Rand supported realistic romanticism, but if art is the condensation of concepts in order to express something that would take volumes of books to express, is realistic romanticism the only way to "go"?
asked Dec 22 '12 at 02:08
A number of questions about this question need clarification. For example:
A follow-up comment by Collin seems to express a fear that it would be a "sell out" of some kind to go see a film like "Zero Dark Thirty" and enjoy any elements of genuine heroism that one might find in it, just as one might be inspired by actual historical heroes. Therein lies the essential issue, as I see it: the movie evidently is "docu-drama," aka dramatized non-fiction -- perhaps more like history or journalism than fictional story-telling depicting timeless values in man's life. For those like myself who don't know much about the movie (so far), why would paying to see it be a "sell out"? "Sell out" to whom and for what?
As for "docu-drama" as an "art form," it occupies a kind of "never-never land" between real art and journalistic history. As such, it must be judged by its historical accuracy and by the skill with which it captures the actual thinking and actions of the actual people involved in the story, in a condensed form suitable for presentation in a two or three hour work. I'm not prepared to describe anyone's interest in such a film as a "sell out" without knowing more about it and why it may be inaccurate or misleading, perhaps deliberately so (such as if motivated by a conscious anti-man philosophy). So far, all I know about this particular film (confirmed by Google search and Wikipedia) is that it has sparked considerable controversy as to his historical accuracy and/or historical "slant" -- "slant" referring to the expression of a philosophical perspective that infests the work and undermines its factual accuracy.
Leonard Peikoff's book, The DIM Hypothesis, includes an analysis of literature in Chapter 5. The subsection on "Naturalism" classifies Naturalism as D1 in relation to cognitive integration -- distintegration (D) mixed with limited elements of Integration (skepticism that nevertheless reaches a few elementary conclusions about secular existence). Naturalism presents many concretes but doesn't consistently attempt (actually striving not) to integrate the concretes into an abstract "One" deriving from among the many. Docu-drama that conscientiously strives to be factual and "non-judgmental" certainly fits the description of a "many" in concretes, lacking an abstract "One" that ties everything together in terms of essentials, leaving the viewer wondering, "What does it all mean? What does it add up to?" At most, there may be multiple, less abstract "One's" unconnected to each other (hence, D1 versus D2). But modern viewers may be seeking just to know more about the "what" of the events -- what actually happened rather than why it happened (perhaps on the assumption that human action is just emotional impulse without principles or consciously weighed and chosen values). In any case, "docu-drama" is a very poor substitute for objective history and journalism, as well as for uplifting, value-laden art.