[ExI] Art and myth as systems thinking of a sort/was Re: systemsthinking

[Natasha Vita-More]

I am not sure when this thread started, but I will pick up here where Dan
wrote:

"You might be right about that... And this goes for adults too. This sounds
similar to the ideas of Bruno Bettelheim, especially as given in his _The
Uses of Enchantment: The Meaning and Importance of Fairy Tales_.

"Regarding adults, too, might this function be served by art? I know Rand
has been trashed (and defended) on this list, but look soberly at her ideas
on art. She sees art as concretizing certain types of abstractions. This
seems akin to a systems view of the world. E.g., one doesn't draw out chains
of reasoning when thinking of, say, Othello or Ahad. Instead, one seems to
have a sort of image one can draw on of just what it means to be obsessed.
(This can also go awry -- as in stereotypes.)"

Rand is a weak example of scholarly, knowledgeable thinking about art or the
arts. Her rigid interpretation concerning art holds little value, if any at
all, in the arts and humanities. Her arguments are weak, at best, and are
used to support her philosophical views. I may not agree with Foucault,
Danto, Lyotard, Dickie or Sontag, but they are far better examples of deep
investigations on abstraction, systems, and art.

This not meant to trash, as you say, Rand.  I value her fiction as being
superb.  Yet, this does not excuse her inability to understand art and the
role of the artist. Just read the Romantic Manifesto!  Yee gads!  I mean,
who cannot understand modern art as it is situated historically.  Rand tried
to concretize the hell out of everything to suit her point of view, which
she does with amazing articulation that few possess.  But that does not
excuse her trying to put a label, chain and stamp on everything she could
not grok because she simply did not have the wherewithal to do so. Maybe it
was her upbringing.  Maybe it was because she was a woman in a man's world.
Who knows. 

Nlogo1.tif Natasha Vita-More