Re: Rand and Romanticism

Natasha Vita-More (
Fri, 22 Oct 1999 19:17:59 -0700

At 07:03 PM 10/22/99 -0700, Daniel Ust wrote:

>See my "Response to David C. Adams on Rand's View of Romanticism" at
>Anyhow, this might not seem germane to any current topics, though it does
>relate to art and esthetics. Not having read Natasha's book (yet!:), I
>can't say what exactly the mainstream Extropian or transhumanist
position on
>art is. Nor does this mean there should be. I mean, not everything has to
>be taken up into our professed beliefs...

Very funny -:) I guess you will find out after you read my book!

>But I really don't believe that about art. After all, art is typically an
>expression of one's deepest beliefs -- the artist's as well as her
>audience's, though each might get different things from the same work.

Yes. Thus, if I am transhumanist or extropian transhumanist, then my work as an artist would express my deepest beliefs.

>I do fear, as I've mentioned on this list before, that conscious attempts to
>create art movements usually backfire.

A myth to be debunked. Never head of one backfiring, although some performance art has use back fires, and some paintings have been burned, then there's Burning Man, and torch dancers. Even if an art movement produced an unwanted result, the process has meaning. Sometimes what the unexpected brings to light can be even more exciting that what had been planned. Artists build upon ideas. Even if an idea fizzles or turns sour, the creative individual finds a challenge in this and moves it along into new realms.

'>The Objectivist movement's art is a
>case in point.

It's not an art movement that I am familiar with. Perhaps it is not a genre that artists want to exemplify.