If, in this discussion, art is not necessarily mimetic as we think of it, but a representation of the individual's core values, does this mean that there's room for abstraction in this theory? I guess I'm confused as to what extent the purpose of art lies in the individual doing the searching and how much weight is placed on communication. I guess what I'm getting at is the question of how does one then decide when a work of art is "successful"? If art is the communication of a moral idea and serves to display, represent, and reflect, does that mean it must hold a recognizable/understandable quality for the general masses? If, for example, an artist creates an abstract piece that to them serves as a reflection, and speaks to his/herself, is it fulfulling its purpose if the viewer doesn't necessarily recognize in it what the artist does
( ... )
That's a chapter I haven't gotten to yet (and yes, there's a chapter for Abstract art, one for Pop Art, even one for Installation Art). However, scanning what I have of the introductory section to that chapter, here's what I found:
The stylistic diversity of abstract art is bewildering, the more so since every new style or ism carries its own distinctive theoretical baggage, sometimes reversing the claims of previous practitioners. Yet, different as they are in detail, the various styles share certain fundamental characteristics and mistaken premises. [...] While art historians and critics...have begun to acknowledge the flawed theoretical assumptions underlying abstract painting and sculpture, they have failed to take the next logical step--that is, to question their legitimacy as art.My guess would be no. I think this has a lot to do with the 'selfish' philosophy underlying Objectivism, or, at least, from what I've scanned, I think it does. See, according to these writers, the abstract schools were into the universal (which I don'
( ... )
RANDom question (haha, bad pun): why doesn't this discussion bring in engineering or architechture as a form of art? because from what I've read in 'Fountain' and 'Atlas,' Rand certainly considered us brainy creationist types as artists as well. It seems odd that both novels focus more on technological innovators whose works are artful and beautiful because they fulfill a purpose in a way that is uniquely efficient or useful. Not to say that fine arts don't fulfill this purpose, but your statement "When Rand talks about art, she talks about the philosophy behind art, the original meaning of 'aesthetics' in the Greek system, and her dealings with art are limited to the fine arts, definitely." is decidely confusing to me
( ... )
If, in Rand's view, 'the primary purpose of art... is the meaningful objectification of whatever is metaphysically important to man', then we can look at it like this:
More practical or industrial endeavors (things that definitely do not fall into the fine arts category, such as architecture, steel production, or what have you) are not technically considered artistic pursuits in and of themselves, but in exceptional cases, people who practice them can be considered artists, because the end result of their labors is a 'meaningful objectification of whatever is metaphysically important to man'.
In Rand's world, these metaphysically important things could probably labeled with names like 'logic', 'efficiency', 'practical usefulness', etc.
Comments 12
Reply
Reply
Reply
The stylistic diversity of abstract art is bewildering, the more so since every new style or ism carries its own distinctive theoretical baggage, sometimes reversing the claims of previous practitioners. Yet, different as they are in detail, the various styles share certain fundamental characteristics and mistaken premises. [...] While art historians and critics...have begun to acknowledge the flawed theoretical assumptions underlying abstract painting and sculpture, they have failed to take the next logical step--that is, to question their legitimacy as art.My guess would be no. I think this has a lot to do with the 'selfish' philosophy underlying Objectivism, or, at least, from what I've scanned, I think it does. See, according to these writers, the abstract schools were into the universal (which I don' ( ... )
Reply
Reply
also, did you know about this:
http://www.objectivistcenter.org/cth-13-1759-AtlasShruggedMovieNewsHomepage.aspx
Angelina Jolie??
Reply
And...huh.
Reply
More practical or industrial endeavors (things that definitely do not fall into the fine arts category, such as architecture, steel production, or what have you) are not technically considered artistic pursuits in and of themselves, but in exceptional cases, people who practice them can be considered artists, because the end result of their labors is a 'meaningful objectification of whatever is metaphysically important to man'.
In Rand's world, these metaphysically important things could probably labeled with names like 'logic', 'efficiency', 'practical usefulness', etc.
Reply
Leave a comment