We don't need art, we don't think in concepts and our view of ourselves is not defined by art at all.
Art doesn't condition our consciousness to see the world in any particular way, its not the sum of our deepest philosophical values at all, its far deeper than that shallow and blinkered vision.
But then its very easy to say what art isn't, but who can say what it is?
From a human perspective all artists are quite mad in one way or another, sanity doesn't enter into it at all.
If philosophy and philosophers are sane then I am Marie of Romania.
To address your first sentence about the perspective:
Objectivism concerns itself with the essence of existence. You exist, it is self evident. The question then becomes: what for.
Of course there is no need to be in agreement with Ayn Rand. Yet, there are some aspects of her philosophy worth considering, not the least because she is vehemently anti-collectivism, and pro- individual freedom, free-market.
Interesting form of argumentation based on calls to authority. And the beauty, I see, is it totally exempts you from meaningful participation.
By the same token, Tolstoy's view could very easily be construed as befitting the current emptiness of meaning of art since everything has become art, where even a pisspot with a signature is art.
It does however signal something. Pissing and telling it is raining.
Excellent post, and an important point.
All said from a materialist and conceptualist viewpoint.
Lev Tolstoy, one of the greatest minds in history could not say what art was and is and gave up, but Ayn Rand presumes that she could nail it.
A misanthropic atheist philosopher? The Guardian loves her, that should tell you who she was. https://files.catbox.moe/nrk3fo.pdf
she has a very unique philosophy which makes her the most sane example of a materialist. God works through atheists as well...
...but instead of attacking her character, why don't you specify which part of the statement you disagree with?
We don't need art, we don't think in concepts and our view of ourselves is not defined by art at all.
Art doesn't condition our consciousness to see the world in any particular way, its not the sum of our deepest philosophical values at all, its far deeper than that shallow and blinkered vision.
But then its very easy to say what art isn't, but who can say what it is? From a human perspective all artists are quite mad in one way or another, sanity doesn't enter into it at all.
If philosophy and philosophers are sane then I am Marie of Romania.
maybe you should try reading the work of the person you're criticisiing first... this didn't really land
Art is beautification. Men have always moved to art when the immediate concerns of the day are met.
This influence can be clearly.seen in music, language, instruments, buildings, etc.
Your last sentence is a non Sequitur and has no bearing on the subject.
To address your first sentence about the perspective:
Objectivism concerns itself with the essence of existence. You exist, it is self evident. The question then becomes: what for.
Of course there is no need to be in agreement with Ayn Rand. Yet, there are some aspects of her philosophy worth considering, not the least because she is vehemently anti-collectivism, and pro- individual freedom, free-market.
I know why I am here, its not for any ism.
Your response does your screenname honor.
Good day to you, sir.
Interesting form of argumentation based on calls to authority. And the beauty, I see, is it totally exempts you from meaningful participation.
By the same token, Tolstoy's view could very easily be construed as befitting the current emptiness of meaning of art since everything has become art, where even a pisspot with a signature is art.
It does however signal something. Pissing and telling it is raining.
The 3rd description she should’ve said it is a money laundering operation
Hahaha, today it is. Bit then again, what is being pushed as art is not.
A bit akin to people who are able to talk. That should not suggest they should speak as no sensible and useful idea is uttered.