On Saturday, October 23, 1999 10:16 AM Replicant00@aol.com wrote:
>> Well, the artists who are Objectivists might beg to differ. I mean they
>> want to create what they term "Romantic Realism," though what they
>> produce are formula driven works.
> You would know it if you saw it... pictoral realism, usually figurative...
> but they look like they are from the past... the romantic period.
Some do, though they seem often, in painting, to combine some minimal aspects, so it's not strict Romanticism. And it's hardly strict Realism, as the term is used in art circles. The same goes for the literary works, of which there are lots more. It seems every Objectivist writer wants to write that great novel!:)
> Actually, what it reminds me of the is 'idealized' art Hitler loved so
> it is "noble"... it allows one only to see the "higher" ideals of
I would say that's not a reason to damn it. I would say that's an argument ad hominem... I mean if Hitler liked using toilet paper should everyone who is against Nazism stop using the stuff? I hope not!:)
Nazi art was rather cliche driven and more propagandistic. However, there was Leni Riefenstahl. Her films are masterpieces -- albeit twisted masterpieces. This does not mean I agree with her politics or her lack thereof. (She was pretty much an opportunist, from what I've read. She didn't care for Nazi ideology, but it didn't bother her that she was making films for that movement.)
Also, Rand's and Objectivist taste in art isn't just that sort of stuff warmed over. After all, most Objectivists see Capra (of "It's a Wonderful Life" fame) as a great director. This makes me laugh, but I doubt we'd find Nazis, noe or otherwise, giving their thumbs up to any of Capra's films. (And Hitler did convince Mussolini to pull "We the Living" from the theaters in Italy. This film based on Rand's novel of the same title was thought by the Italian fascists to be merely anticommunist; in fact, it was starting people to question fascism.:)