Brant Gaede

  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1 Neutral

About Brant Gaede

  • Rank

Previous Fields

  • Full Name
    Brant Gaede
  • Description
    Born in 1944 in Tucson, AZ. SF Aidman Vietnam combat veteran. Autodidact. Can drive the big rig. Hike and fly. Weep and write. Shoot and scoot.
  • Favorite Music, Artworks, Movies, Shows, etc.
    Rand novels, The David, Shane, The Ox-Bow Incident, Forbidden Planet, Things to Come, The Wild Bunch, Oliver, Star Wars, Charade, North by Northwest, Psycho, Vertigo, Red River, Empire of the Sun, etc. Music: only the good stuff--e.g., Lynyrd Skynyrd "Simple Man"
  • Looking or Not Looking
    not looking

Contact Methods

  • ICQ

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    Tucson, AZ
  • Interests
    All kinds of stuff

Recent Profile Visitors

43,366 profile views
  1. You left out "giant floating abstractions." You're still ignoring music. Natural reality is not to be "looked at, contemplated, thought about and felt about"? Yeah, anybody can "tell" an artist anything. An idiot can make a genius statement accidentally and a genius can make an idiot statement. None of this is an objectification of any normative esthetics. Some art is a re-creation of reality and some isn't. Pinning Rand's tail on the donkey is an un-universal and un-effective boresome chore except, it seems, for you and a few others. You talk about taking percepts and cognition into art but only concepts out. Why not percepts out too? Percepts and concepts in, percepts out. Percepts in, percepts out. Concepts in, percepts out. Percepts and concepts in, concepts out(?). I'm not saying normative objective esthetics isn't possible it's just not been done. What's being done is esthetic Lysinkoism or normative esthetics as opposed to descriptive. --Brant
  2. Epistemology in art is what you do with your brain making it and contemplating it, but it is actually not inside any artwork itself I can think of. Literature requires different brain work than looking at a painting. Because most of us are taught to read and write but not how to see what's in a painting this difference is exacerbated. When it comes to music, especially classical--I don't get this with opera--one naturally makes pictures in one's own mind listening to it. Maybe some painters--I've never heard of this--paint some of those pictures. Why not? Art strikes me as abstract creation. What's depicted is an abstraction. You don't tell an artist how to manage creation although he might ask. Sometimes structure is extremely important as in some poetry. Rules and regulations about what goes into the structure should only be suggestions, if that. The act of creation is honored by not pretending to be the artist for that's his bailiwick. Criticism is after, not before, the fact. I can call an artwork "shit" as easily as anyone else, albeit it's just another opinion which, since it's about a work of art, needn't be explained although it makes you look dumb for sharing. --Brant
  3. I'd have to say Rand didn't engage in giant floating abstractions dressed out in philosophical (and psychological?) gobbledygook. --Brant she bragged about being able to explain her philosophy to a cab driver, but I doubt if she was thinking about esthetics I'm sure you explained elsewhere the difference between representational art and abstract art and what makes each what it is, but would you repeat it or link to it? (I'd say--tentatively--that representational goes back to or refers to someone/something like the "Mona Lisa" while abstract doesn't--that that is second level with the first level being all art is abstract (an abstraction.)
  4. Demographics need to be more particular than this broadest sweep. The primary focus should be on working age population and its future. Then comes the population that can take care of itself. All else being equal, the 21st Century will be the American just like the 20th was for our demographics are much stronger than Europe's, Japan's or China's. India is a wild card, but the bureaucracy is too economically destructive. It's better than Egypt's, which says nothing much. --Brant
  5. The basic culture of China, unlike Russia, is not thuggery in spite of the now dead Chinese totalitarians and the horrible things they did. Today's autocrats are barely hanging on to state and military and other power. --Brant
  6. (The above is Tony's reply to Jonathan) I'd think "meaning" is in the eye (ear, brain) of the perceiver--which includes the creator (artist). That could, and likely would, shift over time and/or place and circumstance (what side of bed did one get out on?). So Jonathan has nothing on you, if not Rand, if you don't tell us anything about meaning objectified. There is no bad or good art qua esthetics only a moral evaluation. Esthetics and morality don't mix unless you lard the latter onto the former like barnacles onto a ship. Rand's esthetics are like her evaluation of homosexuality--"I think it's disgusting"*--except she pretends reasoning, just like you do except you generally refrain from avoiding discussion and keep at it--that is, Rand played King of the Mountain to the hilt. Now what I meant when I suggested that all art is abstract is you have to experience it (1) then cognitively evaluate it (2) back to its existentially derived reality or acknowledge there are no referents except what happens in one's own brain experiencing it (3). Of course the physicality of an artwork is objective reality or it wouldn't/couldn't even exist to talk about. --Brant *so Howard and Gail don't get it on even though Roark loved Wynand much more than Dominique for whom Gail expressed his love to before sexual intercourse while Howard just plowed her a la Rand's primo sexual fantasy pre John Galt
  7. Best fake video satire of her yet. I can't figure out how they did it. --Brant
  8. You are treating "art" like an axiom without axiomatic reasoning. Johnathan insults people the way a jackhammer insults concrete. --Brant
  9. An excellent case can be made, I think, that all art is abstract--that that might be what basically unites all the arts. --Brant
  10. Soon whites will be shooting down these blacks. A race war won't last long. The blacks are out numbered and vastly out gunned. --Brant
  11. I generally like those on the left side better than those on the right. The ones on the right make me think about why I have responded thusly, but I can't say why--yet. --Brant thx
  12. America has made most of its "bad guys"--just because they're bad guys doesn't mean they had to be "our" bad guys. After "we" made them we slaughtered them with gusto--I mean the "we" back in Washington. On the same level you talk about war I will now talk to you about mathematics: 1 + 1 = 2 -- or 3. --Brant
  13. Why are you going to torture the monsters? Information? Non-monsters who fight us? Information? Either both groups are eligible for torture or neither. Torture for the sake of torture? Who's gonna do that? --Brant
  14. Establishing what art is is the artist's job. The one who makes "art." His art. Not mine or yours. Same for us. Opinions. Un-universalizable opinions. --Brant
  15. I am an artist. I make art. Here is my art. You have a different opinion? You don't like it? Don't buy it. Buy Joe's. Or Moe's. Or no's. --Brant get out of my way!