I don’t have a specific example in mind. I’d have to look for one, once StrictlyLogical agrees to a definition of what would constitute proof of meaning. Until then, I can’t know for sure if an example will work or not.
But, in the meantime, I can post this video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wIiNIQZN3II
, as an example of a piece of music which, for a REASON, is in perfect harmony with the movements of the person in the video (the movements of the person, I can’t imagine anyone would disagree, fit Rand’s definition of art).
Wouldn’t it be a strange coincidence that something that has no meaning has such a perfect correlation with something that is art?
As is true with music, you haven’t shown that dance or figure skating qualify as art according to Objectivism’s requirements. You have not shown that subjects and “artists’ meanings” can be identified in the movements of the person in the video.
Also, architecture has not been proven to be an art form by Objectivist criteria. Not only have Objectivists not succeeded in reality in attempting to identify subjects and artists’s meaning it architecture while not having access to outside considerations, but there’s also the additional problem that Rand stated that architecture “does not re-create reality,” and it therefore does not meet her definition of art, which is a “re-creation of reality.”
Additionally, the challenge contained in this post and the failed responses demonstrate that realist still life paintings don’t qualify as art, since Objectivists were unable to identify subjects and meanings in them.
It turns out that very little qualifies as art according to Objectivism’s criteria when they are tested in reality
J