Bad Boys, "swagger deficit," 'n stuff


Recommended Posts

The "'Atlas Part 1' Commentaries and Reviews" thread has thread-drifted into some topics several folk expressed interest in discussing. But that thread has a specific purpose directly pertinent to the Atlas movie and is a thread best kept relatively focused.

So...

I've followed Xray's suggestion and started a new topic.

The first couple posts below are copies of posts from the original thread.

Ellen

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 132
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I liked the way Rand analyzed this.

I do too. Rand's love of rebellious bad boys is one of the main reasons that I don't understand a lot of people who call themselves Objectivists, and who claim to be representing the Objectivist Esthetics and the "Objectivist sense of life." They seem to want to conform to some of Rand's inconsistent, subjective aesthetic tastes and rationalizations as an uninformed consumer of the non-literary arts rather than identifying with her tastes as a world-class artistic producer of literature.

Lindsay Pigero is a perfect example. I really don't understand how he imagines that, aesthetically, he has an "Objectivist sense of life." He's all about classicism, tradition, formula, and conformity. He's into weeping over the beauty of yearning, falling in love, swooning in the presence of heroes, and submitting to God. And he's enraged about the new, the different and the rebellious. He thinks he's being virtuous by ranting against the "objectively inferior" music of today. That's not the sense of life behind Howard Roark. It's the sense of life of Ellsworth Toohey.

Sense-of-life-wise, Roark is individualism and rebellion. He's rock and roll. He's rap.

And what's up with all of these little submissive weaklings online looking for guidance from Objectivist authority wannabes? Didn't they read Rand's novels? What in the hell did they identify with in her work? Put another way, can you imagine Howard Roark pledging to pay an unemployed, freshly minted PhD to hear her podcast answers to his questions as to whether it was Objectively Okay to like one thing or another? WTF?

J

Jonathan: I couldn't agree more. I have referred to this as the swagger deficit in Objectivism on more than one occasion. I will never understand this herding phenomena among self-styled Objectivists.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can't say I really had any "mission" beyond decluttering. Dozens of threads, started for each review, become a real trial. It also, I thought, would concentrate matters of assessing what elements of praise or criticism were being raised repeatedly. That's easier to compare among reviews when they're in one thread.

Unfortunately, I consistently underestimate thread drift, and have done so for nearly thirty years on the Net, from precursors such as CompuServe onward.

I like thread drift. As Carol said, it's usually known as "conversation." Some of the most interesting and educational discussions I've read in online forums have been tangents on top of tangents. I was thinking that the tangential discussion here on the "Objectivist sense of life" and Rand's taste for fictional bad boys could've led to related interesting discussions, such as which works of non-literary art might be interpreted as expressing the same rebellious, bad boy attitude? Often times such discussions come back full circle and end up tying in well with the original topic and enriching it.

Now, granted, Steve, when you started this thread, you specifically requested how you wanted it to be used, so I apologize for my part in not honoring that request.

Constant dwelling on personalities in the O-milieu doesn't help.

You've got a point, but I also think that O-land needs quite a lot of "dwelling on personalities." Determining just how much dwelling is needed is a delicate balancing act. There are some really shitty people associated with Objectivism. They're no Lonnie Leonard, but they seem to have at least a few of his traits. A lot of Objectivists come across to me as very naive and easily charmed by anyone who appears to be promoting Objectivism, and they're very willing to trust such people, to overlook their vices, and to believe their lies -- and I don't just mean lies about others in the "movement," but about ideas, history, current events and happenings, etc. My opinion is that it's better to go a little overboard in nipping the mini-Lonnies in the bud rather than sitting around after the damage is done and coming up with excuses for why no one said or did anything when the shit was going down.

Plus, it's repetitious.

No doubt, it's repetitious, but in my experience, there are many Objectivists who need tons of repetition in order to accept reality. When they're wrong, they can be very stubborn about it. Rational argument without massive doses of repetition isn't enough to get through to them.

J

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also needed for backdrop is the quote Jonathan provided from Rand's Journals on "bad boys." (I corrected a typo I noticed.)

As Rand wrote (Journals of Ayn Rand, 22):

I do not think, nor did I think when I wrote this play, that a swindler is a heroic character or that a respectable banker is a villain. But for the purpose of dramatizing the conflict of independence versus conformity, a criminal – a social outcast – can be an eloquent symbol. This, incidentally, is the reason of the profound appeal of the "noble crook" in fiction. He is the symbol of the rebel as such, regardless of the kind of society he rebels against, the symbol – for most people – of their vague, undefined, unrealized groping toward a concept, or a shadowy image, of man's self-esteem.

That a career of crime is not, in fact, the way to implement one's self-esteem, is irrelevant in sense-of-life terms. A sense of life is concerned mainly with consciousness, not with existence – or rather: with the way a man's consciousness faces existence. It is concerned with a basic frame of mind, not with rules of conduct.

J

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now a few comments.

PDS, thank you for that term "swagger deficit"! I love it. It's perfect. It names a lack I've wondered about ever since I started to meet Objectivists in New York City in late 1968. I'd expected "colorful characters," a lot of individualistic and creative folk, but a high percentage seemed to me as goodiegoodie as if they were attending a church school. I never have felt that I understood the appeal of Objectivism to the type which predominated.

[...] Rand's taste for fictional bad boys [...].

It isn't just Rand's taste. I think it's a taste of an awfully high percentage of women. Wuthering Heights's Heathcliff, Jane Eyre's Rochester, Byron -- "mad, bad, and dangerous to know" and with no shortage of females who wanted to know him -- women's "gothic" romances by the dozens. Also vampire stories. 'Tisn't just Rand.

Constant dwelling on personalities in the O-milieu doesn't help.

'Tisn't just "in the O-milieu." Dwelling on personalities is a hear-ubiquitous human behavior, goes back to our simian ancestors. Survival value.

You've got a point, but I also think that O-land needs quite a lot of "dwelling on personalities." Determining just how much dwelling is needed is a delicate balancing act. There are some really shitty people associated with Objectivism. They're no Lonnie Leonard, but they seem to have at least a few of his traits.

Having observed Lonnie Leonard in action a number of times, and having been confidant to a group of the involved when the scandal broke, I don't know what resemblance you're seeing between Lonnie and whomever you're thinking of. You did say "They're no Lonnie Leonard," but what traits of his are you thinking you see?

Plus, it's repetitious.

No doubt, it's repetitious, but in my experience, there are many Objectivists who need tons of repetition in order to accept reality. When they're wrong, they can be very stubborn about it. Rational argument without massive doses of repetition isn't enough to get through to them.

J

Do you expect rational argument WITH massive doses of repetition to do the trick you'd like to see done?

Ellen

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now a few comments.

PDS, thank you for that term "swagger deficit"! I love it. It's perfect. It names a lack I've wondered about ever since I started to meet Objectivists in New York City in late 1968. I'd expected "colorful characters," a lot of individualistic and creative folk, but a high percentage seemed to me as goodiegoodie as if they were attending a church school. I never have felt that I understood the appeal of Objectivism to the type which predominated.

[...] Rand's taste for fictional bad boys [...].

It isn't just Rand's taste. I think it's a taste of an awfully high percentage of women. Wuthering Heights's Heathcliff, Jane Eyre's Rochester, Byron -- "mad, bad, and dangerous to know" and with no shortage of females who wanted to know him -- women's "gothic" romances by the dozens. Also vampire stories. 'Tisn't just Rand.

Constant dwelling on personalities in the O-milieu doesn't help.

'Tisn't just "in the O-milieu." Dwelling on personalities is a hear-ubiquitous human behavior, goes back to our simian ancestors. Survival value.

You've got a point, but I also think that O-land needs quite a lot of "dwelling on personalities." Determining just how much dwelling is needed is a delicate balancing act. There are some really shitty people associated with Objectivism. They're no Lonnie Leonard, but they seem to have at least a few of his traits.

Having observed Lonnie Leonard in action a number of times, and having been confidant to a group of the involved when the scandal broke, I don't know what resemblance you're seeing between Lonnie and whomever you're thinking of. You did say "They're no Lonnie Leonard," but what traits of his are you thinking you see?

Plus, it's repetitious.

No doubt, it's repetitious, but in my experience, there are many Objectivists who need tons of repetition in order to accept reality. When they're wrong, they can be very stubborn about it. Rational argument without massive doses of repetition isn't enough to get through to them.

J

Do you expect rational argument WITH massive doses of repetition to do the trick you'd like to see done?

Ellen

Repetition of rational is not ipso facto irrational.

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now a few comments.

PDS, thank you for that term "swagger deficit"! I love it. It's perfect. It names a lack I've wondered about ever since I started to meet Objectivists in New York City in late 1968. I'd expected "colorful characters," a lot of individualistic and creative folk, but a high percentage seemed to me as goodiegoodie as if they were attending a church school. I never have felt that I understood the appeal of Objectivism to the type which predominated.

Ellen

Yes, "goodiegoodie" applies.

It's no surprise that many 'straight' scientist-engineer types are drawn to Objectivism, but what's wrong with an engineer (or Capitalist businessman) with the *Attitude* of a true individualist and rebel?

I get an impression of reactionary self-constraint prevalent among some O'ists. They may be forgetting the initial sense of life they found in Rand - that of the revolutionary-radical. (Aux barricades!)

The feeling I had in my first Rand book, was, Ah. I think this rebel has found his 'cause' at last.

Tony

Edited by whYNOT
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I liked the way Rand analyzed this.

I do too. Rand's love of rebellious bad boys is one of the main reasons that I don't understand a lot of people who call themselves Objectivists, and who claim to be representing the Objectivist Esthetics and the "Objectivist sense of life." They seem to want to conform to some of Rand's inconsistent, subjective aesthetic tastes and rationalizations as an uninformed consumer of the non-literary arts rather than identifying with her tastes as a world-class artistic producer of literature.

Lindsay Pigero is a perfect example. I really don't understand how he imagines that, aesthetically, he has an "Objectivist sense of life." He's all about classicism, tradition, formula, and conformity. He's into weeping over the beauty of yearning, falling in love, swooning in the presence of heroes, and submitting to God. And he's enraged about the new, the different and the rebellious. He thinks he's being virtuous by ranting against the "objectively inferior" music of today. That's not the sense of life behind Howard Roark. It's the sense of life of Ellsworth Toohey.

Sense-of-life-wise, Roark is individualism and rebellion. He's rock and roll. He's rap.

And what's up with all of these little submissive weaklings online looking for guidance from Objectivist authority wannabes? Didn't they read Rand's novels? What in the hell did they identify with in her work? Put another way, can you imagine Howard Roark pledging to pay an unemployed, freshly minted PhD to hear her podcast answers to his questions as to whether it was Objectively Okay to like one thing or another? WTF?

J

Jonathan: I couldn't agree more. I have referred to this as the swagger deficit in Objectivism on more than one occasion. I will never understand this herding phenomena among self-styled Objectivists.

If you swagger supposedly you have something to swagger about. Herding here means accepting Rand's intellectual radicalism but conforming to her ad hominem cultural dictates.

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

> There are some really shitty people associated with Objectivism. They're no Lonnie Leonard, but they seem to have at least a few of his traits. [J, different thread]

Lonnie Leonard learned pretty early that he couldn't play his little "dominance games" with me. It wouldn't have ended well. So he didn't try.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

(continued from previous post)

> There are some really shitty people associated with Objectivism...

While I often focus on negative topics on discussion boards like this because I have sort of a 'missionary complex' and want to -perfect- Objectivism and Objectivists, I actually have been surprised over the years at how very rarely, among the thousands I've known in person, I encounter 'bad people' among Oists.

People can have all kinds of hangups, defenses, blind spots, can be too arrogant or too non-assertive, too much swagger or too little, motormouths or silent cals, but still be basically earnest, honorable, decent people. Even when you might not choose them to be your best buddies.

Very decent subculture of people, albeit lots of mistakes. There seem to be very, very few who have adopted Oism because it is a handy club to beat the world with, as a means to power or dominance at the expense of others -- psychologically, emotionally, or materially

Edited by Philip Coates
Link to comment
Share on other sites

(continued from previous post)

> There are some really shitty people associated with Objectivism...

While I often focus on negative topics on discussion boards like this because I have sort of a 'missionary complex' and want to -perfect- Objectivism and Objectivists, I actually have been surprised over the years at how very rarely, among the thousands I've known in person, I encounter 'bad people' among Oists.

People can have all kinds of hangups, defenses, blind spots, can be too arrogant or too non-assertive, too much swagger or too little, motormouths or silent cals, but still be basically earnest, honorable, decent people. Even when you might not choose them to be your best buddies.

Very decent subculture of people, albeit lots of mistakes. There seem to be very, very few who have adopted Oism because it is a handy club to beat the world with, as a means to power or dominance at the expense of others -- psychologically, emotionally, or materially

Phil: of the thousands of Objectivists you have met over the met over the years and known in person, what is your best % guess of the number of them that have ever "met a payroll", so to speak? Just curious.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Having been a bad boy for real in my past, I have a lot of unsorted feelings on this.

In my case, "bad boy" turned into "wounded by life" (think James Dean). Once I learned that there was nothing but scum in the "bad boy" world, and the respectable world was filled with hypocrites, I reacted poorly and went into wounded mode. At least I didn't blow up any buildings or shoot anyone dead during that time, and God knows I wanted to. :)

Now I guess I'm a "bad boy calmed down a bit" or something like that. Jaded but happy. And still a bit of a smartass.

Also, I think my initial attraction to Perigo when I came back to the USA and started posting online was that he appeared to be a bad boy in the Randian sense. But all he turned out to be was a narcissistic neurotic. One more "noble bandit" who was an ignoble petty little thing. (I still don't forgive him for playing backstage NZ government games to get Jim Peron out of the country. And a few other times he has tried to damage good people to appease his vanity, especially Barbara and Chris Sciabarra.)

This is one person I believe is a bad character of the type I found in the underworld of São Paulo, not a romantic Randian "bad boy."

Back to "bad boy" as Randian archetype. Kat told me this morning that the attraction of "bad boys" for women like Rand is the rough sex.

And I think I'll leave that right where it's at...

:)

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

> There are some really shitty people associated with Objectivism. They're no Lonnie Leonard, but they seem to have at least a few of his traits. [J, different thread]

Lonnie Leonard learned pretty early that he couldn't play his little "dominance games" with me. It wouldn't have ended well. So he didn't try.

What happened?

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ellen: you are welcome.

Re the "swagger deficit", I have often wondered why the Howard Roarks in Objectivism are so seemingly few and far between. Obviously, this may have something to do with top-down authoritarianism, second ring implications of the Great Split of '68, and/or various upheavals from the Kelley/Peikoff wars. Maybe most of the would-be Howard Roarks are too busy making payroll or sculpting figures to bother with Objectivism, and especially the hash of Objectivism that has been left by the above issues.

I have another theory, however, which I have time to only briefly touch upon right now: absent a deep, integrated understanding, Objectivism is largely a "young man's game," and the young people attracted to Objectivism are largely conformists, seeking spoon-fed answers to what they perceive to be life's challenges. Combine that general attitude with the conformity required to succeed in "academia", and you have (largely, not always) a group of youngish Objectivist scholars afraid of their own shadow. Combine that general attitude with the conformity enforced on some O-ist websites and other groups, and you have a group of youngish Objectivists, who, for instance, are willing to pay to hear podcasts about how many many mashed potatoes are allowed at dinner. Not a great recipe for Howard Roark there.

Of course, the big question here is: are Howard Roarks "born," or "made"? I happen to think, when all is said and done, that they are born.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[...] the young people attracted to Objectivism are largely conformists, seeking spoon-fed answers to what they perceive to be life's challenges.

That's just what I don't understand, what people who are conformists find appealing in Objectivism. Is it simply the appearance of its providing "all the answers" ready-made?

Of course, the big question here is: are Howard Roarks "born," or "made"? I happen to think, when all is said and done, that they are born.

I once, back in '99, discussed the question of all the conformists with Nathaniel and he said that he thinks many who gravitate to Objectivism feel that by adopting it they therefore become the sort of hero/ines Rand portrays.

It's no surprise that many 'straight' scientist-engineer types are drawn to Objectivism, but what's wrong with an engineer (or Capitalist businessman) with the *Attitude* of a true individualist and rebel?

I think few scientists are drawn to Objectivism. For one thing, career scientists are awfully busy first learning all the math and the basics in their field and then pursuing their subject specialty. But more fundamentally, I think many of a scientific disposition recognize something inimical to the never-ending seeking of the scientific endeavor.

Ellen

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lonnie Leonard learned pretty early that he couldn't play his little "dominance games" with me. It wouldn't have ended well. So he didn't try.

Lonnie had finely tuned antennae to whom he could get under his power and whom he couldn't. He'd rapidly drop it with the latter category.

Ellen

Edited by Ellen Stuttle
Link to comment
Share on other sites

PDS, thank you for that term "swagger deficit"! I love it. It's perfect. It names a lack I've wondered about ever since I started to meet Objectivists in New York City in late 1968. I'd expected "colorful characters," a lot of individualistic and creative folk, but a high percentage seemed to me as goodiegoodie as if they were attending a church school.

I think that "church school goodiegoodies" rates right up there with "swagger deficit."

I never have felt that I understood the appeal of Objectivism to the type which predominated.

They seem to be attracted to Objectivism's emphasis on reason and objectivity, but appear to mistakenly conclude that objectivity means that all rational people should have the same aesthetic tastes or "sense of life" responses, and that heroic fictional characters must be absolutely pure and have no moral, psychological or physical blemishes. Maybe the inability to recognize and aesthetically isolate a character's virtuous "sense of life" characteristics from his ethical lapses is one of the reasons that certain Objectivists have such a hard time accepting the fact that all of Rand's heroic fictional characters didn't always behave in accordance with the Objectivist Ethics.

It isn't just Rand's taste. I think it's a taste of an awfully high percentage of women. Wuthering Heights's Heathcliff, Jane Eyre's Rochester, Byron -- "mad, bad, and dangerous to know" and with no shortage of females who wanted to know him -- women's "gothic" romances by the dozens. Also vampire stories. 'Tisn't just Rand.

Right, I think Rand was correct that a lot of people -- women and men -- find "bad boys" (and "bad girls") appealing, and for the reasons she stated.

'Tisn't just "in the O-milieu." Dwelling on personalities is a hear-ubiquitous human behavior, goes back to our simian ancestors. Survival value.

Sure, and there's also another facet to it, which is that one person's "dwelling on personalities" is another's substantive discussion. I don't know how many times in O-land I've been accused of something like "dwelling on personalities" when discussing things which have had little or nothing to do with personality issues. It often seems that when an observer isn't interested in the meat of an argument, he sees two people arguing over something which he considers irrelevant, and therefore writes them off as having nothing more than a personality conflict. I think discussions on things like aesthetics or group psychology/behavior are more likely than discussions on other topics to evoke such attitudes in observers, especially when the observers are generally much more science/math/tech-oriented than artistic or intuitive. Often times those making the accusation of "dwelling on personalities" are, in the act of making the accusation, injecting their own dwellings on personalities into a discussion which, up until then, had been free from such dwellings.

Having observed Lonnie Leonard in action a number of times, and having been confidant to a group of the involved when the scandal broke, I don't know what resemblance you're seeing between Lonnie and whomever you're thinking of. You did say "They're no Lonnie Leonard," but what traits of his are you thinking you see?

I see culling, insularity, control and groupthink. I see patterns of the use of orchestrated punishment and reward as a means of attempted manipulation. I see people promoting themselves as trusted authorities/gurus/celebrities within their group, and I see their being accepted as such by those among their targeted herd, and I see the authority/guru/celebrity factor being used because it is much more influential over certain people than rational argument. I see preying on the vulnerable and naive.

Do you expect rational argument WITH massive doses of repetition to do the trick you'd like to see done?

I think repetition does work. There are probably always going to be a few people who are so stubborn that nothing will ever convince them that they're wrong about anything, but I think they're pretty rare.

J

Link to comment
Share on other sites

(continued from previous post)

> There are some really shitty people associated with Objectivism...

While I often focus on negative topics on discussion boards like this because I have sort of a 'missionary complex' and want to -perfect- Objectivism and Objectivists, I actually have been surprised over the years at how very rarely, among the thousands I've known in person, I encounter 'bad people' among Oists.

People can have all kinds of hangups, defenses, blind spots, can be too arrogant or too non-assertive, too much swagger or too little, motormouths or silent cals, but still be basically earnest, honorable, decent people. Even when you might not choose them to be your best buddies.

Very decent subculture of people, albeit lots of mistakes. There seem to be very, very few who have adopted Oism because it is a handy club to beat the world with, as a means to power or dominance at the expense of others -- psychologically, emotionally, or materially

I would guess that as little as one percent, or perhaps even less, of the Objectivists I've become aware of are people I'd rate as "really shitty people."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that "church school goodiegoodies" rates right up there with "swagger deficit."

It acquires some punch through your rearranging the words. :rolleyes:

I never have felt that I understood the appeal of Objectivism to the type which predominated.

They seem to be attracted to Objectivism's emphasis on reason and objectivity, but appear to mistakenly conclude that objectivity means [...].

That clicks something, combined with my comment in post #15 about the small number of scientists attracted. O'ism's "emphasis on reason and objectivity" -- though I think Rand really believed in both -- is so often a rationalist illusion of same. It's "reason and objectivity" which provide *answers*, not a method of questioning which is the true item.

'Tisn't just "in the O-milieu." Dwelling on personalities is a hear-ubiquitous human behavior, goes back to our simian ancestors. Survival value.

Sure, and there's also another facet to it, which is that one person's "dwelling on personalities" is another's substantive discussion. I don't know how many times in O-land I've been accused of something like "dwelling on personalities" when discussing things which have had little or nothing to do with personality issues. [....]

I've noticed that dynamic a number of times.

Good answer re the traits of Lonnie's you were thinking of.

And good luck re the repetition. (I see less chance of success than apparently you do.)

Ellen

Edited by Ellen Stuttle
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's no surprise that many 'straight' scientist-engineer types are drawn to Objectivism, but what's wrong with an engineer (or Capitalist businessman) with the *Attitude* of a true individualist and rebel?

I think few scientists are drawn to Objectivism. For one thing, career scientists are awfully busy first learning all the math and the basics in their field and then pursuing their subject specialty. But more fundamentally, I think many of a scientific disposition recognize something inimical to the never-ending seeking of the scientific endeavor.

Ellen

Ellen,

Science is your field, so I can hardly argue.

I was thinking of a forum like O.Online where it seems that every fourth poster is a student of Physics and Maths.

At the least, it's apparent there is a higher proportion of them as opposed to Liberal Arts students, when compared to the general public at large.

Tony

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[....]

I was thinking of a forum like O.Online where it seems that every fourth poster is a student of Physics and Maths.

At the least, it's apparent there is a higher proportion of them as opposed to Liberal Arts students, when compared to the general public at large.

That's interesting, Tony. I don't often look at O.Online, only when something there is linked to.

What's the age bracket of the Physics and Maths students posting there? Maybe things are changing. There was always a sprinkling of mathematicians -- and a lot of computer programmers. But few biologists and chemists, and even fewer physicists.

What happens with questioning of Objectivism, or outright dissent, on OO? I've always gotten the impression, from mentions of discussions there and the occasions when I've followed a link there, that the tenor is straight and narrow.

Ellen

Link to comment
Share on other sites

> Phil: of the thousands of Objectivists you have met over the met over the years and known in person, what is your best % guess of the number of them that have ever "met a payroll", so to speak? Just curious. [PDS, 11]

PDS, if you mean 'met a payroll' in the sense of been an employer who paid salaries, I would say the percentage was well under one percent. You could make the number larger by including those who had people working for them, but didn't pay their salaries directly...as in supervisors, managers working for a large company. But I think it would still be less than one percent.

Oists are much more likely to be comfortable or skilled at working alone, for example techies or eggheads or private practitioners as opposed to managers, cooperators, team leaders. If they are in "business", it is often in those afore-mentioned areas or in other 'lone wolf' type things like software creators or financial guys, stock market speculators, finance guys, etc.

Edited by Philip Coates
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've post this image in the past of Mark Tansey's Judgment of Paris III. It's an image of a woman and her three suitors. I see the middle suitor as Rand's passionate "bad boy" sense of life, where the dude with the flashlight is a literal-minded tech-geek Objectivist follower (a swagger-deficient, church school goodiegoodie) who thinks that he's got a proper Objectivist sense of life and who has an image of himself as the debonair man with the lighter.

Tansey has a few paintings that could be said to make use of the "bad boy" concept, but I think they're usually designed to make fun of others' notions of "bad boy" heroism. I'm having a hard time thinking of paintings which contain sincere, positive representations of "bad boys." But, I'm not at home at the moment, so I'll have to wait until I can page through some of my art books to see if I can come up with anything that might be close to Rand's notion of the rebellious sense of life.

J

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've post this image in the past of Mark Tansey's Judgment of Paris III. It's an image of a woman and her three suitors. I see the middle suitor as Rand's passionate "bad boy" sense of life, where the dude with the flashlight is a literal-minded tech-geek Objectivist follower (a swagger-deficient, church school goodiegoodie) who thinks that he's got a proper Objectivist sense of life and who has an image of himself as the debonair man with the lighter.

Tansey has a few paintings that could be said to make use of the "bad boy" concept, but I think they're usually designed to make fun of others' notions of "bad boy" heroism. I'm having a hard time thinking of paintings which contain sincere, positive representations of "bad boys." But, I'm not at home at the moment, so I'll have to wait until I can page through some of my art books to see if I can come up with anything that might be close to Rand's notion of the rebellious sense of life.

J

Ah but who's the guy with the lighter? Mr Right or Mr Right Now?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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