Ralph Hertle

Members
  • Posts

    14
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Ralph Hertle

Profile Information

  • Interests
    Inventing, Product Design and Engineering, AEC CAD, MicroStation CAD, 2D and 3D Designing, and Luxology Rendering.

    Fine art painting and pastel drawing.

    Web Site: bluestardesign.us
  • Gender
    Male

Previous Fields

  • Full Name
    Ralph Hertle
  • Looking or Not Looking
    looking for female

Recent Profile Visitors

2,579 profile views

Ralph Hertle's Achievements

Newbie

Newbie (1/14)

0

Reputation

  1. $$$$$$ Your ad-hominem name calling to diminish my character is uncalled for and is discourteous. The other poster's monkey-face avatar is nonetheless grossly horrible, and your sideswipe at me was mean. More mean than the ugly avatar that you apparently approve. Regarding the prefix, http:// , for the domain name, bluestardesign.us, I'd say that you may have a constructive, and possibly helpful, point of criticism. Ralph Hertle
  2. My works now have a place for display. See the new web site at, bluestardesign.us Fine quality digital prints are now avaiable for sale. The site is currently under construction; and not all of the elements have been placed. For example, descriptions of the works and ordering information have yet to be added. See the site for more information. Print image sizes are negotiable. I'll be adding more works, including pastels and human figure drawings. I'll also be creating pages that will display my professional work in architecture and product design. Enjoy. Ralph Hertle
  3. Ayn Rand was totally correct in her definitions and greater philosophy. Also, the monkey-faced member has no place in a civilized forum. Get rid of it.
  4. Ayn Rand would have said here, what she said many times, that you should: "Check your premises." She meant that every individual should verify every idea they use in all of their logical thinking. At another time she said that one should evaluate and verify every concept they use as a basis for their own philosophy. [paraphrased] She meant that in that sense that Objectivism should strictly adhere to the facts of existents in reality. Nor was an idea to be considered to be open to emotions, conjecture or consensus; just the facts. She said that an individual should write new definitions for every concept the person uses, and that the definitions should be checked for adherence to a proper context of facts. She was strict regarding the matter that one's own definitions may be checked against Objectivism, and she invited discussion on the matter provided that the philosophy of Objectivism or happy rational discussion was advanced. What I have never found are examples of Ayn Rand being proved wrong and accepted being wrong. One of the reasons is that regarding Objectivism she was never wrong. You may have new questions and hypotheses; and you are free to check them against Objectivism and bring them into publication. She searched for authors with whom she could establish a serious conversation and respect. Ralph Hertle
  5. Bob, I don't read you actually asking this question. I read it as follows: "How can anyone believe that a matter of taste be objective, since it can't be." Correct me if I am wrong. Michael
  6. Bob, I don't read you actually asking this question. I read it as follows: "How can anyone believe that a matter of taste be objective, since it can't be." Correct me if I am wrong. Michael Michael: YOU'RE WRONG. You asked. A simple reading shows that he is merely asking a simple question regarding the method by which taste is related to the principle of objectivity. You have assumed that objectivity is impossible, and that as a result the question of a relationship of objectivity and taste is unbeleivable. The original question refers to what means exists that the objects of art "out there" may have what amount of importance to the individual and his/her happiness "in here" or ego. Now, I won't ask how to solve the problem. however, Ayn Rand suggested two relevant concepts that may bear upon the problem. 1. She insists [and I paraphrase from sources] that in every discussion the principle of "either or" be evaluated. 2. She, at other places, suggests that the idea of amount, or "how much", be considered, for example, where someone asked her, "can love be measured?", she replied, "And how." Is what that is [a value be] important to me, and if so by just how much? Taste may, also, be a matter of choice and evaluation by the individual. Taste is not a matter for a collective. Additionally, it is sometimes said that, "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder." I would say, instead, that it might be more appropriate to say that, "taste is a matter for the individual." Beauty needs specific definitions, and Objectivism, hasn't really addressed that problem to date. I would venture that Objectivism hasn't arrived at the definitions for the concept, beauty, because it is busy with evaluations of representative subject matter, cognitive concepts, and related concepts, and has not been able to deal with the problems of the logical moral or logical design issues that are found in the realm of normative abstractions. Concepts of order, proportion, value measurement and emotional logic can then be dealt with. Beauty is then possible to identify. Possibly, the concept of taste may then be evaluated. Ralph Hertle
  7. . Objectivist Living: I've posted these links to recent pictures that I made. They have some artistic interest, and since they are somewhat upbeat I thought that I would post them. The items: Three framed pictures done in pastels of girl figures, and one digital print of a fictional historic event in space. Logo for my company, Blue Star Houses LLC, Drawing, Spring, done in Crayolas and ink, My portrait from fall, 2008, I'm readying digital prints of two paintings that I made in the 1970s, Until Now [print of painting owned by Ayn Rand] Dynamis [sequel to Until Now, also a cityscape] I'm confident that the prints will look as good or better than the originals. No pricing at this time, however, the costs of production are high. I may offer the prints at .75 size, or even a matched small sized pair of the two prints. I may also make prints of figure drawings. All this is in the planning stage, and in time I'll get it done. I'll offer the prints here. Now to seriously read the interesting posts at the OL site. . . . . Ralph Hertle Email me . (NOTE FROM MSK: I fixed the links so the pictures show up.)
  8. Roger Bissell: Ayn Rand's theory of aesthetics was a marvelous work in dealing with the classical forms af art as they are conventionally avalailable in the world. Her theory bases art in both metaphysics, romaticism, perceptible and plausible idealism, sytlization, characterization, cognitive and normative content, and realism. A longer list is needed. Her model for her theories was primarily literature. She was aware that cetain aspects of her theories did'nt extend to all of the arts. Her realistic and idealistic theories were, however, applicable to all the arts. What she didn't say is that certain types of persons cannot understand the subleties of the demonstrations of the postulates of aesthetics nor of the nuances of intellectual emotions, aesthetic vocabularies, and means of creating works of art. Those individuals can't be philosophers of aesthetics, and possibly can't be artists. That's due to what a person is given and what mental means a person creates. Their role is to experience, identify and to enjoy. Let's give Ayn Rand a break here, for she needed to explore the ideas of more artists in order to draw the conclusions that are the next generation of aesthetic thought. She simply didn't get to some ideas that I now know could have been a part of a more advanced aesthetics of Objectivism. That doesn't detract from the solid marble of the theory of romantic realism that she provided. You say, "I think Rand was wrong in saying that architecture does not re-create reality." I agree with you on that point. Not as a single absolute, but rather in the sense that there was so much to be said on the point that Rand left the remark as a challenge to those who could solve the question. In her last Ford Hall Forum speech she said to the audience, "...and now its up to you." Future philosophers can base their ideas upon their own resources, the facts of reality, and upon the base of Objectivism and all true science. For example, what if there was not a single type of recreation? What if literature and the arts that dealt primarily with word concepts in their making had one sub-type of recreation, and the arts that were primarily non-verbal another subtype? The dogmatists of Objectivism complain that Ayn Rand said the last word and that she can't be argued with. She did say what she said and all that she meant. That's fine. However, we exist, and we will advance philosophy and aesthetics. Objectivism is a closed system based upon what Ayn Rand wrote, however, the concept of a closed system means that the principles of the science are universal and they are causes. Closed means being caused by principles. Closed doesn't mean barring other participants. That's a Platonic notion of social separation as the Platonic means of separating concepts. Concepts that are socially separated by Platonists are validated by consensus. Social separation to the Platonists is what scientific definitions made by the principles of genus and differentia are to the Aristotelians. A closed system means governed by principles not consensus. Pythagoras said that, "The universe is caused by scientific concepts or scientific principles". Not the number concretes that the Platonists later falsely gave him by falsely translating the AG concept of "magnitude" to mean 'number' rather than "scientific principle". The Platonists were on the attack by means of conceptual distortions even then. Principles, like reality, nonetheless remain to be learned and to be discovered. Aristotle said, in explanation, that a 'triangle' is a magnitude. By that he meant that the magnitude is a scientific principle that is validated in mind by a specific geometric demonstration. Now if a Platonist were to try to validate the concept of a 'triangle' by means of social acceptance of a consensus, that, Aristotle may have agreed, would have made his day. Phidias had the priveledge of such a review, Aristotle, no doubt thought. Properly proved, the principles and identifications of a continued theory of Objectivist aesthetics may be created. Religious dogmatists and consensus advocates won't cause an advanced Objectivist aesthetics to happen: they don't think in principles. Nor can works of art be socially created. I can see it now. Ayn Rand, when confronted with a photograph of the socially architectonic [Kant's term] parade of tens of thousands of dedicated Nazi troops created by Nazi architect, Albrecht Speer, could have thought, "well. . . . architecture isn't a matter of recreation, and nor is it an art." We don't know all of what her thoughts were. That's for use to contemplate. Question one. Are there more than one type of recreation subtypes that are appropriate to the several arts? Platonic imitation, e.g., copying of reality or other person's works, is not recreation. And, yet, the creation of a newly concretized new idea often is a recreation. We can say that since, there can be no idea created by a group, e.g., no socially created form or work of art, there can be no concept of recreation for phalanxes or groups of people. There may be political or religious expression, a lot of hope, or dreaming by individuals in a group, however, there is no art. A crowd is not an object of contemplation. Returning to the essential concept, the matter of architecture being an art, I say it is. There are two basic categories for the arts: the Conceptual Arts, and the Formal Arts. This is my theory. The Conceptual Arts are those in which the meaning of the work is gained by induction from realistically portrayed concretes, and they are appreciated in mind by the viewer's imagination. Included are: novels, plays, motion pictures, paintings, photography, and sculpture, for example. We are talking artistic creations, and not documentaries or scientific representations or models. The material or medium of the work is not an essential defining characteristic for a work of the Conceptual Arts. [Music has no permanent materials, and is directly perceptible.] The representational characteristic of the work is not an essential defining characteristic for a work of the Conceptual Arts, although they are generally figurative or representational. The Formal Arts are those in which the meaning is gained by direct perceptual experience from the physical properties of the medium that are arranged by the artist. Included are: music. dance, architecture [including crafts and the design of manufactured products], and fashion apparel, for example. The utilitarian characteristics of the work are not the essential defining characteristics for a work of the Formal Arts. The types of concepts and principles that are the means of the creation of works in the several arts also govern the types of content and nuances of same that are the gist of the works. This system is one basic means for the classification of the arts. There is no clash of what we know about all of the Fine Arts. The historic classifications stand wherever the context for those classifications continues to exist. The issue of what a person contemplates becomes all important. In other words, what does a work say, what and how much of what is in a work that the viewer may appreciate, value, and enjoy. There are more than one type of usefulness involved for works, e.g., practical utility is one thing, however, the use of aesthetic emotion [Rand's term] involved in music, for example, is another. Architecture, has a spatial quality. It cetainly provides interesting visual experience. Additionally, the spatial experience of directly being in and around the forms [Aris. and Binswanger defn. of from] of the work that are concretized by the artist provides a directly appreciable means for aesthetic emotions. This is a broader interpretation of a practical purpose for a work. [Thanks to Binswanger for that differentiation regarding the Platonic and Aristotelian concepts of Form. There are times when total roadblocks to thought are done away with by a clarification.] According to this method of evaluation the classifications of the arts are determined not by their permanent materials, rather by what they say. How they say what they say is a matter for geniuses and philosophers. I mean that why one is thrilled by a work is a matter that I will be happy to learn. Ralph HertleEmail me
  9. Roger: I was just writing a masterful reply to your philosophically timely question. Its the type of question that is discovered to need an answer before there can be any progress on the issue being discussed. I hit a keyboard key at the lower left, somewhere around the <shift> or <ctrl> keys, and my text just dissappered. Gone. I can't find it the text on the site. Who can tell. I may have accidentally hit the <delete> key. I don't recall. Can't the text on the site be made undisappearable? That is, until a piece is specifically double deleted or saved. And, ranting, why can't accidentally deleted text be automatically saved to a file or Norton Protected file? Match.com has a radio button that will enable one's text when submitted to be automatically CCd to the submitter's email location. That would be nice. My fallible writer would even wan't to recieve copies of errors. My loss. I'm really disappointed. I'm sorry. Now, maybe you'll get a reply, and maybe you won't. I must reconstruct the entire text. Ralph Hertle
  10. John: The photo shows some pastel pictures that I did. The photo image of the girls is blurry, and the drawings are more crisp than they appear under glass. The digital print at the right is a portrayal of an idealistic historic event in space. Ralph Hertle
  11. . . . . . . Easy, easy there. You have some wrong premises, that if you had them governing your ideas, you would be right and far more persuasive. May I suggest watching the definitions being offered in the posts, and then mull them over, check them, and write your own versions. The arguments that are being posted will be sorted out. Try lurking. Evaluating ideas means taking more ideas and mulling them over to gain new conclusions. Then, all you need to do to confirm or destroy an argument is to ask a question. Ralph Hertle
  12. Okay, well, let me ask you this: If you were very wealthy and decided to establish an arts foundation which financially supported young talent, and then a skilled realist painter or romantic filmmaker, who you felt was more than qualified to receive support from your program, began spending all of his time (and your money) exploring wild abstraction as a means of expression which excited him, or if he was suddenly inspired by postmodernist architecture, performance and installation art and decided to incorporate its dark, eclectic aesthetic ideas into his work, would he still receive your foundation's support and encouragement, or would be seen as someone who became a part of the problem in the culture that your foundation sought to change, and, therefore, would he be cut off from your money if he continued to pursue those modes of expression? Do you think that most of the Objectivists you've known would allow their money to support such an artist's explorations, or do you think it's more likely that they would have expectations and requirements that the artists whom they would support must create in realistic styles with romantic content in order to receive funding? Perhaps I'm wrong, but I personally can't think of any Objectivists I've known who I think would not expect to impose strict style and content requirements on the artists they'd financially support through such a foundation. J . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Hello Jonathan, I completely agree with all that you've said in this and the quoted posts by you with the exception of your last sentence. I don't agree that Objectivists would impose style and content requirements upon the arts. That notion simply runs counter to the ethical realities of Objectivism. Whether one may make aesthetic emotional errors or mistakes regarding one's preferences or values is a matter that could be evaluated by Objectivist philosophers. I am of the ARI closed type of Objectivism (the Aristotelian proved vs. Platonic or open or socially-based type). I agree with everything that Ayn Rand and Leonard Peikoff have written, and that I mostly have read. That's where I draw the line. I have found viewpoints that have been expressed by others of the ARI camp that are disagreeable, for example, the viewpoint of Harry Binswanger that the entire science of mathematics that rests upon the scientific geometry of the Ancient Greeks should be discarded, and that a new mathematics based upon Modern Mathematics should replace it. To do that you have to discard the works of Thales, Pythagoras, Eudoxus, Aristotle (Logic and parts of his criticisms of the contemporary geometry of the ACs.), Euclid, Archimedes, and the works of one hundred or more others to the present time. The demands by HB to revise all such knowledge in favor of Modern Philosophical and modern Mathematical systems that are claimed to be true without formal proof (e.g., using the methods of proof given by Aristotle and Euclid, for example) is rationally unacceptable. That HB has failed to re-evaluate his assertions implies a serious moral deficiency. Nor will anyone challenge such an intellectual pit. The ARI crowd, in general offers a rich collection of philosophic and scientific commentary, and in general, I agree with most of what I've read. When it comes to art, I am more alert to the factual logic of the arguments. One argument that I have heard over and over again is that that when you ask an Objectivist why they think that this or that art work, feature, characterization, quality, or moral (oops - did I highlight something secret by saying that a work could have moral import?) of a work, the Objectivist in question, when asked many questions as to why his values are held, will repair to one type of defense. He will say that it is that way because it is that way, not because he feels that is why it is, rather, that the idea is important because that's the way it is. That's Positivism not Objectivism. If you argue one or two steps beyond that you get a non-aesthetic argument that the person will claim that he has the right to value whatever idea or work that he may wish. If you challenge his aesthetic opinions further he will say that to suggest otherwise you are violating his rights. Note the strong tendency to switch contexts from aesthetic values and content to politics or morality, and to refuse to examine the new idea. Here, I may use two pictures that I made, as examples, and not as an advert. I want to draw a comparison, and that some readers may have made some choices. I painted a picture called Dynamis, and that was a sequel to the picture called Until Now. I made the second picture as a more advanced work that was based on more highly developed principles and skills. I said to an Objectivist aquaintance that the second picture was a better one. He disagreed, and he offered the reason that the first one was better because, after all, Ayn Rand had selected it. My opinion wasn't even on the short list to be qualified. The ARI and the Kelly groups each have no organized viewpoints regarding any advancements from Ayn Rand's Objectivist aesthetics. Its up to the individual. No theoretician (except for myself, of course) has dared to challenge the official Objectivist philosophy of esthetics. AR left intellectual land mines all over the philosophical aesthetic scene. Why aren't these being discussed? Are there too many followers? Was Ayn Rand polling the degree of pacificity of the students of Objectivism? For example: 1. is photography an art? 2. Is architecture an art? 3. Why is music an art when it is non-representational, and when representation is a requirement of the other arts? 4. Is dance an art? Is the design of, or the architecture of, manufactured products an art? 5. And, why is modern (design) art not an art approved of in Objectivism? (Not counting the irrationalists and subjectivists.) 6.) Why have not the principles of Aristoteleanism and Platonism been applied to the modern arts as they have been to the traditional forms of art? My answer is that many Objectivists are too busy with following political concepts, and not concerned enough with value and wealth creation. Ralph Hertle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
  13. Adjusted for inflation and other considerations, paying $200 for a painting in the mid 60s to early 70s (assuming that that's when Ralph's painting was sold) would be like paying about $1300 today. Paying $2000 would be like paying $13,000 today. From what I've seen of the art market, Ralph's painting was probably a bit underpriced at $200, but would have been overpriced at $2000. I'd estimate that in a reputable gallery today at last year's prices, it might sell for somewhere between $2800 and $3600. J / / / / / / / / / / / / / / Hello Jonathan, Thanks for the remarks. I don't know that a price is immoral; its not a concept of morality. Its just a number (or equation of numbers) that is posted and that may be agreed upon for the purposes of a bargain. Having lived in New York City for many years one becomes aware of the art (qua knowledge) of pricing items for sale. Its a Jewish tradition that is embedded in the culture of NYC, and that is also universal as well. In NYC the roots of pricing go way back in history all the way to the Phoenicians (and the trading city of Beruit, for example) and to their predecessors, the Phillistines. Prior to that the eastern kingdom of the Minoan civilization (located in what is now Lebanon), and the eastern coast of the Mediteranian Sea, held that part of the highest trading civilization of the world. The tradition of pricing has a unique location in history. It is a common concept in a certain few countries even today: Greece, Turkey, Lebanon, Palestine, Israel, Egypt, and Tunis. The war of platonic Islam against civilization has resulted in the of destruction of Lebanon and Palestine. Except for Egypt all have Minoan roots. Obamanomics is setting prices, too, however, the price to be paid for the altruist money balloon is too great. People will not pay for it. The buyer may balk at the high prices and not trade. The buyer may resort to force when extortion is used to boost prices and collect revenues. The purpose of Obamanomics is physical control of the citizenry and acceptance by groups. The purpose of captialism is the action of free enterprize welfare and happiness of the individual. Buy low and sell high. That provides for the accumulation of money. Wealth is the material, intellectual, or emotional value that is traded, or not traded, for money. BTW, how does one have the writings that one posts on the OL Forum automatically sent, or CCd, to one's own email location? Ralph Hertle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
  14. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Hello, John, Thanks for the pleasant thoughts. Thanks. also, for the wonderful poem regarding "Until Now". I hope that you publish that. Recently, I made an electronic image file of the print of the painting, "Until Now", and the result is a fine original size print. My plan is to make prints of that in the original size, and also in a smaller size. I don't know what store will want to carry it, and I'm thinking that a gallery to be named may be the distributor. The high-resolution digital print on new semi-matte finish art paper offers a way to get a good image. I plan to make digital prints of the pantings, "Until Now", "Dynamis" [a sequel to "Until Now"], and several color pastel figure drawings. Send me an email at ralph.hertle@verizon.net for more information. The painting, "Until Now", was first shown to artist, Joan Blumenthal, and she had a possible buyer she thought may be interested. I was without money at the time, and I wanted the price of $2,000 for it. She said the price had to be $200. I didn't have $.02, and I accepted. Frank O'Connor bought it for Ayn Rand, and she was quite happy with it. She wanted me to bring other works to her, and when I had finished the painting, "Dynamis", I chose not to do that. At the time, I couldn't afford another $200 sale. "Dynamis" was later sold to Cary Steen in California. Frank and I had the task of hanging the framed painting over the ultra modern aluminum and blue fabric sofa in the O'Connor's living room. There we were, both kneeling on the sofa and holding the picture up to get the picture wire onto the hooks on the wall above. The sofa suspension was of the soft type, and the two of us holding the picture descended down into the sofa. The picture wire missed the hooks. We had a hell of a time getting out. Miss Rand walked by, glanced at our trapped bodies, and gave us a twisted smile as if to say, "What artist geniuses you two guys are!" Funny or not, the picture was placed. Ralph Hertle