While first pondering this question, I thought that Scruton would not consider this art because it is just making a copy of the original object. However, it isn't that simple of a question. Making molds isn't as comparable as photography to holding a mirror to the subject. A mold isn't just an image of something on paper, it's a whole new object.
However, Scruton might argue that making molds isn't art because it just makes identical copies of the original object, so only the creation of the original could be considered art. However, the copies of the object when using molds don't all come out exactly the same. Some might have new imperfections. I suppose the degree of similarity to the original object depends on the type of material used to make the copy. If the mold is filled with melted down metal, or plastic, there will probably be less imperfections than if you use clay or plaster. However, Scruton would probably argue that just because the copies are slightly different than the original, doesn't make it art. He might argue that imperfections are just one of the inevitable results of mold-making.
On the other hand, Scruton argues that photographs can't be representative because you can only appreciate the subject of the picture, not the actual picture itself. He says that with paintings, you can appreciate the actual painting itself along with the subject because you can appreciate the texture of the paint, or the way the paint looks on the texture of the canvas. So with mold-making, shouldn't the same apply? If you use different materials in the mold to make copies of the original object, the different materials will give the finished product different characteristics, such as texture. If you make a mold of an apple, for example, and then fill one mold with liquid metal and one mold with clay, or plaster, the two finished apples will be very different.You could therefore appreciate each one aesthetically for different reasons.
On the other hand, Scruton argues that photographs can't be representative because you can only appreciate the subject of the picture, not the actual picture itself. He says that with paintings, you can appreciate the actual painting itself along with the subject because you can appreciate the texture of the paint, or the way the paint looks on the texture of the canvas. So with mold-making, shouldn't the same apply? If you use different materials in the mold to make copies of the original object, the different materials will give the finished product different characteristics, such as texture. If you make a mold of an apple, for example, and then fill one mold with liquid metal and one mold with clay, or plaster, the two finished apples will be very different.You could therefore appreciate each one aesthetically for different reasons.
No comments:
Post a Comment