(no subject)
From What Art Is: The Esthetic Theory of Ayn Rand by Louis Torres and Michelle Marder Kamhi (Open Court Publishing Company, 2000).
Pg 13: "...the task of clarifying what art is properly falls neither to artists nor even to critics or art historians, but to philosophers."
Pg. 15: "While Rand retains the traditional classification of art--as well as the idea that the arts are essentially mimetic in nature--she rejects the traditional view that the primary purpose of art is to afford pleasure and convey value through the creation of beauty, which she does not regard as a defining attribute. In her view, the primary purpose of art is much broader: it is the meaningful objectification of whatever is metaphysically important to man." (Bold emphasis mine)
--
I find it intriguing, almost telling, that every discussion of what art is or might be, or about aesthetics, mentions Duchamp and 'Fountain.' Because isn't found-object art the crux of the discussion? Going deeper, if pure art is the cause of or the effect of a pure reaction, could found-object art be pure art? The re-personalising of that object would arise out of the subjective eye, seeing a deeper meaning behind tilting a urinal 90 degrees to one side, but could that reaction be pure if it isn't completely created by or focused on an individual reaction?
I don't know what I'm trying to get at here, but it's definitely a tangent. Aie. I need to focus.
Pg 13: "...the task of clarifying what art is properly falls neither to artists nor even to critics or art historians, but to philosophers."
Pg. 15: "While Rand retains the traditional classification of art--as well as the idea that the arts are essentially mimetic in nature--she rejects the traditional view that the primary purpose of art is to afford pleasure and convey value through the creation of beauty, which she does not regard as a defining attribute. In her view, the primary purpose of art is much broader: it is the meaningful objectification of whatever is metaphysically important to man." (Bold emphasis mine)
--
I find it intriguing, almost telling, that every discussion of what art is or might be, or about aesthetics, mentions Duchamp and 'Fountain.' Because isn't found-object art the crux of the discussion? Going deeper, if pure art is the cause of or the effect of a pure reaction, could found-object art be pure art? The re-personalising of that object would arise out of the subjective eye, seeing a deeper meaning behind tilting a urinal 90 degrees to one side, but could that reaction be pure if it isn't completely created by or focused on an individual reaction?
I don't know what I'm trying to get at here, but it's definitely a tangent. Aie. I need to focus.