But the simple fact that one is an Objectivist does not imply that the art one produces it good. The same goes for art created by libertarians or anyone else who simply has the right ideas. . . Some Objectivists will praise a certain work simply because of its explicit message, without regard for that work as a work of art. I don't want to get into specific works, because I'm not here to criticize anyone's artistic tastes. But it strikes me that they cut themselves off from the experience of art so that they can experience correct ideas in a different form.
Art stands next to philosophy as an independent way of presenting ideas about man and reality.
Scott Capehart made a similar point to me in correspondence. I think Rand saw art as supporting one's current views, without much potential to challenge those views. While I would agree that serving as a 'fuel' is one of art's most important functions, I do not see it as the only important function. Perhaps the best example is Rand herself, at least in her early novels. But there are examples from other artists and other art-forms, I believe.