About
Content
Store
Forum

Rebirth of Reason
War
People
Archives
Objectivism

Post to this threadMark all messages in this thread as readMark all messages in this thread as unread


Post 0

Friday, December 19, 2008 - 1:37pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
"Art is a selective recreation of reality according to an artist's metaphysical value judgements."

"Romantic art is the fuel and the spark plug of a man's soul. It's task is to set a soul on fire and never let it go out. The task of providing that fire with a motor, and a direction, belongs to philosophy."

Ayn Rand

My question is, can great bonsai rise to the level of art? Do you consider this particular work a work of art? And can a more traditional bonsai tree be considered art?
 
I don't see why not.  I think it's fascinating as well as beautiful.  


 


Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 1

Friday, December 19, 2008 - 2:19pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
A living organism is not a recreation, so a tree alone straightforwardly fails Rand's test.  I have no trouble admitting the composite in the photo, though.  Next question is: what if you trained a tree to represent some object other than a tree?  I'd still say the result qualifies as art because it represents, albeit through an unduly cumbersome medium.  To the extent that it still looks like a tree, it's a natural object and not a piece of art.

(And what is that gargoyle doing?  At this rate he'll never hang off the cornice of a cathedral.)


Sanction: 12, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 12, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 12, No Sanction: 0
Post 2

Friday, December 19, 2008 - 2:40pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
A bonsai seeks to re-present, in miniature, the tree of the original size, according to its most aesthetical form... in that sense, it is an art - especially as its purpose is one of contemplation...

This specific bonsai seems to seek being a 'living sculpture'...

Post 3

Friday, December 19, 2008 - 3:50pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

In so far as it is selective, it is artistic.

Post 4

Friday, December 19, 2008 - 3:53pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I agree with Robert (who happens to be an artist ;).

Peter, have you ever visited Disney World? They have shrubbery that is pruned, cut, and shaped into amazing, realistic animals.  It's art, despite being alive.


Post 5

Friday, December 19, 2008 - 11:38pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I agree with Ted's statement that "In so far as it is selective, it is artistic."

But what is the range and depth of this media's ability to represent values we would call great?

Some things might be art, but no matter how well done, can not be great art. I subscribe to the theory that there are level of art.

Post 6

Saturday, December 20, 2008 - 5:52amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Indeed there are levels in art... one of the problems in grasping aesthetics is that there is so little detailing of these levels, and why they are as such - especially since there is yet so much needless dissension over the fundamental definition, bourne from baggage held over thru indoctrination thru much of life of the tribalist mindset of art's supposed nature...

...and the clinging to personal aspects of that, as in part a psychological 'security blanket'...
(Edited by robert malcom on 12/20, 5:55am)


Post to this thread


User ID Password or create a free account.