What Art Is: The Esthetic Theory of Ayn Rand

What Art Is: The Esthetic Theory Of Ayn Rand surveys philosopher/novelist Ayn Rand (1905-1982) commentaries on the nature and meaning of art, contrasting her theory of esthetics with those of other thinkers. The authors conclude that, in its basic principles, Rand's account is compelling, and is corroborated by evidence from anthropology, neurology, cognitive science, and psychology. Rand's theory is applied to a debunking of the work of prominent modernists & postmodernists. Highly recommended, insightful, and challenging reading for students of philosophy and arts criticism, What Art Is concludes with an exploration of the implications of Rand's ideas for the issues of government and corporate support of the arts, art law, and arts education.

Cutting through the confusion of the last century, Torres and Kamhi, present a lucid, extended, and in-depth discussion of the fundamental nature of art. As art is often intensely personal for both artist and audience alike, the authors present their ideas with consideration and tolerance; they show amble appreciation for the breath of human artistic achievement. They also review the contempt of the art establishment towards the views and needs of the vast art audience, as these experts have denigrated the creation of representational painting, tonal music, and traditional art in general.

One needs a theory of art to distinguish Art from Non-art; esthetic endeavors from psychotic behavior and garbage (see Madness and Modernism by Sass as a companion text). The book is excellent, read it. I only want to make a few additional comments. There is a cultural war going on today. If you think that the televangelists are the only ones taking advantage of hordes of naive and gullible people, take a look at, for example, the NY art establishment (the cultural center of the nation), the museum directors and art critics and try to criticize their take on art. You will be labelled a crude buffoon lacking in spriritual sensitivity. I visit the art museums and galleries regularly and I am still amazed; e.g., at the people in the Modern Art Museum who sit in awed silence observing a huge canvess with nothing but a blue square on a white background, and on the other huge wall a huge white canvass with a giant red dot on it. What does this mean? Besides being a huge public con, where a lot of money is involved, from tax rightoffs for museum donations to selling to the idle rich with more money than brains, it is another form of that pervasive Political Correctness that is now pervading our society. [how can you critcize what you can't understand? It's all relative, etc.etc. Doesn't the heroic schizophrenic with a paint brush have a right to call his doodles art?] But the real point is you have to listen and obey. If the art critics and their political allies choose to call it art (like when the character in 1984 says 2+2=5, you had better agree.). I think this book is good (whether you agree with all points or not: you are allowed to form your own opinion), because it is ammunition against the pretentiousness and lies that pervade our cultural life. One valuble thing the book pointed out to me is: if I go into an art museum and I have to read a long dissertation of Artsybabble to even understand what the work of art is supposed to be about, and it still makes no sense, then the artist sure as hell hasn't done a good job of conveying his intentions. We don't need a new class of high priests to interpret reality for us. This book will help you understand why.

Traditionalists who have been dismayed by contemporary trends will find this book invaluable. Torres and Kamhi present objective criteria for art based on human needs and ability. This provides the foundation needed to raise the level of discussion from a matter of tastes and preferences to one of serious philosophy. While the authors are indebted to Rand's work, they place her contribution in historical and scientific context drawing from a much wider study. The depth and breath of this book exceeds previous attempts. There are some minor mistakes and occasional wordiness. Overall - a great book.

Torres and Kamhi provide an in-depth explanation and critical analysis of one of the most original and controversial theories of art. Today's art commentators, while claiming no definition of art is possible, vociferously condemn contemporary artists working along 'traditional' lines. How does today's art establishment explain their 'open-minded' preference for the ludicrous yet deny the possibility of any non-subjective definition? Why are we still drawn to some works of art and not others despite what the 'experts' demand of us? What ultimately is and is not art? T & K examine Rand's approach, which start with the most fundamental. Why do people need art? Is art superfluous? Is it a subjective luxury or is it human need? What are the needs fulfilled by art?The authors extract the essence of Rand's arguments and argue persuasively that Rand's contribution is unjustly overlooked. Unfortunately, many of her defenders have done her a great disservice by dogmatically defending errors and embarrassing shortcoming. The sensitivity and thoughtfulness of T & K are a welcome contrast that begins an honest and serious dialog.One final note - the authors start with the core differences between art and non-art. This is not a diatribe on good art versus bad art that usually hides a rationalization of the authors' subjective tastes. Nor is this a book that quibbles on where to draw the boarder-line. The focus is on a main distinction and its importance.