From: Technotranscendence (neptune@mars.superlink.net)
Date: Mon May 29 2000 - 10:14:27 MDT
On Sunday, May 28, 2000 9:12 AM QueeneMUSE@aol.com wrote:
> > Why? What would make one qualified in this area?
> >
> > Does QueeneMUSE know Rand's definition of art? Or why she takes a
stand
> > against Modern Art? (I should mention, not all Objectivists and fellow
> > travelers agree with Rand's stance here.)
>
> Yes, I have read all of her work, a guy I dated for a short time had this
big
> thing for her. Since I am open minded, i did the reasearch. I read it
all --
> and with the exception of "The Fountainhead" which is a very well written
> novel, I found her work most clumsy and intolerant. When I think of her I
am
> struck with an image of a bitter, psthologically stricken person who
survived
> traumatic injuries in her homeland and came here to work through her
psychic
> wounds by outpouring onto paper. What she promotes is largely distrust,
> dislike, disdain, contempt, scorn, and loathing. For meny many things.
> This is not my style of thought, I am a person who loves.
I do think Rand was arrogant, though I do not know how much of this was a
result of her growing up in the Soviet Union. No doubt, the ideas in the
air at that time to leave a lasting mark on her -- as Chris Sciabarra
demonstrates in his _Ayn Rand: The Russian Radical_ -- but I'm not sure if
we can correlate her bad personality traits merely with this formative
period. To me, that's like giving someone a free pass because blaming a bad
childhood for everything wrong with his life.
Also, I do NOT agree that what "she promotes is largely distrust, dislike,
disdain, contempt, scorn, and loathing" or that her purely bad traits always
dominated in her writing. I find her writings, fiction or nonfiction, to
generally have a surface level Manicheanism -- i.e., painting everything in
terms of Good vs. Evil. However, if one reads more closely, one finds an
active mind grasping for truth. Her delivery, which is strident, marrs
that, especially if one is used to the notion of the truth seeker as
humble...
In a sense, this is just the sort of notion she was trying to tap with her
hammer to show it was hollow. Perhaps it would be more accurate to say not
that Rand was always bitter, mean-spirited, or whatever trait you find
disagreeable, but that she was almost always confrontational.
Anyway, my interest is more in her ideas themselves, especially insofar as
they are valid or lead to interesting conclusions.
> She often refured things she had no knowledge of, if it infringed on her
own
> whims, even to the point where she wrote contradicting tracts on the
effects
> of cigarettes, proclaiming the medical community wrong.
I agree in the case of cigarettes -- as would most Objectivists. I think
what Rand needed, in many cases, was someone to tell, "Look, you're smart.
You might have figured out a lot of things. You write bestselling novels.
But you do NOT know everything." But this is something a lot of people need
reminding of, including, sad to say, me.:)
> Her attitude toward art was boorish, uneducated, closed minded and
> out-of-touch.
I don't agree with this. I think sometimes she could hold onto a bad idea
too tightly, as with the cigarette thing or her view of femininity
(especially in regards to whether a woman should ever be President). (On
the latter, I wonder why no one ever called her on the carpet regarding her
rather ambiguous view of sexuality, though a recent book _Feminist
Interpretations of Ayn Rand_, edited by Mimi Reisel Gladstein and Sciabarra,
does just this. Also, there's an email discussion list devoted to
Randian-Feminism (see http://www.math.uio.no/~thomas/lists/lists.html).)
> Her ideals were as square as you can get. Unhip, uncool, out of it.. very
> germanic/idealistic/super-uber-stiffo.
To some extent I agree. As a person who moves in Objectivist circles --
maybe too much -- I've noticed a conservative streak in the movement. This
is changing. Regardless, it is, I believe, at odds with the actual ideals
projected in her novels. I certainly don't see her heroes and heroines as
farty conservatives or stiff.
> At a secular humanist meeting an old guy called her an intellectual bimbo.
Excellent analysis! It's great to dismiss someone with wit if without
understanding. (Truth be told, I don't know if this "old guy" knew what he
was talking about, so my comeback here is as empty as his attack.:)
> When it came to modern art, she had no talent herself,
What does this mean? Does one have to be a Modern artist to critique Modern
Art? This would be akin to saying only chefs can send the meal back.
>nor an art education.
Isn't this merely a call for credentials? Does anyone think she was
unacquainted with works of Modern Art? Or is QueeneMUSE demanding someone
have an art degree from a prestigious school before opening one's mouth or
putting pen to paper?
> Yet she felt utterly qualified to
> vilify with great passion, the greatest names of the day, simply because
her
> understandin gof it was limited. She trashed a whole genre simply because
she
> couldn't see the vlaue of it.
While I do think she went too far, her reasons for dissing Modern Art were
not that. What she though about it was not that it lacked value but that it
actively promoted the destruction of values. This is the difference between
seeing something as worthless or useless -- for her theory of art posits art
as a having a role to play in life other than idle entertainment -- to
seeing it as harmful.
> Her entire outlook was sneering, venomous, self-important and smug. If
> instead of spending so much time on self absorbtion she had gone to the
> trouble to educate herself on the current artscene, I'd have had more
respect.
What would have educated her in this regard? I have a feeling that only
adulation and praise would qualify for QueeneMUSE as education. Prove me
wrong! Please prove me wrong.:)
Cheers!
Daniel Ust
http://uweb.superlink.net/neptune/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 15:28:53 MST