Ayn Rand coming to the big screen!
- Thread starter Maverick74
- Start date
Maybe not epic, but in terms of the effect that it had on people, the raw emotion it ellicted - the objective of all art, when you get down to it - its significance can't be denied. Sure, it scares the pants off those who, despite the mountains of supporting evidence, never managed to develop much of a faith in free markets' ability to produce desirable outcomes, but to many of those with such a faith, it was quite the clarion call.
Btw, Rand has already made it to the silver screen. If I'm not wrong, there was a film made of The Fountainhead in the 50s (Gary Cooper, I think?).
I think you're stretching it a bit. A mugger who corners his quarry in an alley also elicits raw emotion from his "audience." However, I would be hard pressed to characterize him as a performance "artist." Raw sewage slowly rolling down a blank canvas in a museum would likely elicit raw emotional response from the museum's patrons, however, I would not refer to it as "art." I think that the raw emotional response you refer to is a red herring.
I have heard of the movie you refer to, however I have not seen it and I don't know how it was received at the time. Regardless, what do you think the odds are that a 1950s movie remained true to the book on which it was based?
We live in interesting times, don't we? Second rate screen writers/movie extras/philosophy students become noted free market thinkers out of thin air while failed science fiction writers go on to found their own religions. I can't wait for the next revelation.
EDIT: spect8or, kidding aside, don't you find it astonishing that someone with absolutely no business experience, or training/education of any kind in the markets or economics could go on to become a "revered" free market thinker? Her background and experience certainly explain both her naivete and her revulsion to anything remotely communist. (Hey, I despise communism, too!) But her extreme philosophy is more of an excuse than a true economic model. Look at some if its proponents. A noted fan, Alan Greenspan, kept tinkering with monetary policy, inadvertently helping to spawn one bubble after another. Can you see the hypocrisy? The large pharmaceuticals want the freedom to charge whatever they choose for life-saving drugs but are outraged when Americans on limited budgets start buying their much needed drugs at lower prices in Canada. It is interesting that price gougers should demand a captive market. That sounds more like one-way "free" markets. People seem to wrap themselves in the flag only when it suits their purpose. If you look closely enough you will see that the emperor is wearing no clothes.
Ok, find me one single objectivist writer who supports protectionism for American goods. Just one.
BTW, I admit 'greatest epic novel' wasn't the best choice of words...
Please let me be clear. I do not accuse Rand of double dealing and being ill-intentioned. Rather, I view her and other pure theorists like her as being hopelessly naive in much the same was that I think Marx was hopelessly naive at the opposite extreme of this continuum. Given the choice, I would select capitalism over communism hands down. However, I think that either extreme is potentially dangerous simply because of human nature and its many examples throughout the ages. I think that the concept of balance and moderation applies to more than just good health.
Therefore, I am less concerned about the pure theorists than I am about its many reptilian "proponents" who selectively use it as a platform to achieve their ends, much like extremists of any other ideology throughout the ages. Take your pick. It is very much a case of "be careful what you wish for."
what's interesting about Ayn Rand, is the philosophy that nobody has the right to take what's your's or place undo pressure on you to shape your priorities. this philophy of economics was converyed in Rand's objectivist newsletter in the early 1960s
contrast that with what we have today, where booms and busts are created at whim by tyranical federal reserve - fail to dance to it's tune, and your assets are confiscated 'for the good of society'
and conservatice investments are being inflated away
interestingly, the economics write for the objectivist newsletter in the 1960s was none other than her friend and follower, a former jaz musician turned economic consultant named Alan Greenspan
my, how he's changed
contrast that with what we have today, where booms and busts are created at whim by tyranical federal reserve - fail to dance to it's tune, and your assets are confiscated 'for the good of society'
and conservatice investments are being inflated away
interestingly, the economics write for the objectivist newsletter in the 1960s was none other than her friend and follower, a former jaz musician turned economic consultant named Alan Greenspan
my, how he's changed
No, I don't really find this particularly astonishing. The free market economics are just a logical outgrowth of her philosphical position and philosophical positions certainly don't require any business experience.
That's not to say I agree with her - I most certainly do not.
I'm surprised you took issue with my saying that the objective of all art is to ellicit emotion. Doesn't the artist craft his work in order to get you to feel a certain way? Not being an artist myself, I don't really know. But how else do we judge a piece of art if not by the way the work makes us feel? (Is the fact that we appreciate the work just an unintended, unanticipated side-effect? I can't help but doubt that. I think it's what the artist seeks from the very beginning.)
Yes, but having a "philosophy" and a real-world workable model are two potentially very different things. The fact that her musings are so readily accepted (and supposedly espoused) as legitimate and workable by people in real life is what I find so befuddling.
As for the "art" thing, I will concede that art elicits emotions. But so do things that are not art. If someone paints a swastika on my wall, I assure you that it will evoke very raw emotions. But I would not call that art. Therefore, the presence of emotions alone is not much of a litmus test. There should be more to "art." If I were to slip in dog shit I would get a bit emotional, but I would not call the dog an artist.
Another coupla problems with Rand's thought is that she was pre Silent Spring and pre Tragedy of the Commons. Nothing negative comes from the pure practice of her philosophy (so she seems to say)--there is no entropy in her universe, there's no such thing as unintended consequences, at least none that can't be handled by yet another knight in shining armor entrepreneur.