Because Art is Sacred

It occurred to me that it is plausible that some grand philosophy could be discovered but, inherent in its nature, never related. (Considering Moral Relativism, by "grand" I mean so by my standards.) I'm not talking about something discovered but since "lost to the sands of time", due to someone dying before they could relate their idea, or having related it and the record was since destroyed, or having related it and it going widely unrecognized, or anything similar. I'm talking about it being inherent in the philosophy that the idea cannot be related, and I can only assume that somebody beast enough to come up with a grand philosophy would follow it.

This could happen, for instance, if the philosophy dictated that others were unworthy of contact; or, if the philosophy required committing suicide. I'm sure there are other possibilities, and if I was aware of more, maybe I could develop such a grand philosophy.

This occurred to me while reading The Fountainhead, since the author Ayn Rand preaches such a philosophy, sort-of. How she sort-of preaches a philosophy will be explained in a future entry, as part of a full analysis of the underlying principles of the book. For now, I'll look at a quote from the book that caught my I.

Alterations were made, by other architects, to a building that Howard Roark designed, while Roark was out of town. The alterations were superficial but made in the spirit of improvement. Roark was devastated since he thought his building was an ultimate work of art which had been ruined. In response to this Peter Keating said, "'Howard! They didn't do it on purpose.'" Roark said, "That's what makes it worse.'" (611)

I agree with Roark here. I think it is worse when somebody is offending you but doesn't know it, especially when they are right in front of your face (if only conceptually). If they were consciously insulting you, it would be better since then they could be immature. But they have sacrificed no dignity while you have received an offence, construed out of your own imagination. This raises the interesting philosophical question: Who committed the offence, the other person or yourself?

This goes the other way as well. What if somebody has done or said something clever, but didn't realize it; are they the clever one for committing or saying the thing, or are you the clever one for realizing it? This is similar to the sound of a tree falling with nobody around, except that here there is a physical base, namely sound.

This is the kind of think I refer to when I talk about (if I ever do) vagueness in art, especially in poetry. When the observer (of a piece of art) draws some meaning out of that art that was intended by the author to be drawn out, then there is no doubt that the artist created that meaning. Certainly the observer plays some important role, but it is not on the same level as the artist, in this case. However, what about when the observer draws meaning that was not intended by the artist; who created the meaning, the artist or the observer? Regardless, it seems evident to me that the observer is taking an active role in forming the piece of art.

This seems blatantly wrong to me. It seems to me that the meaning in a piece of art is inherent in it. A piece of art is only created by its artist(s), which all singly make a significant contribution, and that is final. It seems very wrong to me that a piece of art should be open to change for an infinite amount of time, by means and causes and people unknown to the artist. I can give no justification stronger than the above for why I see this is so wrong, but I see it so clearly.

I believe this so strongly because I believe that art is sacred and transcendental of any context. By designing something which others are supposed to draw meaning out of, the artist is leaving his work very much in societal context, and never finished. It just seems natural to me that a work of art is complete. If a work is incomplete, it will not be the same when it is viewed in different societal contexts, either in different places or at different times. It doesn't matter if the work of art is not easily understood in a specific societal context; for instance, if it is in a foreign language. The point is that if it is understood, the same meaning can always be drawn out. I can see why Roark was devastated when his work of art was changed; it was supposed to be his, and it was supposed to be final.

I encounter this sort of thing the most in poetry. In school I was taught that everyone should take their own meaning out of a poem, and similarly in song lyrics. What right has anyone to draw a personal meaning out of another's work of art? A work of art should be treated not as if it were given to us by the artist, but as if the artist made it for himself and we are simply observing. If we are to take our own meaning out of another's work of art we must make it into a larger work of art in itself, so as not to tamper with or taint the original. Any other case where people draw their own meanings cannot be justified. If the artist encourages people to draw their own meanings, then he has not made a work of art, but something less. This is acceptable as long as the artist and observers all realize it.