|
Certainly under a Kantian theory of art, what is sublime is not art. I don't remember enough off-hand to say whether or not everything man-made that is art has to be beautiful, but I suspect that's the case if we use Kant's definition of beauty. If we use a more commonplace, 'common sense', definition of beauty, it's clear that there can be objects which are beautiful but not art. Purposeless designs are not art on Kant's account, but under a common sense definition of beauty, they can be beautiful.
Sure Kant requires art to have meaning, but that doesn't mean, strictly speaking, it has to be representational. Art which looks meaningless can have meaning, e.g., as a commentary on more traditional, representational works of art. Common-place objects can also be art in the same way.
__________________
"Die Deutschen meinen, daß die Kraft sich in Härte und Grausamkeit offenbaren müsse, sie unterwerfen sich dann gerne und mit Bewunderung:[...]. Daß es Kraft giebt in der Milde und Stille, das glauben sie nicht leicht."
"The Germans believe that power must reveal itself in hardness and cruelty and then submit themselves gladly and with admiration[...]. They do not believe readily that there is power in meekness and calm."
-- Friedrich Nietzsche
|