1 hour ago, Eiuol said:
As a very general claim, I don’t think this is very controversial. Given the quote, it sounds like she just means that if you identify something as art, you are defining the nature of the thing as art. Basically it’s a counter to the claim that everything is art.
Right, this part I understood. Although, I suppose a layman could say “That’s art” while not having an explicitly defined theory of what actually qualifies as art.
1 hour ago, Eiuol said:
What she says makes something art, or what makes something bad art, is far too speculative to be worthwhile. Interesting, yes, but I think you’ll find it won’t integrate well and will seem messy. Because it is messy. It doesn’t generalize well to visual arts or music. At best, she has a working definition that still needs a lot more work.
I agree that it’s interesting, and I find myself in agreement with several parts of her aesthetic theory. Would Rand say that not being in at least fundamental agreement with her theory of art disqualifies you from calling yourself an Objectivist? To be completely sincere with you, aesthetics is the one hurdle I haven’t quite been able to get past, hence this thread. I understand that my main priority in life shouldn’t lie in whether or not I choose to call myself an Objectivist, but I’d still like answer in regards to this.