Please spare us another go-around on Ayn Rand's stupid philosophy. Her so-called aesthetic (she never wrote on aesthetics) centers on totalitarian, didactic type rehashing of misunderstood ancient art. Please, please don't go there again. This Ayn Rand stuff calls for a first class no-holds barred Cheerskepian dismissal from on high.
In consolation to Miller, he will enjoy reading about the fiasco at LA MOMA, where Director Jeremy Strick, a former Art Institute of Chicago curator, managed to nearly blow a 50 million dollar endowment in less that 10 years. Amazing. But not surprizing since as a rule art historians are notorious for their total lack of worldly sense. Even the dumbest ordinary person knows that you don't spend an endowment but live from its income. Apparently, according to a front page article in today's NYTimes, Jeremy managed to raid the endowment to show off his sort of contemporary art...and where were the Board Members? It's not only the artists who are dumb about money. Score one, a biggie, for Miller's man-in-the-street common sense. WC --- On Thu, 12/4/08, Chris Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > From: Chris Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Subjective - Objective > To: [email protected] > Date: Thursday, December 4, 2008, 10:09 AM > 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/
