Monday, July 26, 2004


one of the criticisms leveled against Rand' s view of Art was that she did not provide an abundance of examples to illustrate her contentions on various aspects of Art, and because she used literature [ the most developed of the Arts ] as her primary in examples... because it was not so obvious - especially to those NOT in the respective fields ] how it might apply to the other arenas, it was presumed by many that she errored, and that her notions were not, really, applicable to all of the Arts... I have long held that this is not only an uninaginative and very concrete-bound viewing, but very wrong as well... a guide is not a textbook, but an INDICATION of certain directions... it is also a hallmark of reality that everything is not all known, and that there are in many areas a lot of work to be done in gaining understanding... there are lots of theoretical work which do not see immediate application , and that show immense needs of learning on how to practicalize... if the principles hold true, however, then the fact that understanding how to apply the theories being at present lacking does in no way discredit the theories... it is merely a recognition that further work is needed in that area of thought... a final note of thought - just as most artists are not philosophers, so most philosophers are not artists, and practicalizing an aspect of abstraction in a field not particularly familiar to them may well leave them with a dearth of creativity, however much this may be displayed in their own fields...

No comments: