[Note: This was supposed to appear in a recent issue of The Free Radical, but since it has already been promised for two issues and not published in either, I've decided to publish it here so that any interested in the debate might read it now. This is not to say I believe the editor of The Free Radical delayed it because he disagrees with it. Instead, I believe it was delayed merely because of the deluge of other great material. At least, I hope this is the case. I did make some changes of style and added some comments in square brackets that most likely will not appear in the The Free Radical version.
For those who want more of the history: the debate started off with Michael Korziarski's Reason, Freedom... and Music," my "Romanticism: Beyond Rand," and Adams' "Rand: Beyond Romanticism."]
While David C. Adams (The Free Radical #35, p37) regurgitates some of the points made in "Romanticism: Beyond Rand," he ignores one uncomfortable one, does not answer my criticism of Rand's view of Romanticism, and, what is saddest of all, limits great works (again!) to those of long dead artists.
I did write that "Romanticism emerged as a reaction to Classicism," but I also wrote about Romanticism's debt to the Gothic movement, a movement that coexisted with Classicism. This is the ignored point. It should be especially important to examine this lineage as Rand dismisses things Gothic. (See my "Toward an Esthetics of Horror" in Summa Philosophiae #29 (February 1997).) I not only mentioned this in the abstract, I gave several examples of Romantic works directly influenced by Gothicism. Part of good thinking practice is to always look for things that might contradict one's beliefs. I'm not saying Romanticism's Gothic inheritance topples Rand's theory of art, but it should make all of us look more closely at it.
Also, volition and moral ideals are not something Romanticism has a monopoly on. Nor did Romanticism originate these. In fact, if we look for such, we can find them as far back as ancient Greek Tragedy, especially those of Sophocles, but there are plenty of examples in between, such as the Elizabethan drama (Shakespeare, anyone?). [On the problem of free will in Greek Tragedy, see Myth and Tragedy in Ancient Greece by Jean-Pierre Vernant and Pierre Vidal-Naquet, especially chapters 1 and 2.] This is enough to make one reconsider Rand's lauding of Romanticism. Not that Romanticism as such is bad or insignificant, but if one is to define it as an art movement that focuses on volition and morality, then one ought to be able to explain why these essential traits are found elsewhere.
Adams seems to recognize this and so should have Rand, given her view of essentials and definition. Both he and her list examples of works that were not Romantic art proper, but exemplified what Rand considered to be the hallmarks of Romanticism.
Add to this, one ought to be able to explain why a lot of Romantic art is outside the scope of such a definition. I gave one clear example of this – Wordsworth's poem "The Daffodils." There are plenty of others. It is difficult to see how, say, Chopin portrays volition in his solo piano works or David does so in his paintings.
As for Rand, I never claimed her "to be simply a Romantic." I was not being critical of her whole esthetic theory, but her delineation of Romanticism, especially in so far as Michael Korziarski has adopted it. The claim that she synthesized Romanticism and Classicism is neither new to me nor does it speak to the topic at hand, viz., whether Rand's view of Romanticism is correct and, more importantly, whether Romanticism is the touchstone for all that is good in art.
Further, Naturalism did not arise from Classicism. It evolved from Romanticism, especially the Verist movement in opera and the other arts. The main impetus for this appears to the Romantic use of many historical topics with great artistic license. Artists and audiences eventually got bored with grandiose subjects, or with subjects that had a basis in actual historic events but were modified significantly. Verism was a branch of Romanticism, and, outside of operas, can be seen in paintings such as Gericault's "The Raft of the Medusa" or Bouguereau's "The Bohemian."
Naturalism is not a return to Classicism and its desire to portray eternal beauty and truth. In fact, it is Romanticism which turns away from the Classical ideal, which is typically harmonious and regular, to the real, which is peculiar, typically discordant, and chaotic (think of Friedrich's "Arctic Shipwreck" or almost anything by Goya). Not to say some synthesis can't be made or hasn't been made, but the historical trend was from the timeless beauty sought by Classicism through the Romantic rejection of that ideal to Romantic verism to finally the temporal realism of Naturalism. (Cf. Kenyon Cox's What is Painting? Winslow Homer and Other Essays.) [For more on Cox, see my Interesting Parallels: Kenyon Cox and Ayn Rand on Art in Full Context (January 1995).]
If more Objectivists would look at actual art and the actual history of art, they might see that while Rand had a lot of insights she also made a few mistakes. We all, I hope, want to retain and build on the insights and correct the mistakes as well as add that things she could have never imagined to our appreciation and theory of art.
Great art is being produced today outside of film. For instance, check out any issue of The Artist's Magazine or American Artist. While the focus of these is on painting, these easily accessible periodicals should show any doubters that art is not dead. Also, listen to Bill Evans or Keith Jarrett's piano solos, or the works of Ketil Bjornstad. If you're willing to go back a few years, pick up recordings of Fritz Kreisler's violin works (I recommend Joshua Bell's 1996 rendition) – he died only in 1962, before we (David and I) were born, but close enough to us to show that music did not end with John Cage.
As for the rest of what Adams says, I've read The Romantic Manifesto many times. There's no need to go over all the stuff that is not germane to my criticisms here. I think it can be safely assumed that in The Free Radical, most writers are coming from an Objectivist perspective – even if some of us are critical of our intellectual origins.
Film/TV Literature Links Music Updates Visual Art