I can see difference between chair design and Rodin's portrait of Balzac. Boris Shoshensky To: [email protected] Subject: Re: Ayn Rand: Romantic Manifesto : Conclusion Date: Thu, 17 Sep 2009 12:33:09 -0700 (PDT)
That's not a viable separation wc ________________________________ From: Boris Shoshensky <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Cc: [email protected] Sent: Thursday, September 17, 2009 9:49:39 AM Subject: Re: Ayn Rand: Romantic Manifesto : Conclusion I think you missed the point that we have to separate pure utilitarian art with fine art. The first one I defined to my practical satisfaction. The second one I agree is difficult to define, because of the spirituality component in the existence of which I believe. Can we absolutely define fine art? No. Should we try? In my opinion, yes. Boris Shoshensky To: [email protected] Subject: Re: Ayn Rand: Romantic Manifesto : Conclusion Date: Tue, 15 Sep 2009 17:16:22 -0700 (PDT) And how do we isolate that spirituality? What do elements of spirituality look like? I'm inclined to agree that some embodied sensibility is associated with art but it remains ineffable and therefore art cannot be defined. And we can't know for sure if that ineffable is not intrinsic to all expression of its experience. I think there is no point in defining art. There are regimes for almost anything, I suppose, and they carry stipulations as expressions of power. If you have an idea of art -- thus a definition --and the authority to cause it to be embodied as an artwork, then so it is. That proves nothing about art as a universal class. wc ________________________________ From: Boris Shoshensky <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Cc: [email protected] Sent: Tuesday, September 15, 2009 5:41:11 PM Subject: Re: Ayn Rand: Romantic Manifesto : Conclusion "Does anyone else here have a definition of art that he would like to present?" To define very general type of human activity as an art is not difficult. Any manipulation of the sensed material which includes element of design, is art. Design is a purposeful order in the creation. Definition of Fine art is a different matter, because it involves elements of spirituality. Boris Shoshensky To: [email protected] Subject: Re: Ayn Rand: Romantic Manifesto : Conclusion Date: Tue, 15 Sep 2009 16:19:43 GMT "Art is a selective re-creation of reality according to an artist's metaphysical value judgments" (Ayn Rand) >That definition fits any art at all, except it uses the term metaphysical, rather odd for an Objectivist. (William Conger) ............................................................................. ................................................................. Does it really fit *any* art at all? Aren't there some artists who are more interested creating a new reality, rather than re-creating what is already there? Haven't some of them succeeded? Her defintion may have problems, but what is admirable is that at least she presents one and sticks to it. Does anyone else here have a definition of art that he would like to present? Regarding the term 'metaphysical', Rand presents Objectivism as one among many different kinds of metaphysics. She may advocate it as the best, but she still allows that others. indeed, most of humanity, prefers something else. >It seems to me that she is rather oblivious to what actually constitutes the canon (Imago Asthetik) Correct. It has always been the job of priests to establish, protect, and interpret the canon - or, actually, every priesthood has its own, and it's one Rand's virtues that she is oblivious to them all, unless, as she did with Aristotle, she finds something that makes sense to her. ____________________________________________________________ Best Weight Loss Program - Click Here! http://thirdpartyoffers.netzero.net/TGL2231/fc/BLSrjnxRO9r2edGl0d43nsUC9YN7J8 VM2LTpTT6Ezel1058GLQRc8bhAXYk/
