That Russian-born novelist and philosopher Ayn Rand (1905-82) had some profound insights into esthetics I do not doubt, based on my evaluation of her other writings and especially the depths of her published insights into current "artistic" practices -- which have only become more pronounced since her death. That Mr. Torres and Ms. Kamhi would be highly qualified to comment on Ms. Rand's esthetic ideas I also have little reason to doubt, primarily based on their (sporadic and all-too-infrequent) publication of the art journal Aristos. But I found `What Are Is' -- nominally Torres' and Kamhi's magnum opus on Rand's definition of art and philosophy of esthetics -- curiously wanting in several areas and read more like a series of (albeit interesting) articles rather than a comprehensive work. Given Ms. Rand's rigidly integrated view of this subject matter I found this disorganization curious and ironic.
Not that the authors don't score some serious points, if nothing else for tackling Rand's still-highly-relevant definition of art, not to mention how the willful ignorance of definitions and concepts have turned the current artworld (the authors gleefully use this fabricated compound word) into a chamber of absurd horrors. The first third of this book plunges headlong into Rand's published works and statements on esthetics, covering concepts familiar to readers of her philosophy including psycho-epistemology, sense of life, and art and cognition. Herein lies the meat of the book: the authors clearly show both Rand's strongest strengths (e.g., the role of concepts and values in esthetic appreciation, why photography can't be defined as art) and weaknesses (e.g., the inclusion of architecture as art against her own definition) on the subject and -- unlike many of Rand's followers -- pull no punches when they find her self-contradictory, flippant, or even needlessly extreme. Reasoned, calm and objective critiques of Rand -- on any subject -- are painfully infrequent and Torres and Kamhi deserve high praise for giving her ideas the critical respect and attention they deserve.
When they turn to applying Rand's ideas and their own critiques to the current state of the arts, however, the authors lose their momentum. The clarity evident when discussing Rand's ideas flags noticeably throughout the balance of the book (vaguely titled "Extension and Application of Rand's Theory") when they turn their attention to the modern artworld in all its absurdities: from the roots of abstract "art" in the early 20th century to the current pastiche of "art is what any artist says it is." While their attack here should be painfully easy, the authors are handicapped by indecision--applying Rand's ideas where applicable but also throwing in their own (often unsupported) notions as well. I was often left wondering whose voice was taking a stand; this ambiguity was doubly frustrating when the authors propose a brilliant concept of their own (e.g., dubbing the aforementioned art definition by fiat the "authoritarian theory of art"). Simply put, I couldn't tell if they were "extending" Rand's ideas or "applying" them. I would assume both, but too often they came across with neither.
Nevertheless, `What Art Is' provides a strong riposte to the current comical state of the fine arts. The search for clear, consistent definitions is more than welcome and the authors go to no small trouble to show how Rand's theories provide an excellent guide. If they had had the gumption to form their *own* ideas based on the solid foundation Rand built -- rather than selectively and confusingly applying the two - their work would have been a more reliable guide.
Average Rating:
Author:
- Louis Torres
- Michelle Marder Kamhi
Edition: First Edition
ISBN: 0812693736
Number Of Pages: 523
Languages:
Unknown: English
Original Language: English
Published: English
Product Description:Cultural icon Ayn Rand (1905-1982) was known as much for her philosophy as for her fiction. Her original theory of esthetics, which attacks many "masterpieces" of modernist art, is as combative and controversial as any of her work, but until now has received little serious scrutiny. In What Art Is, the authors demonstrate that Rand's ideas are supported by evidence from other academic fields.
Available at Amazon
List Price: USD 21.95
Lowest Used Price: USD 7.22
Lowest New Price: USD 16.95
Customer Reviews
WOW!
My response to this work is captured in the title of my review. Torres and Khamy have achieved a level of scholarship in What Art Is that no other writer on the aesthetic theory of Rand has accomplished in the twenty years since the author's death. I would rank it along with Sciabarra's monumental Ayn Rand the Russian Radical. It's enormous accomplishment will keep Rand studies alive and bring her fame. Like Oscar Wilde she set out on her literary career either to be a writer or to become notorious. Notorious is mostly what she has become. Despite anyone's personal views on Rand's aesthetic theory whether completely sound or not, these authors have demonstrated that what they are going to be known for is EXCELLENT scholarship. This book has enough reference and bibliographical material to baffle any academic, and their grasp of the areas that are relevent to Rand scholarship is enormous! I recommend this book to anyone who wants to know what the work of a genuine scholar is. Jacques Barzun got it right, if these authors are students of his, they deserve the highest marks.
Surprisingly good, despite some flaws
I did not expect to like this book. Rand's esthetics are the part of her philosophy I find most deplorable. And although Torres and Kamhi are not slavish admirers of Rand who follow her every word, I can't say I cared much for their dreary essentialism. Rand was part of the Aristotlean tradition in philosophy. Her philosophy is more telogically centered than the naturalism of the pre-Socratics or modern science. It also embraces a form of "methdological essentialism," as the philosopher Karl Popper dubbed it, which I find hard to take, especially in strong doses. Methodological essentialists stress the importance of "What is" questions and the definitions of words. Torres and Kamhi, like Rand herself, are uncompromising definition mongers and "what is" analyzers. But I don't think esthetic questions can be solved by answering such questions as "What is art?" or "What is literature?" or by claiming that the bad, non-representational art of modernism and post-modernism is not really art at all, but a kind of fraudulent non-art pretending to be art. Torres and Kamhi stress the importance of defining art, but I have little use for this mode of analysis. Emphasis on definitions simply leads to hopeless arguments about words. I would much rather know why some works of art are successful and some not than know how art should be defined. Art is far too complicated to be summed up in essence of some definition. What I want to know is how does this or that piece of art function aesthetically, and if it functions well or poorly, than why? Science and naturalism emphasize "why" and "how" questions. This is what I would have liked to see from Torres and Kamhi. But being from the Socratic/Aristotlean tradition in philosophy, they have a different methodological point of view on this matter, one I find hopelessly inferior to the methodological nominalism of the sciences.Nevertheless, despite these criticisms, I urge all those who are interested in art to read the book, regardless of what they think of Rand. The book is written on a much higher level than most pro-Rand books that are published nowadays. Torres and Kamhi, unlike Rand's orthodox disciples, at least are sound scholars with an appreciation for empirical evidence and close logical analysis. They are fair to opposing viewpoints (unlike Rand herself, who treated opponents as if they were sub-human), and they provide an excellent overview of the excesses of modern and post-modern art. Merely as a phillipic against bad art (or, as the authors would insist, "non-art"), I would give this book a five star rating. But because of the methodological essentialism, I have to drop it down to four. The emphasis on definitions really can get annoying.
