Drenal Posted February 20, 2009 Report Share Posted February 20, 2009 I've just started reading What Art Is: The Esthetic Theory of Ayn Rand and in it Rand is quoted as defining Art as "a selective re-creation of reality according to an artist's metaphysical value-judgments" I am a theatre student at texas tech planning on becoming a professional stage manager. And my interpretation of the definition of art and what my duties as a stage manager are lead me to believe that what I do is not art. I have argued with my friends multiple times and even a professor because I refuse to call myself an artist or what I do art. I was wondering what others thought about this and maybe other jobs in theatre that aren't acting/directing/designing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tito Posted February 20, 2009 Report Share Posted February 20, 2009 These might help Art is not the means to any didactic end. This is the difference between a work of art and a morality play or a propaganda poster. The greater a work of art, the more profoundly universal its theme. Art is not the means of literal transcription. This is the difference between a work of art and a news story or a photograph. Ayn Rand, The Psycho-Epistemology of Art, The Romantic Manifesto, 21. The essay 'What art is' also says that art cannot be combined with utilitarian purpose, the two are mutually exclusive. Art, to be art, must serve no purpose other than contemplation for its own sake. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drenal Posted February 20, 2009 Author Report Share Posted February 20, 2009 art cannot be combined with utilitarian purpose, the two are mutually exclusive. Yes, that is what i'm saying. My job could be described as having a utilitarian purpose, a functional member of the production team. My main goals are organization and efficiency. I'm not asking for affirmation in what I believe, i'm just curious if anyone else has an opinion on the issue. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jill Posted February 21, 2009 Report Share Posted February 21, 2009 (edited) Isn't Atlas Shrugged propaganda for Objectivism? Edited February 21, 2009 by Jill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wilicyote Posted February 21, 2009 Report Share Posted February 21, 2009 Isn't Atlas Shrugged propaganda for Objectivism? Well, one of the primary tennants of Objectivism is that one should judge for oneself. So -- read it and then use your own judgement. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dingbat Posted February 21, 2009 Report Share Posted February 21, 2009 (edited) Isn't Atlas Shrugged propaganda for Objectivism? Maybe it depends on how you look at it? Atlas Shrugged could be analyzed as a work promoting Objectivist philosophy, or it could be analyzed as art, but not both at the same time. I haven't read the essay mentioned by tito, and correct me if I'm wrong, but it is maybe referring to the act of analysing something either in a utilitarian manner or artistically as mutually exclusive, not the thing being analyzed? Edited February 21, 2009 by Dingbat Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tito Posted February 22, 2009 Report Share Posted February 22, 2009 Atlas Shrugged is absolutely not propaganda. Rand explicitly stated, though I can't remember where, that the purpose of her books is not public enlightenment or philosophical reference - their purpose is the same as the purpose of all romantic-realist art, to portray man as he can and should be. They are primarily artistic, that they also set out whole philosophies is of secondary (though beautifully reaffirming) consequence. As esthetics are a corollary of ethics - anything that is good esthetically (by an Objectivist standard) will hold some degree of Objectivist philosophy: as novels are written, it would make sense that the pure romantic-realist novel is going to be pure Objectivism (if you accept the Objectivist idea of romantic-realism, of course) And I do actually mean the thing being analysed. For example, if you were to make a nice pattern on a hat, it would not be art. Even if the hat had a beautiful picture on it, it would not be art: because its purpose is to be worn and to be an accessory to a human. It may well be artistic in some elements of its form, but that is different to actually being art. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dingbat Posted February 22, 2009 Report Share Posted February 22, 2009 Atlas Shrugged is absolutely not propaganda. Rand explicitly stated, though I can't remember where, that the purpose of her books is not public enlightenment or philosophical reference - their purpose is the same as the purpose of all romantic-realist art, to portray man as he can and should be. They are primarily artistic, that they also set out whole philosophies is of secondary (though beautifully reaffirming) consequence. Interesting, I did not know that promoting Objectivism was a secondary role in Rand's fiction. It would be best if you could find a source for that, but agree with you. I guess non-Objectivists will have a harder time noticing the aesthetic side of her fiction because they will be confronted with trying to understand the philosophy (like me). Objectivists that are familiar Objectivist ethics will not be bothered by decyphering the philosophy and can focus on the literature itself. And I do actually mean the thing being analysed. For example, if you were to make a nice pattern on a hat, it would not be art. Even if the hat had a beautiful picture on it, it would not be art: because its purpose is to be worn and to be an accessory to a human. It may well be artistic in some elements of its form, but that is different to actually being art.I don't really understand this. I guess I just need to read The Romantic Manifesto and then I will. Thanks for the clarifications anyways, tito. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tito Posted February 22, 2009 Report Share Posted February 22, 2009 In the final essay Rand articulates the goal of her own fiction writing as “the projection of an ideal man, as an end in itself”—and explains that she originated her philosophy as a means to this end. http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pag...antic_manifesto The task of the decorative arts is to ornament utilitarian objects, such as rugs, textiles, lighting fixtures, etc. This is a valuable task, often performed by talented artists, but it is not an art in the esthetic-philosophical meaning of the term. The psycho-epistemological base of the decorative arts is not conceptual, but purely sensory: their standard of value is appeal to the senses of sight and/or touch. Their material is colors and shapes in nonrepresentational combinations conveying no meaning other than visual harmony; the meaning or purpose is concrete and lies in the specific object which they decorate. http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/decorativearts.html Please read the link above, the short extract explains it much better than I can. This is also the reason Ayn Rand said that architecture is not art, but a category of its own, because it combines art with utilitarian purpose. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.