What About Making Molds?

Question:   My first question regards another form of art, one that is not very similar to photography or painting. My question is what Scruton’s opinion would be on the act of making molds of objects—whether the molds are made from clay, plastic, wax, plaster, etc.

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. 

A Painting of a Painting

Question:  My second question is whether or not Scruton would consider a painting of another painting to be representational.

After our discussions in class, I have decided that Scruton's opinion on a painting of another painting would depend on the intentions of the artist. If the artist painted a picture of the painting with the intentions of making an exact copy, then Scruton most likely would not consider that art, or at least not complex art. Although the painting would not be exactly the same as the original, the artist intended for it to be. 

On the other hand, if an artist's intention is to paint a picture of a painting and by so doing so, send a new message about the painting, or portray something other than what the original painter portrayed, then I think that Scruton would consider this art. For example, if the artist purposefully alters the painting in some way, they would be trying to send a new message. I think Scruton would appreciate this as representational art because the artist isn't simply holding a mirror up to the painting, they are trying to show something new about it.