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.
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.