The Romantic Manifesto: A Philosophy of Literature; Revised Edition

When discussing the theory of art in Outdoor Monuments of Manhattan: A Historical Guide, I cited only Ayn Rand's esthetics. An early reader suggested I "balance" the presentation by mentioning other writers on esthetics. But here's the problem: no one surpasses or even equals Ayn Rand in the field of esthetics. Rand treats art with the same rigor she applies to metaphysics, epistemology, ethics and politics. She begins her discussion by stating what art is and what purpose it serves for human beings. Her definition, "a selective re-creation of reality based on an artist's metaphysical value-judgments," indicates that an artist chooses his subject and style based on what he considers important, and creates something recognizable so that others will see it and grasp his message: "THIS matters - pay attention to THIS." Rand lays out the fundamentals of the field of esthetics. Using her definition of art plus her theory of knowledge (see Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology: Expanded Second Edition), one can determine what is and is not art: driftwood, paint splattered on a canvas, the Parthenon frieze? One can determine the esthetic requirements for good art: Is a portrait by Rembrandt better than one by Picasso in his Cubist phase? One can even explain why people often react so violently to works of art: "It repulses me but I can't turn away!" I have read hundreds of books by art critics and historians, many of whom have an encyclopedic grasp of their subject and descriptive abilities that make me wildly jealous. Not one of them offers a proper definition of art. The fifth edition of Janson's widely used Janson's History of Art: Western Tradition (7th Edition), for example, says a work of art is "an esthetic object" and that "esthetic" means "that which concerns the beautiful." The term is, he promptly admits, unsatisfactory, but "will have to do for lack of a better one." When I'm visiting a gallery or reading a novel, I can and do revel in art without first subjecting it to rigorous esthetic analysis. I've found, though, that I can extend my enjoyment if I THINK about a particular work as well. For purposes of thinking about art and conveying my ideas to others, a proper definition is indispensable. In that respect, I have found Ayn Rand's essays on esthetics in Romantic Manifesto, The Art of Fiction: A Guide for Writers and Readers, The Art of Nonfiction: A Guide for Writers and Readers, and Ayn Rand Answers: The Best of Her Q & A(the esthetics section) invaluable and irreplaceable.

Don't listen to Greg Nyquist. Ayn Rand is actually quite fair in her valuations of art. She does have strong opinions, but she makes it clear that although she doesn't enjoy certain authors (for various reasons), she is still able to appreciate their literary abilities. I think some people hate Ayn Rand simply because she's straight-forward and honest, both with herself and with others. Ayn Rand is not afraid to speak her mind. If this bothers you, then don't read this book. But if you want one woman's calm, rational, and well thought out opinion on art in its various manifestations, then I guarantee that you will enjoy this book.

This is a compelling work on the nature and meaning of art. Besides containing Rand's manifesto, it is also a highly entertaining piece of criticism and analysis of art, culture and psychology. In the introductory chapter: The Psycho-Epistemology Of Art, Rand defines art as a selective recreation of reality according to the artist's metaphysical value judgements. Art brings one's concepts to the perceptual level of conscience and enables one to grasp them directly as if they were precepts. Chapter 2, Philosophy And Sense Of Life, deals with the "merciless recorder" that is the integrating mechanism of the subconscious mind. The next chapter, Art And Sense Of Life, opens with a fascinating observation on a hypothetical painting. Here Rand further explains the concept of a sense of life as it manifests in art. She argues that the emotion involved in art is automatically immediate and that it holds a deeply personal value-significance to the person experiencing it. Art And Cognition is devoted to the question: What are the valid forms of art, and why? Here the author explores literature, painting, sculpture, music and architecture in turn. I find her speculations on music particularly thought-provoking. Rand refers to Aristotle in discussing the attributes of the novel in Basic Principles Of Literature: theme, plot, characterization and style. Chapter 6 provides a definition of Romanticism, which recognizes volition, as opposed to Naturalism which denies it. She identifies determinism as the basic premise of naturalism in The Aesthetic Vacuum Of Our Age and hails the appearance of the novel in the 19th century as the vehicle of Romanticism. Other essays include discussions on bootleg romanticism and moral treason in art, whilst the actual manifesto appears in chapter 11: The Goal Of My Writing and chapter 10: Introduction To Ninety-Three. This essay is an abbreviated version of the introduction she wrote for a 1962 edition of the book by Victor Hugo. The Romantic Manifesto concludes with The Simplest Thing In The World, a short story that illustrates the nature of the creative process. Throughout this fascinating book, Rand provides examples of different manifestations of art plus informed criticism of personalities and a wide variety of works like Anna Karenina, Thomas Aquinas, The Avengers, Balzac, Dostoevsky, Lord Byron, Camille, Günter Grass, Salvador Dali, Don Carlos, Dumas, Flaubert, Ian Fleming, Gone With The Wind, Goya, O Henry, Alfred Hitchcock, Victor Hugo, Boris Karloff, Fritz Lang, Ira Levin, Michelangelo, Edgar Allan Poe, Friedrich Schiller, Shakespeare, Tolstoy, Jan Vermeer, HG Wells, Thomas Wolfe and Emile Zola. Both high and popular culture is covered. One does not need to agree with Rand's analyses and manifesto to find this a most stimulating and highly entertaining read. Many of her insights are valid and quite relevant to the state of culture and civilization today.

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. . .

Are you an artist? A painter, a sculptor or a writer perhaps... In this, the icing on the cake of all of Rand's works, you will discover EXACTLY what makes something qualify as a work of art or not and why.Throughout her work, Rand analyzes the different types of art, mainly Romantic art and Naturalistic art. In short, Rand defines Romantic art as a painting, sculpture or writing which portrays LIFE not as life is but as life COULD and SHOULD be. For example: An artist's work displaying a painting of a building as it could and should be is a romantic art work. Rand tells of how Romanticism lived for only a brief period of time in the 19th century and possibly early twentieth century and how today it is nearly non existent. She reccommends reading, as a beautiful example of the romantic form of art, the works of Victor Hugo. Rand tells of how today the predominant form of art is what is called Naturalistic art.Naturalistic art, says Rand, is work which portrays life as it is, exactly as it is and nothing more. Rand tells of how, in art schools of today students are encouraged to do only naturalistic works. She also mentions several authors of today's era who have come close to creating some ROMANTIC art but have fallen short.Rand discussed how it is the PHILOSOPHY of today which promotes and encourages naturalism and deters Romanticism. This discussion will perhaps be most appreciated by those readers of Rand who appreciate and admire her works, but wonder as to what, upon careful analysis, would be the cause of the bitter political and sociological debates which rage over her ideas and works. This book is BEST for those who have read and liked her works but it is fine, standing on its own, as an analysis or what makes great art great!