No, because I define reality to be The Reality, I mean the physical universe, whether or not we know it and whether or not our representations of it are correct. Art, insofar as it is physical, including the people who experience it and name it, is part of that reality, which has an infinitude of presentations or cases. To say that art constitutes a "new reality" is simply a figure of speech, meant to suggest it is different from older art, or that such and such art is a new representation of reality. wc
________________________________ From: armando baeza <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Cc: armando baeza <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, September 15, 2009 5:39:21 PM Subject: Re: Ayn Rand: Romantic Manifesto : Conclusion Do you mean that Art is not a new primary reality that exists? mando On Sep 15, 2009, at 3:01 PM, William Conger wrote: > Since reality exists as the primary premise, even for Objectivists, any > re-creation of it necessarily derives from it. There can be only one > reality, with an infinitude of cases. Anything else us unreality. So to > answer your questions: No, and no. > > wc > > > > ________________________________ > From: Chris Miller <[email protected]> > To: [email protected] > Sent: Tuesday, September 15, 2009 11:19:43 AM > Subject: Re: Ayn Rand: Romantic Manifesto : Conclusion > > "Art is a selective re-creation of reality according to an artist's > metaphysical value judgments" (Ayn Rand) > >> That definition fits any art at all, except it uses the term metaphysical, > rather odd for an Objectivist. (William Conger) > > ............................................................................. > ................................................................. > > Does it really fit *any* art at all? Aren't there some artists who are more > interested creating a new reality, rather than re-creating what is already > there? Haven't some of them succeeded? > 231/fc/BLSrjnxRO9r2edGl0d43nsUC9YN7J8 > VM2LTpTT6Ezel1058GLQRc8bhAXYk/
