comments made about man in nature shows. Tom: but isn't art universal? contexts shouldn't matter, no? Jason says: Why is Beethoven held to the model of the malevolent universe premise besides the reference from Ayn Rand? Has anyone listened to the music? How do you know they have distaste for man, Tom? You're making a HUGE leap. There are other explanations. joe: Context meaning maybe the persons likes the movie or whatever because they were with someone they liked at the time of seeding it...and had a good time. I like nature painting if they're well done. Art evokes emotions. Such painting often evoke pleasant emotions, such as peacefulness, or a sense of action/adventure (as in a stormy seascape). Maybe they'd look better with people in them. KellyT: no, I've never heard beethoven. do they have a video out? <> KellyT bops joe. However, that's hypothetical. I'm responding to a concrete, which is what it is. Kelly: I have spoken with artists who paint nature scenes...predominantly, they have let their view of man's current state evoke a sense of hatred for man. So, they leave him out...although some do make some very beautiful paintongs. I think it's important to note that just because some people make irrational claims, like the one you cited Subetai, that doesn't mean that one should not draw conclusions. You just have to do it correctly. You were talking about peopel who LIKE nature, Tom, for one thing. bye I've seen two patterns that both bother me equally: people who judge irrationally, and people who refuse to judge. Mark: Yeah. You have to do it scrupulously. I've seen it done more often as a form of vicious attack, which is why I brought it up at the tail end of the discussion. Kelly: You are blowing my statements out of proportion...I love nature...and I love Bierstadt's work...mostly due to the style of depiction of the scenes. I think you need to judge people's REASON for liking art, not the fact that they like something. Adam wants to know if anyone in here like Mapplethorpe. Jason: I admit to just a "sense of life" feeling here. But I'd contend that the first movement of B.'s 5th. is malevolent, while his 6th. is not. Kelly: Mapplethorpe the photographer? I like some of his tuff...very stylized. I am NOT blowing your statements out of proportion. You said that people who like nature paintings exclusively have a distaste for man. To me, that is a crazy statement. Well, the Ode to Joy in the 9th is certainly not manevolent <> Kerryd likes Mapplethorpe alot We should keep in mind that there are sevferal types of judgements that can be made: judgement of character, of premises, and of tastes. Kelly: My customer's who like nature art exclusively want to run back to the garden of eden...that is a mistaken view of man and his place in nature. Jason says: Don't pull the movement out of context. It poses a challenge which is overcome in the last movement. It is a symphony of triumph. The other thing I don't like is the assumption that everybody ought to respond to what *I'm* responding to in that work. Just because I like the style of a painting and find it good enough to overcome some distaste at the subject doesn't mean Adam says: He's cool. (Mapplethorpe) everyone will. I think Beethoven is one of the most talented composers who ever lived. I think it's also clear that he had a dark streak (but he did it SO WELL!!!). He also has a bright streak. it is a crazy statement yes Interesting. I hadn't looked at it that way. Tom, you can't make such bold, generalized statements about people's psychology. Joe: Right. I like most of Mapplethorp[es stuff, but wouldn't choose all of it for my living room lol Kelly: Art and people's response to it is objective. Well, the statements you are making are NOT objective. Subetai: And I agree...I don't think everyone who does not like my type of favorite art is stupid or irrational. Adam says: There's this awesome one where he has this guy's dick in his mouth. what does Kelly say? LOL Oh for Christ's sake. Got to go. Very interesting, Subetai. I hope we pursue it more soon. Thanks, Jet. Kelly: It must also be pointed dout that photography is not art...though it can have stylization. yes Subetai that is a common view, appreciation of anything, art music, is essntially personal See you later JET But personal does not mean without identity. Keep in mind, I am not Adam. I am cracking up right now, though. well you aren't the only one that thinks Beethoven was talented... So far, Adam has said nothing worth repeating. Another important factor is that all art is stylized, so it is important to observe even art which doesn't appeal to you to get a broader view of stylization of the soul. He's funny. I saw Beethoven's 9th described recently by the PC press as a "Rape Symphony". no art is subjective Art is Objective. Yeha, the "rape" motif is becoming huge in criticism these days. People have described Newton's laws as rape. Sube: That sounds like a joke so is music kerry: Art is very objective...see _The Romantic Manifesto_ by Ayn RAnd. Nothing is subjective. it is as *you* experience it, no one else Wright: It wasn't intended to be, by the person who wrote it. I still say someone who avoids the heroic in art and prefers naturalism would have a problem on some level. Contextual, yes. Relative, in some respects. But never subjective. That doesn't make it subjective. What makes it subjective if you base your likes or dislikes on whim. I agree, Glenn. Kerryd: keep in mind that "subjective" has a specific definition in objectivist philosophy. I think what you really mean is "art is _personal_" Glenn: I totally agree...they do not want to be challenged in any way, and observing such art would be a "cop out" on their part. Kelly, my favorite one of those is that "Transsexualism is the ultimate form of rape, because it is the appropriation of the female form by men." It's so sad, but it's so hysterical, too. JonG: On that noe, I think I'll go paint a nature scene ;) note I LOVE it when they describe Newton's laws as rape. It makes their actual motives so completely clear. Mark - WHAT?! Jon: Have you read "Who Stole Feminism" by Christina Hoff Sommers? It's great! Who describes Newston's laws as "rape"? -s Many feminists have, bazyar. See Sommers book for a good summary and quotes. Does anyone want to further discuss my question about how can the visual arts be Romantic? I think romanitism means that the work has to portray individuals in the pursuit of values, which implies plot and events. I don;t see how this would apply to, say, Michaeangelo's David. bazyar: Kelly was talking about some feminist-types who have made such statements. No, I don't have too much time for outside reading these days, and, even when I do--well, I read all day at work, so I don't do as much of it outside of work as maybe I should. Baz: Bill will cover that in the Sokal discussion, I think. Mark - how could they maike such statements with a straight face? hi all grrr joe: Romanticism is much broader than just literature. a painting is romantic if it depicts a scene as it might be an ought to be, like Bierstadt. My keyboard must be flaky ;) bazyar: Heck, gravity pulls their faces...how can it be straight? ;) bazyar: They always have a straight face. :) Well, if you get a chance, it's a book I'd think you'd really get a kick out of, Jon. Bazyar, it's worse than that, believe me. Well, on that note, I'm outta here. Later, all. Subetai: everytime I hear someone use the "Not an Objectivist if you like it line" I get this crazy picture of Roark chewing out a prospective client in my head. "What do you mean you want roman columns? Respect for the mind? What? They repre sent secondhandedness, mindless copying of the past. Philosophy, art, and science? No. They represent a hatred for innovation. Obviously you are a irrational person. Get out of my office." Kelly: As a braoder point about knowing a person...*any* value you proport to ahve is very revealing, not just art. Tom: but where is the volition in a painting of nature? remember, the definition of Romanticism refers to the _subject_ of the work, not the artist or viewer, having volition. Night, Jon!! Ghaki: :) See ya, Jon. Oops. joe: The artist chose both the scene to be painted *and* how it would be better had it been this way in nature. Well, I think you're crazy, Tom, if you go and assess a person's psychology from one example of a piece of art they like. Kelly: not just one example...it must all be taken in context of what else you know about them. (well, not everytime I hear it. just an awful lot.) Well, I don't think that's what you're doing, Tom, when you make your comments about nature paintings. joe: For example, Larry Dyke painted the 12th at augusta in a very romantic manner. He didnd't like the way the like cast a shadow under the bridge in his view, so he changed it. LOL Mark light, not like. Tom: so what does that have to do with volition? (again, the volition of the subject is the issue - whiuch means at the least that a person must be portrayed) joe: No, the volition of the artist is depicted in the chosing of the subject and the style. It's a depiction of the way it might be and ought to be. romaticism in literature and music is generally definitive of an era, rather than a genre although the two do go together so is this another definitions of romanticism? Subetai: Enjoyed the discussion. Goodnight. Tom: but romanticism is not merely its defination (art premised on volition) there's more to it than that. What Miss Rand pointed dout about voliton qua characters applies only to those art forms which have persons acting in them...like literature, plays, and movies. Romanticism really has two meanings -- the school of art and the time period. KerryD: Ayn Rand defined romanticism as the school of art based on the idea that man has volition. Kelly: We are talking about the school...not the time period. KellyT + Kerryd: how much of RM have you read? I know that, Tom, I was talking to Kerry. I have read all of RM. that is what I was asking joe: Contrast two similar paintings: one is a depiction of what is; the other is a depiction of what might be (if man re-did that part of nature). If you are considering the volition of the artist, then _all_ art has to be romantic because all art is created by peopple! joe-: That's not quite it. :) joe: Not really...although even naturalists make selections, they select based on what *is* not on what might be. Mark: no? :-) joe: It's like the difference between filming on location, and using special effects to change the scenery. ok, but you guys are missing my point: "voliton" is referring to in the def. f Rom'ism is the volition of the subjects being portrayed. Jason says: TomM, can a movie like Apollo 13 be romantic, even though it's based on real life? so the minimum requiement is that Romantic art portrays humans. Kelly: I see "Apollo 13" as romantically highlighted naturalism. joe: Check the definition, I don't think that's quite it. joe-: It would be possible to infer from elements that suggest the actions of humans. That makes a whole hell of a lot of sense. Kelly: That is, it was not a documentary, nor strickly naturalism, but it did present what *did* happen, though in a very stylized manner. Jason says: What status do these concepts have in your mind, Tom? Are they infinitely malleable. bazar what is going on, doesn't list channels anymore Mark: that seems to be stretching. It wasn't actually very stylized. Jason suggests looking at films from the time. TomM - in its selection of the particular event in question, where the reason and efficacy of man prevailed, isn't Apollo 13 a romantic story? And the word you are looking for is "strictly." Take picasso (please :-) he is very selective in his cubism. he is excercising his voliton. by you, that would be romantic. A13 = ID4 After all, if the successes in romantic art can't come true in real life, what's the point? bazyar: Yes and no...it was far too close to what actually happened to be totally romantic. None of the characters represented concretizations of abstractions, for instance. Though they were heroic. I think Apollo 13 has a Romantic theme and largely Naturalistic characters. It's a mixture. But it has enough romantic elements that I enjoyed it. joe--explain the A13=ID4...i disagree w/that statemtn joe: No, the selectivity must be reality based for it to be romanticism. Also, don't forget about concretizations of abstractions. Jason says: You would enjoy it just the same if it were the actual documentary films. shane: that would take too long Kelly: I saw the documentary, and dit was dnot as exciting. -dd Why? In ten words or less. Night everyone. shane: Why what? joe's a13=id4. I think that a13's denounment puts it out of the field of movies such as ID4. shane: superficial characterizaton, immature plot, bad acting, syrup. TomM: ok maybe I will post that question, better formulate, to OSG. ID4 was totally made up, in that sense it was romantic...and the characters were portrayed as ahving choices. (which is what I said when I brought it up before - sheesh.) joe--in ID4, yes. In apollo 13, that is the REAL story. They are working w/actual events. Superfi. Char--the real people were like that....watch the behind the scenes. A13 was based on a true-life story, so it's closer to naturalism...though the manner in which it was protrayed stressed choices made by those involved. Oh, so Tom, all fiction is romantic, then? shane: also: characterization as streotype. Kelly: NO. Naturalist characters often have choices, too. joe--s'type of what and whom? Kelly: In naturalism, the perspective is: these are the actions these people really did; romanticism takes the perspective: these are the choices they might have or could ahve made. Goodnight everyone.Talk with you later. bye, blue Kelly: You could ahve totally made up naturalistic characters. "the streetwise black man", "the kvetching but wise old man" "the evil, conspiring bureaucrat", "hooker/stripper with a heart of gold" etc. I don't think you know exactly what naturalism is, Tom. Kelly: i dodn't think you know what naturalism is. I think Tom's saying that to be romantic it has to be fiction. At least that's the impression I get. Yeah, that's why I've studied naturalism in a university course. Tom--if baz is right, you are incorrect. bazyar: In a sense, yes...it really depends on how the action is depicted. A13 was romantic in the sense that there were choices made...it wasn't presented merely as: this is what actually happened. You're taking things from Romantic Manifesto and just saying it out of context, without much real understanding, that I can see. What is your definition of naturalism, Tom? It's not just "people have made these choices." That's a horrible summary. TomM - so the fact that the choices (even though they actually happened and were not fictional) were virtuous, has no relevance? "was romantic in the sense that there were choices made" There are choices made in naturalism as well! I don't think being fiction is a nec. req. of romanticism. Some true events "read like a book". For example, the book The Right Stuff has a better plot, characterization, and theme than most books I have read (its an account of the US space progr am) Tom--by your definition, as described here, ANY fiction is naturalism. The fact that Ron Whatsisname chose *this* set of events, these choices to depict, has no bearing? Kelly: Naturalism focuses on actions from the perspective of: This is what really happened. Romanticism has the focus of: Given this situation, what *ought* one do? sorry---naturalism is supposed to be romaticsm... TomM - no, naturalism focuses on "things happening with no selectivity". That is NOT a good summary of naturalism at ALL. How does that apply to music, for example? Or any visual art? Tom: I have the reverse view of A13: they were heros, involved in heroic acts, but the _portrayal_ in the movie was natualistic! There are many naturalist novels that are purely speculation. Under that definition, Steinbeck's The Grapes of Wrath could be Romantic Fict. hia all You're confusing naturalism with non-fiction. TomM - for instance, Full Metal Jacket. Totally naturalistic. The events happened - but they're not events worth putting on the silver screen. They uphold nothing, say nothing. naturalism focuses on "how things *really* are", where romanticism focuses on "how things *should* be". bazyar: I had a technical glitch...my machine froz up...what didd you say earlier? Ghaki: Yesd, that is a very important distinction. baz: i didn't see that one. Full Metal Jacket WAS trying to say something! Maybe nothing nice, as Adam says. May I ask a quick question? Do not BOTH forms of fiction have an equally important role in literature? Kelly - that was the only example I could come up with in a jiffy :) Well also natualism portrays people as drifting along, reating (not initiating), etc. A Naturalist does try to make a statement...his statement is: These events happened...what to make of them is up to you, not me. Actually, naturalism often shows people as acting. Shane: No, romanticism is definitley the objective form of art. joe--but that is only author's preference ast o plot. The objective form of art?? Tom--objective? Showing how things "Should be?" It seems that the most "objective" would be showing how things really are...because one coule see them all around. kelly: yes, that form of art most suitable for man's consciousness. Kelly - yes, the one that upholds the Objectivist virtues baz: and the obj. view of existenc and consciousness. bazyar: Or any virtues...provided they are projected as having a choice in the matter...and are not just taking life as it is. joe - that's implied when I say Objectivist virtues :) baz: natch. I get the impression that a lot of people just don't see what naturalism is. TomM - hey, wait, did you change your mind on whether "value" can mean anything but the objective values? ;) I'm not trying to be rude, but is Objectivism becoming a religion? Kelly: Naturalism, as a school, basically says man has no choices whasoever...he just does what he does. Shane - that is rude. bazyar: Not philosophically, but art is a special case. ;) No, Shane. But there will always be people who just take some sentences from Ayn Rand and don't actually integrate anything. Kelly: Yes, that is very true. That is not the right definition of naturalism at ALL, TomM. shane: the naturalist premise shows up incharacterization and plot. lacking volition, the naturalist characters' actions are not a direct result of their values., Sorry, baz...but that is the impression I get alot of times. Kelly: Fine, give us your definition. Men DO have choices in naturalism. The question is whether those choices are important. if that is the case, joe, then The Grapes of Wrath is romanic fiction. Kelly: This issue is: Does the artist present the "choices made" as being crucially important to life as a man or not. That's exactly what she just said. You're saying men in naturalist art don't have choices. They do. If not, then it is naturalism; if so, then it is romanticism. Do you listen to me? That's why I used the word "efficacious" in terms of man's choices in action. Baz--what Rand said? Shane: well that's not the only attribute of romantic lit. there are other attributes (e.g. portrayal of heroism) which I suspect would rule GOW out of being romantic, but It's been years since I've read it and I don't remember it. Shane - what Kelly said. Kelly: When you get a deeper grasp of volition, you will see that naturalism doesn't really present men as having choices at all. Okay...thnx. Is man a creature who has choice? Are his actions efficacious in dealing with reality? Yes, Yes - Romanticism. No, No - Naturalism. And sorry bout the Rudeness of my remark, but I get that impression alot of times. Don't be so damn presumptuous. When you get a deeper grasp of art, you'll realize that men do have choices in naturalism. hi midas hi alll Shane: Objectivism is certainly not religious, but we do have a set of principles we uphold...many persons confuse the two. Joe--define hero, then look at Tom Joad (The pragmatist literarily) of TOG. Kelly - if man is portrayed as impotent because his choices are pointless... Kelly: give an ex. of Rom art that shows the character having choice. Joe - you mean Naturalistic art What, joe? baz: ack! yes nat. art not romantic. sorry. Tom--I'm only saying this. Rand said time and time again that a man should come to his own conclusions on knowledge. I.E. man's only source of knowledge is his own mind, etc. al. or as will smith says in ID4: "oops" Shane: Oh, absolutley...but that does not mean disregarding the truth others have discovered. If this is taken as fact, then we here must back up what we say with *facts* gained from our own observations... Jason gives the example of Shakespeare. I can give examples like The Sea Wolf, and A Farewell to Arms. Hell, even Grapes of Wrath. TomM - you have to integrate it for yourself. This does not mean that we can simply paraphrase (or even quote) Rand sometimes and thus the discussion is through simply because she said it. Ethan Frome. I just defined Romanticism and Naturalism. KellyT: in shakespear, the protagonist typically fallys because of an inate flaw. that is determinism. Kelly: the predominent feature of Shakespear is that man can never over-ride the fatal flaw...of which he has absolutley no volitional control over whatsoever. Determinism doesn't mean a person cannot make choices. It means those choices do not matter. joe--yes, but most times, the inate flaw is one that the protagonist fails to attempt to correct. Kelly: then why make a big deal of it? that's entirely the dpoint. ie Hubris in Romeo and Juilet. Have any of you read any of the other books so we can discuss them? While on the subject of art (before I forget), I'd like to recommend the art work of Alex Ross. He's best known for his work on graphic novels (glossy comic books). His pictures aren't drawn and inked, they're painted. His subjects have *never* looked more real or heroic. Seeing the human torch ignite in Marvels and Superman's triumphant return in Kingdom Come...they're quite simply breathtaking. IRC log ended Fri Jul 12 23:54