(...) whereas Ayn Rand used art as a means by which to validate or propound the philosophy she was credited with developing (Objectivism), Flannery O'Connor never used art for anything, because she understood that a piece of art was most powerful when the meaning of that piece could not be divorced from (or articulated outside of) the piece itself without diminishing the effect.
(...) The reason she didn't allow it (and the reason, I would say, that O'Connor was the better artist, though not necessarily the better thinker or philosopher) is that she understood the role of artist to be a vocation, and was committed to remaining true to it to the exclusion of everything else. That her beliefs are not undermined by her work as an artist, but are, in fact, illustrated by it, is evidence of the unique place art occupies among human activities, and of O'Connor's great talent. When done right, art has a way of revealing an artist's convictions even when the artist is involved in the dramatization of scenes that outwardly have nothing to do with something so abstract as convictions. When not done right, it reveals no convictions, or—equally as bad—the convictions are so obvious to the reader that the dramatization seems artificial, contrived. (The latter is what many object to in Rand's work.)
jueves, 3 de septiembre de 2009
Entrevista a Edward Mullany
La entrevista, aquí. No es que esté de acuerdo con todo, pero como toca el tema de la perfección de la obra de arte, lo pongo: