Authors needed


Recommended Posts

Subject: Yikes! Jonathan Unchanged...

> Yeah, well I have reasons for not wanting to dump everything about myself online...I don't see my online philosophy pals as a market. I'm not here to sell my work or to push a branding image of myself....

Yet again: thin-skinned Jonathan with the seething hostility toward his 'internet opponents', personal attacks against those he has 'a history with'.

> Why aren't you telling us how much money you make each year...That would be true transparency, no?

Exaggeration of what he knows was not intended. Taking the term 'transparency' out of context.

> Objectivism has a lot of vengeful nutjobs associated with it..

Hmmm...... :lol:

Edited by Philip Coates
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 122
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

The point is simple, I am a real person that anyone can confirm by email, call, visit. You could be anyone.

Doesn't it depend on the standard of "confirmation" that we arbitrarily select? I mean, I could just as well assert that we can't really "confirm" that you're really who and what you say you are by talking to you on the phone or visiting you. For all we know, you might be a con man who buys paintings from some artist in Indonesia and simply claims that they're your own work. I could assert that the only confirmation I'd accept would be seeing scans of your driver's license and a decade's worth of your tax returns.

Anyway, I'm a real person, and anyone can "confirm" that by email, or even by posting on this thread. Just ask, and I'll confirm that I'm real. As for calling or visiting, I don't want you and many other Objectivish-types calling or visiting me. See, there's no point in my giving out my phone number or address to people who I don't want to interact with on a personal level.

You won't confirm or deny the fundamentality of perception? I am just looking for a place where we can share common ground.

How are you not understanding that I agree that perception is fundamental to the visual arts?

J

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Subject: Yikes! Jonathan Unchanged...

> Yeah, well I have reasons for not wanting to dump everything about myself online...I don't see my online philosophy pals as a market. I'm not here to sell my work or to push a branding image of myself....

Yet again: thin-skinned Jonathan with the seething hostility toward his 'internet opponents', personal attacks against those he has 'a history with'.

Where are you imagining that you see thin-skinnedness and seething hostility? I didn't call anyone "internet opponents." In fact, in the sentence of mine that you quoted, I called them "pals." And what "personal attacks" have I made on this thread? All I did was disagree with one of Newberry's statements, and provided my reasoning. Apparently disagreeing with Newberry is now an act of viciousness?

> Why aren't you telling us how much money you make each year...That would be true transparency, no?

Exaggeration of what he knows was not intended. Taking the term 'transparency' out of context.

Okay, Phil, what's your current phone number and address? What is your current job(s) and who is your current employer(s)? Why haven't you previously shared with everyone the same type of information that Newberry is basically asking me to share?

J

Edited by Jonathan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Basically, I'm not comfortable giving out certain information online. I'm sure we all have different levels of how "transparent" we want to be, and about what should remain private. You, for example, haven't publicly listed your social security number or your credit and bank card numbers, and you haven't shared details of your financial information. Why aren't you telling us how much money you make each year, providing scans of your tax returns and other documents, as well as the names and addresses of your customers and how much you've charged each of them? Why haven't you volunteered any information about your sexual predilections and given details about those with whom you've been intimately involved? That would be true transparency, no?

There is stuff on the Internet by me that goes back 22 years. If I had to do it again you wouuldn't be able to Google me today.

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I sympathize with Jonathan.

I made the conscious decision to put my identity out online, but I have suffered the vindictiveness in the Objectivist world that Jonathan talks about.

I even had one Internet marketing associate back off from doing stuff with me because he thinks I am a target and the controversy will undermine business.

The truth is that the Objectivist subcommunity is a nasty little sucker.

If I had to do it all over again, I'm not so sure I would.

I use some pseudonyms for some specific projects for marketing reasons, but I tell you, it's a sore temptation go all underground.

I love the nice people I have met in O-Land and l-land, but I really don't like the nasty arrogant cowardly ones. They are not the kind of people I seek out in other areas of my life, and I don't find anything special about them just because we share a few philosophical ideas.

I'm out there, though. I can't say it's one hell of a ride, but it's a ride...

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Over many many years, I have only had about 99.9% positive experiences with people contacting me, from online stuff. The minuscule percent that were weird were three very polite scammers; wanted me to pay shipping and rush a painting to a 3rd party before their (counterfeit) check cleared...didn't happen. :)

I don't expect anyone weird to contact me, perhaps that makes a difference?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Over many many years, I have only had about 99.9% positive experiences with people contacting me, from online stuff. The minuscule percent that were weird were three very polite scammers; wanted me to pay shipping and rush a painting to a 3rd party before their (counterfeit) check cleared...didn't happen. :)

I don't expect anyone weird to contact me, perhaps that makes a difference?

Seriously? You think that thinking positive thoughts about who will or will not contact you actually influences whether or not they'll contact you?

I think a more realistic explanation would be that, aesthetically, 99.9% of the time you toe the Objectivist line. From what I've seen, you usually support Rand's views, even when she was unjust and self-contradictory, and you trash the people who True Objectivists are supposed to trash, whether trashing them has any basis in reality or not. Naturalist art bad. Modernist art bad. Postmodernist art bad. Kant bad. So you have no reason to want to avoid giving any personal information to vindictive Objectivist nutjobs. They'd be cheering you on rather than being enraged.

Try expressing an independent thought sometime which differs from Rand's, and see what kind of reaction you get. Go to the various O-forums and try being critical of any of Rand's ideas with the same enthusiasm that you brought to disagreeing with Pigero on the Lanza vs Cage integrity issue, and see if you still feel that 99.9% of your experiences with Objectivists are positive.

J

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Over many many years, I have only had about 99.9% positive experiences with people contacting me, from online stuff. The minuscule percent that were weird were three very polite scammers; wanted me to pay shipping and rush a painting to a 3rd party before their (counterfeit) check cleared...didn't happen. :)

I don't expect anyone weird to contact me, perhaps that makes a difference?

Seriously? You think that thinking positive thoughts about who will or will not contact you actually influences whether or not they'll contact you?

I think a more realistic explanation would be that, aesthetically, 99.9% of the time you toe the Objectivist line. From what I've seen, you usually support Rand's views, even when she was unjust and self-contradictory, and you trash the people who True Objectivists are supposed to trash, whether trashing them has any basis in reality or not. Naturalist art bad. Modernist art bad. Postmodernist art bad. Kant bad. So you have no reason to want to avoid giving any personal information to vindictive Objectivist nutjobs. They'd be cheering you on rather than being enraged.

Try expressing an independent thought sometime which differs from Rand's, and see what kind of reaction you get. Go to the various O-forums and try being critical of any of Rand's ideas with the same enthusiasm that you brought to disagreeing with Pigero on the Lanza vs Cage integrity issue, and see if you still feel that 99.9% of your experiences with Objectivists are positive.

If they're kids they're still growing up--most of them. If they don't grow up they go nuts eventually, but too old then to act on their animadversions upon your posterior, hopefully.

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

J:

I think a more realistic explanation would be that, aesthetically, 99.9% of the time you toe the Objectivist line

The reality is quite a bit different than you imagine, about 80-90% of my collectors and 95% of artists I have taught/teach are not objectivists. They might not even know who Ayn Rand is, and care less. What matters to them is their experience to my art or to their learning. This brings up reality again. When I hypothesis like you have done above, and discover my hypothesis is off I re-evaluate my stance and adjust it accordingly. But I don't know if you will, can, or want to do that.

This may be another instance in which we are fundamentally different.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

> Okay, Phil, what's your current phone number and address? What is your current job(s) and who is your current employer(s)? Why haven't you previously shared with everyone the same type of information that Newberry is basically asking me to share? [Jonathan]

I certainly missed that N. asked you to post four things: your address, phone, job, employer.

Can you tell me what post that was in or give the exact quote?

Edited by Philip Coates
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Andre Kyrel Zantonavitch.

It had been a good, happy long while since I heard that one. The hairs on the back of my neck stood up. The horror. The horror.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

J:

I think a more realistic explanation would be that, aesthetically, 99.9% of the time you toe the Objectivist line

The reality is quite a bit different than you imagine, about 80-90% of my collectors and 95% of artists I have taught/teach are not objectivists. They might not even know who Ayn Rand is, and care less. What matters to them is their experience to my art or to their learning.

Jesus. We were talking about why I'm not as "transparent" as you are with contact information in Objectivist forums. I mentioned that one of the reasons is that Objectivism seems to attract a lot of vengeful nutjobs. You then wrote that 99.9% of your experiences with people who contact you from "online stuff" were positive. I naturally assumed that by "online stuff," you meant Objectivists from online forums, since that's what we had been talking about. If you were not talking about Objectivists, but instead had decided to change the subject (without clearly identifying that you were doing so) and talk about everyone who contacts you, then you've needlessly distracted and confused yourself.

See, it's not an issue of my hypothesizing about your clientele, but of your bringing up people who have nothing to do with the discussion. I have not made any suggestions or guesses about what percentage of your customers are Objectivists. Your non-Objectivist customers are not relevant to what we were discussing. I have no idea why you brought them up.

This brings up reality again. When I hypothesis like you have done above, and discover my hypothesis is off I re-evaluate my stance and adjust it accordingly. But I don't know if you will, can, or want to do that.

Heh. I don't think I've ever seen you reevaluate your opinions when confronted with reality. Two examples which stick out like a sore thumb are your hypotheses and evaluations of The Cremaster Cycle and of the philosophical history of the concept "sublime." In both of those cases, you've been bludgeoned with reality, and you still haven't corrected your errors.

This may be another instance in which we are fundamentally different.

In your mind, isn't any disagreement, no matter how small or trivial, a "fundamental difference"? I prefer a little more privacy than you do when it comes to publicly revealing certain information in Objectivist forums (but I probably feel the need for less privacy when it comes to other issues), and that constitutes a "fundamental difference"? If I prefer raspberries and you prefer strawberries, is that also a "fundamental difference"?

J

Link to comment
Share on other sites

> Okay, Phil, what's your current phone number and address? What is your current job(s) and who is your current employer(s)? Why haven't you previously shared with everyone the same type of information that Newberry is basically asking me to share? [Jonathan]

I certainly missed that N. asked you to post four things: your address, phone, job, employer.

Can you tell me what post that was in or give the exact quote?

Subject: Blithering Idiot

Phil, will there ever be a single subject on which you pay attention, follow along and actually know what you're talking about before flapping your yap? Here and here are the relevant comments from Newberry:

Somewhere here I mentioned we disagree fundamentally about issues. I gave one instance of that, by observing I have a signature (online signature, that shows my transparency by linking to who I am, what I do, where I live, etc.)You don't.
The point is simple, I am a real person that anyone can confirm by email, call, visit. You could be anyone.

J

Edited by Jonathan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If they're kids they're still growing up--most of them. If they don't grow up they go nuts eventually, but too old then to act on their animadversions upon your posterior, hopefully.

--Brant

It depends on what you mean by "posterior." If you mean it literally, then, no, I'm really not worried about O'ist nutjobs attacking me personally. I'm older and thinner than I used to be, but I think I'm still a big enough dude, and athletic enough, to not have to worry about people trying to get physical with me. My concern would be some fruitloop damaging a frieze of mine in a public space.

J

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Subject: fairness in posting, debating

> what's your current phone number and address? What is your current job(s) and who is your current employer(s)? Why haven't you previously shared with everyone the same type of information that Newberry is basically asking me to share? [Jonathan]

1. There's a difference between sharing -professional- contact information (your studio or business address) and -personal- contact information (home or residence type information (phone number, address, your employer - assuming you have a day job outside of your own studio or free-lancing or whatever).

2. Whether or not Mr. Newberry himself gives both professional and personal contact information that doesn't mean he was asking for you to give -exactly the same level- of transparency.

I think any thoughtful reader would conclude that he was saying that people may not be as willing to do business with someone who has -no- transparency.

Your posts above blur the distinction between the advisability of 'transparency' to a professional level and giving away personal information that would attract nuts or harassment or people you don't want to deal with.

> We were talking about why I'm not as "transparent" as you are with contact information in Objectivist forums. [J]

A good middle course many people choose is to have a website and/or a business email and just some c.v. or resume type professional information: "I have done 20 landscapes and 5 portraits. My work has appeared in the X and Y gallery. I have sold N paintings. I studied with C and am a graduate in fine arts from D -r- I am self-taught because I differ from the conventional approach...."

Objectivist forums or local advertising, it wouldn't matter: You need some level of transparency. If you seem to be hiding and not giving any information whatsoever of the above sort people reasonably conclude you have something to hide -- or you're a rank amateur or are running a scam.

Edited by Philip Coates
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think any thoughtful reader would conclude that he was saying that people may not be as willing to do business with someone who has -no- transparency.

If you were a "thoughtful reader," you would have noticed that I said I'm not here to do business. Most of the people here are not my market. Most of you don't know anything about art, and are only somewhat interested in it because Ayn Rand commented on it. I prefer a different type of clientele.

And I don't have "~no~ transparency." I'm simply not as transparent as Newberry is on the single issue of professional activity and associations. So stop exaggerating.

Your posts above blur the distinction between the advisability of 'transparency' to a professional level and giving away personal information that would attract nuts or harassment or people you don't want to deal with.

So, your theory is that nutjobs will only contact a person who gives his personal phone number and address? They won't harass anyone at a business number or address? If I post a link to an architectural website which includes images of my sculptural work, and any vengeful nutjobs who wanted to damage my work would only do so if they also had my personal contact info?

A good middle course many people choose is to have a website and/or a business email and just some c.v. or resume type professional information: "I have done 20 landscapes and 5 portraits. My work has appeared in the X and Y gallery. I have sold N paintings. I studied with C and am a graduate in fine arts from D -r- I am self-taught because I differ from the conventional approach...."

I do exactly that, just not in Objectivist forums.

I think one thing you're missing is that I'm not just an independent fine artist. I work in a variety of media, and some of them are collaborative. I don't want any of my various professional associates to have to deal with vengeful Objectivist nutjobs. I also work as a commercial artist, and, again, that involves associations with other individuals and organizations. I don't want angry Objectivists contacting them.

Objectivist forums or local advertising, it wouldn't matter: You need some level of transparency. If you seem to be hiding and not giving any information whatsoever of the above sort people reasonably conclude you have something to hide -- or you're a rank amateur or are running a scam.

Again, I'm not here to do business. I'm here for discussions. With that in mind, I think I've been transparent enough. I've shared a few samples of my work so that people can see that I'm indeed an artist. I've commented now and then on the general region in which I live. Some people here know my address, most probably don't care to know.

As for your "rank amateur or are running a scam" comment, since you haven't posted any phone numbers or addresses, and you refuse to tell us about your current job and to identify your employer, shouldn't we conclude that you're a rank amateur who's running a scam?

J

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The point is simple, I am a real person that anyone can confirm by email, call, visit. You could be anyone.

No, because if he could be anybody anyone could imitate him. There's no mistaking Jonathan in the context he chooses to occupy on this and similar Objectivist forums. Also, no one else can post here under his name.

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
  • 8 months later...

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now