| | A post from the cult thread reminded me of a problem I had with Rand's definition of art:
"But is it not your ~philosophy~ that "without a real problem (scientific/experimental) to fix the context and check the ideas with experiments...philosophy is a waste of time"?! That is a philosophy, is it not?!"
If art is a recreation of reality as it might and ought to be,(according to the artist's value-judgements), then, I wondered, if we actually achieved a reality as it might and ought to be, would art be a waste of time? This sent me into a state of depression for a time, actually (since I fancy myself an artist and musician!). Then I came to the conclusion that there will always be a need for change and recreations of reality, if it is not to stagnate.
Has anyone else ever considered this? Does this mean the definition needs readjusting should a reality as it might and ought to be ever come to exist? Etc....?
Thanks.
|
|
