TTI Forums

I see a contradiction in the novels of Ayn Rand. Atlas Shrugged Francisco D’Aconia’s money speech,( http://tti.naut.org/html/speeches-capitalism.shtml ) indicates that money is the definitive social metric.

An yet in Atlas, she provided a creative character like Richard Haley ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Characters ... ard_Halley ). A composer with lost / under-subscribed appreciation. Haley is granted admission to the Gulch, (the ultimate statement of worth in the novel).

In the Fountainhead ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Fountainhead ), she provides numerous creative characters that do not prosper in monetary terms, and yet are exalted by the novel: Howard Roark, Gail Wynand, Henry Cameron, Steven Mallory. All these characters measure up to the Objectivist ideals Rand was attempting to model in the novel. Yet to a man each ended on the short end of the metric (though Wynand lasted the longest).

It seems there is a contradiction here…

As a trader of value, does each man strive only to build wealth?

Should an impassioned artist, force their creativity into only a financially successful mold?

If we can’t exclusively use money as a metric, how do we evaluate passion and creativity independently from money?

Help me out here, what do you think?

money is a tool to be used for public exchange.


money is the only thing of universally PUBLIC value.....


privately i do what i wish with said money....


if i wish to exchange value it must be done in monetary terms, not in terms i privately value. being an objectivist has doesnt deal with how much one has, but merely being an individual and respecting other peoples individuality...


a homeless person has no value to me, as opposed to bill gates who holds a lot of value. but if the homeless person offers to do a random job for me (and i find it a valuble job) and i pay him for it, then i have respect for the homeless man as an objectivist. if bill gates askes my donation for some random charity... then (from that statement alone) ive lost a bit of respect for gates.


besides, which monetary social metric are you refering too? the money in atlas shrugged which has become worthless compared to gold?

Well how about an artist. It seems to be a common practice that many artists struggle on in obscurity, sometime though their entire lifetimes. They can create great volumes of work, and yet during their life very little financial success comes their way. Perhaps Vincent van Gogh is a good example.

As I understand it the guy was stone cold broke most of his life, and yet he continued to create art. He had no validation of the marketplace; the messages seemed quite negative. And yet in the time after his life, his art became incredibly successful.

Money as a strict metric during van Gogh’s life doesn’t tell the whole story. How does a young van Gogh carry on the struggle against the current? By strictly monetary terms shouldn’t he have cut and run?

Is there another metric?

as long as he made his own choices and was self sustaining... being broke and only able to buy ramen noodles to eat is still self sustanance... then i see no problem?

if that is how he wishes to live his life, then that is his choice. as long as he never has to depend on someone else to help him out, then he is still on good grounds as an individual.


once an individual turns 18, that person needs to only obey the laws, be self sustaining and ... thats it right? everything else is left up to individual choice and freedom.


think of it this way, if van gogh was rich he might have spent all his money on fine pieces of art.... but as it turns out, he spent his life and his spare time on creating the art he would have paid money for....


btw musashi, nice new sig i see there very tempted to renew my acct for one month at least heh.

DagnyTaggart wrote:as long as he made his own choices and was self sustaining... being broke and only able to buy ramen noodles to eat is still self sustenance... then I see no problem?

Yeah I picked him kinda on purpose. He was umm… mentally unstable. Remember the ear. And his brother actually supported him, mostly to buy media for his art. He lived as a pauper most of his life.

So really we have a great painter that sponged off society. Had little monetary success during his lifetime. And yet is widely considered to be in an pantheon of elite artists. We can’t put dollars to him, so how do we measure his greatness at the time he was creating his art?

masashi wrote:Well how about an artist. It seems to be a common practice that many artists struggle on in obscurity, sometime though their entire lifetimes. ...

I don't see any contradiction here.

"money is the definitive social metric"

If society does not value the individual's works, then the individual will not receive much money. Thus, it describes well how society sees him.

Where is the contradiction?

Oleksandr wrote:If society does not value the individual's works, then the individual will not receive much money. Thus, it describes well how society sees him.

Where is the contradiction?

Perhaps if I made a proposition to you. Would you pay the total sum of money that Vincent received during his life time, for just a single piece of his art?

At most the guy received a few thousand dollars by today’s standards, and yet today his paintings sell for millions.

See I would take that deal in a heart beat. Perhaps if that would have happened, even one time, van Gogh would not have put a bullet in his own chest. Perhaps we could have had one more piece of his art in our world.

Oleksandr wrote:"money is the definitive social metric"

If society does not value the individual's works, then the individual will not receive much money. Thus, it describes well how society sees him.

I would agree. Although it describes how well society "saw" him, in the past tense. Like anything with value, values and more importantly "perceived values" change.

masashi wrote:At most the guy received a few thousand dollars by today’s standards, and yet today his paintings sell for millions.

See I would take that deal in a heart beat. Perhaps if that would have happened, even one time, van Gogh would not have put a bullet in his own chest. Perhaps we could have had one more piece of his art in our world.

I'm not sure what your point is? That life's unfair? What do you think of the Microsoft secretaries that where given small bonus's in stock that are now worth millions? Would you take that away from them since they didn't deserve it? Getting back to van Gogh, if he was rich, his paintings probably would be different and not worth what they are now anyway.

edit: spelling

masashi wrote:At most the guy received a few thousand dollars by today’s standards, and yet today his paintings sell for millions.

This just means that society values his works more than it did in his time. Sucks, of course. But as a metric it still works.

Oleksandr wrote:

masashi wrote:At most the guy received a few thousand dollars by today’s standards, and yet today his paintings sell for millions.

This just means that society values his works more than it did in his time. Sucks, of course. But as a metric it still works.

That’s where I was trying get with the original post. It does suck. And if it sucks, does that mean that our answer “money” is incomplete? Is there more?

Oleksandr wrote:This just means that society values his works more than it did in his time.

Exactly
It seams like money is a great metric for products that are meant for complete consumption immediately.

And then as the nature of the product takes on a more permanent identity, we move to this “money plus” idea. For this type of product the immediate social valuation is inaccurate.

So perhaps it is time to drop the other shoe. What kind of a world do we create, if we emphasize “immediate value” over “sustained value”?

Can you point to what piece from Francisco speech you are talking about? http://tti.naut.org/html/speeches-capitalism.shtml

I can't find 'metric' as such there.

Oleksandr wrote:Can you point to what piece from Francisco speech you are talking about? http://tti.naut.org/html/speeches-capitalism.shtml

I can't find 'metric' as such there.

Ayn Rand Atlas Shrugged wrote:Money is a tool of exchange, which can't exist unless there are goods produced and men able to produce them. Money is the material shape of the principle that men who wish to deal with one another must deal by trade and give value for value.

masashi wrote:

Oleksandr wrote:Can you point to what piece from Francisco speech you are talking about? http://tti.naut.org/html/speeches-capitalism.shtml

I can't find 'metric' as such there.

Ayn Rand Atlas Shrugged wrote:Money is a tool of exchange, which can't exist unless there are goods produced and men able to produce them. Money is the material shape of the principle that men who wish to deal with one another must deal by trade and give value for value.

so then your 'value over time' would then be something like van gogh demanding 10% of every replica of his painting ever sold everywhere....


but, im assuming van gogh didnt make such a contract with whoever bought his art..... the contract was immediate and over at the end of the day. if a painting is sold to person B, and person B holds said painting for 5 years and the value of the painting increases 100% during those 5 years... the person who OWNS the painting... owns the profit. the artist created, and sold the painting. so today it would be something like Museum X owns the painting worth 5 million dollars that was created by van gogh and sold to museam X for 5 dollars...

so no, van gogh shouldnt get the 4,999,995 profit difference unless van gogh sold his painting with a clause stating something to that effect...


whoever bought the painting from van gogh either did it on a whim, or perhaps did it as an investment, hoping to resell when the value of van goghs painting had later increased over time.


now lets say you musashi wish to buy the 5 mil painting. by rights, you should pay 5 mil to the museum. they 100% own the painting. now assuming van gogh were still alive, you would pay 6 mil, 5 to the museum and 1 mil to van gogh as a mark of appreciation.....

see van gogh is the producer, and the museum would be the investor. lets say i mine 50 mil worth of bistot, and sell it to golda who then resells it for 100 mil. i dont have any right to claim any part of that 50% profit. and niether does van gogh have any claim to the 4,999,995 profit in my hypothetical scenario.

now lets say van gogh were still alive and accidentally find some of his old paintings and then sells those for 5 mil... bingo.

or perhaps he should have sold "viewing" rights to his paintings, but retained ownership of the painting.... and sold it later when the value was better.


"how do we evaluate passion and creativity independently from money?"

ill do it my way with my money, and you do it your way with your money.

DagnyTaggart wrote:but, I’m assuming van Gogh didn’t make such a contract with whoever bought his art..... the contract was immediate and over at the end of the day. if a painting is sold to person B, and person B holds said painting for 5 years and the value of the painting increases 100% during those 5 years... the person who OWNS the painting... owns the profit. the artist created, and sold the painting. so today it would be something like Museum X owns the painting worth 5 million dollars that was created by van Gogh and sold to museum X for 5 dollars...

so no, van Gogh shouldn’t get the 4,999,995 profit difference unless van Gogh sold his painting with a clause stating something to that effect...


whoever bought the painting from van Gogh either did it on a whim, or perhaps did it as an investment, hoping to resell when the value of van Gogh’s painting had later increased over time.


now lets say you Musashi wish to buy the 5 mil painting. by rights, you should pay 5 mil to the museum. they 100% own the painting. now assuming van Gogh were still alive, you would pay 6 mil, 5 to the museum and 1 mil to van Gogh as a mark of appreciation.....

see van Gogh is the producer, and the museum would be the investor. lets say i mine 50 mil worth of bistot, and sell it to golda who then resells it for 100 mil. i don’t have any right to claim any part of that 50% profit. and neither does van Gogh have any claim to the 4,999,995 profit in my hypothetical scenario.

now lets say van Gogh were still alive and accidentally find some of his old paintings and then sells those for 5 mil... bingo.

or perhaps he should have sold "viewing" rights to his paintings, but retained ownership of the painting.... and sold it later when the value was better.


"how do we evaluate passion and creativity independently from money?"

ill do it my way with my money, and you do it your way with your money.

Yep you are right that’s how our world works, as far as art goes. The artist puts the creative force into the product sells it for a pittance. An investor buys the art and beyond the lifetime of the artist and with some luck the investor reaps bountiful rewards. Does that seem right? That “passion-less” money carries the day? Why live by our passions at all, if in the end the yolk of financial leverage serves as a chain of bondage stronger than iron?

Its just that by Objectivist standards, comparing the success of entrepreneurs with readily consumed products and services can be illustrated so concretely based upon market forces. Marcus Garvey’s financial success is a very good indicator that his passions were world-class. And yet a person with similar world-class passions, like van Gogh, didn’t or wasn’t able achieve any measure of financial success. But van Gogh has withstood the test of time better than Garvey, and the argument could be made (on an over-time basis) that van Gogh delivered more value than Garvey. The money just doesn’t tell the whole story.

I really don’t have a “way” or ideal to make the situation better, just pointing out a contradiction. Perhaps together we can come to some ideas.

what society and the general public find "worthy" i typically pay little attention too....

are you looking for a general society wide recognition of van gogh?

or pointing out that you think that art is frequently more valuble than the money that is paid to the creators? (i would agree, but i wouldnt want the system to be changed because of my or your personal value systems...)

some people think beer can structures are art, and i would disagree with that.


maybe you could phrase it differently, and say that art 'has worth,' but sometimes little to no soceital (monetary) value....


perhaps its a matter of financial value vs personal humanity value....

the english language doesnt really have a specific word for monetary societal value as opposed to personal, passionate, artistic value...

art would then tend to have value in the artistic sense, but sometimes little value in the monetary value sense....

? is that what you're getting at?

The thread is getting muddy. The specifics were only there to help put a face on the topic.

Returning to the original post, Rand has provided numerous artistic heroes in her novels. None of these artistic heroes were ultimately successful monetary terms, and yet she still celebrated their passion.

In her concept of money, trading value for value, it appears that the artists do not generate significant value. But she still (rightly in my mind) elevates the characters. It just seems like there is something greater than money happening for these characters.

masashi wrote:

Ayn Rand Atlas Shrugged wrote:Money is a tool of exchange, which can't exist unless there are goods produced and men able to produce them. Money is the material shape of the principle that men who wish to deal with one another must deal by trade and give value for value.

I fail to see how this quote states that money is a social metric. It only states that money is used for trading between producers.

Can you take a look at this again, masashi?

I have found a passage in OPAR that provides an explanation on this matter: pg. 397-398 of Objectivism: Philosophy of Ayn Rand.

In summary, there is a difference between philosophically objective and socially objective. The difference is in philosophyically objective being constructed by those with the greatest grasp of reality.

You seem to combine both of them, finding that socially objective does not value something high or low enough, and concluding that the philosophycally objective has failed. This is false.

I highly recommend reading the section I've mentioned.

what about knowledge? a lot of scientists may spend a decade doing research that proves little monitary value but is later utilized to advance science or medicine by leaps and bounds.

In a private conversation with one of my plant biology professors he stated knowledge cannot be measured in dollars. and asked if certain knowledge did not "make" money then was it worthless? is money what makes us decide if something has value?

Some knowledge cannot be purchased nor can it be assigned a monitary value. I'd agrue art follows a similar path.

I love what money does for our society, but it also presents a possibility to the human heart to assign value to aspects of life that you cannot obtain with money.

edited for the sake of deleting irrelivant rambling..

I do not see anywhere in Objectivist philosophy where it claims that money provides a correct philosophical estimation. I can only find as above provided by musashi that it is a social estimation. Thus, there is not contradiction here.

Oleksandr wrote:I do not see anywhere in Objectivist philosophy where it claims that money provides a correct philosophical estimation. I can only find as above provided by musashi that it is a social estimation. Thus, there is not contradiction here.

i agree. i was simply adding my voice to Musashi's and providing another example of money not being capable of providing an accurate value to a product in our soceity. Art often is misrepresented in value by society attaching money to it. similarly knowledge is also often misrepresented by the amount of money it can or cannot generate.