Mando wrote (off-line): >"Rand's aesthetics suggests that art should be objective to be beautiful. Yet, all art can only be subjective, within the full Aesthetic spectrum of beauty of each individual's or groups idea of what that my be."
If only there were some Randians here -- but I guess like every other group in the world's vast catalog of cultures, sub-cultures, and cults, they share a certain set of basic assumptions and would rather just talk among themselves. (just like the community of academic philosophers) One of those assumptions is a canon of great art that excludes everything that was considered avant garde after 1900 - as well as many other non-European things that Malraux included in his museum without walls. Should that exclusion be considered objective or subjective ? It's not so much subjective to each of them as individuals -- but rather it's subjective to their group as a whole -- and yet even certain people who are outside that group, like myself, can often recognize what they would include/exclude. For example, when I first saw the work of Tamara de Lampicka, I just knew that Objectivists would love her - even though I think she's creepy. (Just as Cheerskep knew a new book would appeal to a section of the book-buying public, whether it appealed to him or not.) So ... I don't really know how a distinction between objective and subjective can be applied in aesthetics -- and, indeed, how it can be applied anywhere except as a rhetorical device ( i.e. "my real evidence is better than your mere opinion") ____________________________________________________________ Click here to find experienced pros to help with your home improvement project. http://thirdpartyoffers.netzero.net/TGL2231/fc/PnY6rc1zNXwIXjZjmaBf3U409h0wXi umEc9OfLvgrIM6DYlCchlx6/
