Actually the more I think about, i was wrong to qualify my statements concerning art appreciation. One does not need a specialised knowledge to apprehend or appreciate a work of art.
How do you define “specialized knowledge”? I’ve seen thousands of people directly view and respond to Vermeer’s paintings. I’ve never seen any of them taking Rand’s position on Vermeer. The “casual observer” does not agree with her that his work is naturalism. So, are you suggesting that these people, who saw and identified much more in Vermeer’s art than Rand did, must have had some sort of “specialised knowledge”? Or is it possible that, in some areas, Rand was perhaps a bit lacking in knowledge or abilities than the average “casual observer”?
How do you define “casual observer”? I’ve visited a lot of galleries and museums, and I’ve seen many casual observers very easily identifying subjects and meanings in art forms that Objectivism states are not valid art forms.
In contrast, here’s a post of mine from last year in which I asked people to follow Objectivism’s aesthetic requirements and identify the subjects and artist’s meanings in realist paintings. No one was able to do so. By your standards of determining what is or is not art by using the casual observer’s abilities to find meaning, those realistic still lifes would not qualify!
There is nothing in Rand’s definition to suggest it , nor does she state it in any of her subsequent writing on the subject. Someone who can see in a piece the" art" that is not apparent to the casual observer is coming from some position of pretense.
So, are you saying that Rand was coming from the position of pretense when classifying architecture, music and dance as valid art forms? After all, she could not objectively identify “artist’s meanings” in those art forms. She said that architecture “does not re-create reality,” that music doesn’t currently have an objective “coneptual vocabulary” and must therefore be treated as a subjective matter. She never objectively identified subjects and artist’s meanings in any real works of architecture, music or dance without having access to outside considerations. Are you saying that Objectivism’ acceptance of those art forms as valid is pure pretension?
J