DL's Book

[Jules Troy]

Create an everything Eva wants to discuss post, problem solved easy peasy.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Might you kindly intervene once in a while to suggestively nudge the conversation back on track?

Eva,

Nah.

Ain't my style. I generally trust people to handle themselves.

For example, here, the book in question slid over into Vermeer, which slid over into the realism of photography on a cheep postcard, which slid over into the realism of photography as such , wich slid over to a challenge that i knew nothing of optic physiology and/or the techniqes associated with image re-mastering.

I and perhaps others, too went to the thread to discuss the subject. Therefore, the only virtue to even a mild form of intervention on your part would be to insure readership per intent.

Huh...

Ain't that sumpin'?

Here I thought I knew a bit about running forums.

Well lemme look... Hmmmm...

I don't seem to have too much of a problem with readership or intent. There are lots of very intelligent people around here. That's what I see. And they keep coming back and they keep posting intelligent things. Day after day.

So I believe my method works. If you think there's a better method, you are free to set up your own discussion forum on the Internet (there are oodles of free resources), start working it and see who shows up. That's the science way, isn't it? Trial and error?

(Oh... I could give you some quantification stuff like growth hacking and things like that, but we're discussing basic approach. btw - I know a lot about generating traffic... a shitload. But I don't do any of it here on OL, not even basic SEO. OL grows by un-nudged word of mouth, un-nudged search engine rankings, etc.)

I will give you an brief explanation, though. A discussion forum is a place best suited to work through ideas, not study them like in a book or specialized articles or things like that (although there is some overlap--one of the reasons I set up the different Corners of Insight).

Working through ideas is messy, not neat and tidy. This is not only due to the nature of working through ideas, but also the fact that everyone arrives from a different context, some more studied and some less, some more analytical and some more intuitive, some more feisty and some more boring, some older and some younger or middle-age, some harried and some serene, some happy and some sad, and so on. People are gloriously different.

So it's messy. Forum drift. Unfinished ideas. One topic morphing into another. Tangents galore. Banter. Flare-ups. And so on.

What you are requesting is top-down interventions on the intellectual content itself. Sometimes I do that by peeling off a secondary discussion that develops and making a new thread out of it (almost always by request of the members), but mostly I just leave the messiness up as it is. And new readers who go through the older threads here on OL always get delights, like finding a constant supply of hidden Easter Eggs.

That's one of the reasons why the unique visitor stats keep growing on their own. People like this stuff.

I can prove it, too. I used to say OL got about 5,000 unique visitors a month. (The page views are in the hundreds of thousands monthly.) I just had to recheck the backroom, which I haven't done in a while, and I saw this number is now over 6,000. These are not high-school kids looking at memes and funny videos (however, some smart high-school kids come around). OL's audience is high quality in the intellectual department.

One of the indications of this is the average time spent on the site per visitor. It is higher here than most places (I don't have the precise number right now and I'm too lazy to go back and look it up--this stuff makes my eyes glaze over. It's a healthy score, though.) That probably means, to be conservative, about 2,000 plus top-quality brains visit us each month.

Back to interventions. My interventions are more of a traffic cop nature (with a lot of overlap, since I like ideas, too). Behavior. Not idea control.

When I see people--who are "handling themselves," which is what they are supposed to do--get so rowdy there's nothing left but flame wars, I step in. Another point, I'm not either-or on the rules. I'm flexible (to a point). The standard I use is balance, not obedience (unless someone's behavior totally threatens to undermine the good of the forum, i.e., throws things way out of balance in a negative manner). I developed this approach by doing it the hard way over several years. And yes, by fucking up at times. That's the only way to develop a skill.

So I appreciate your suggestions and advice about how to improve the user experience on OL, but I'll keep doing it my way.

And here's a reality check for you. (That sounds snarky, but I mean it in a good way.)

I've seen people come through here at times and try to impose conditions regarding how OL is supposed to run. And when that doesn't work (which it never does, I make sure of that) I've seen them go off and try their own things and get really pissed off because nobody shows up. Sometimes these are very intelligent people. (I can give names if need be, but I'm not into hurting people's feelings gratuitously. These folks are hurt enough already by reality and they still have flawed self-image issues to deal with.)

They posture that they are only interested in the ideas, but the real deal underneath is audience. (Sometimes power, but without an audience there is none to be had--as they learn by their miserable failures.) The bottom line is they don't know jack shit about how to get an audience and how to keep one, much less how to encourage a high quality audience to show up. And it galls them to no end that OL has an audience--one they can't get.

If you are interested, here's how it works. People don't only want to discuss ideas when they come to an Internet forum. They come because they want to discuss ideas in front of an audience. Preferably, an audience of people they resonate with. They want to share their thinking with specific individuals and know that other folks are watching. That intellectual sharing bleeds over into sharing other things. People who get this know the motor is give and take in order to do well. People who don't just try to display themselves. They rarely do well.

So the reality check is you, Eva, as a newcomer, are in front of OL's audience. OL is not in front of your audience. And until you grow your own fan base, that's the way it will be when you come here. Not because I want it that way or because anyone decrees it or any other rationalization I've seen disgruntled people claim over the years. That's just the reality of the forum-world.

btw - I might be wrong, but I believe you will eventually grow your own fan base--and a good one--after you pipe down a bit.

Michael

[Peter]

Michael wrote:

If you are interested, here's how it works. People don't only want to discuss ideas when they come to an Internet forum. They come because they want to discuss ideas in front of an audience. Preferably, an audience of people they resonate with. They want to share their thinking with specific individuals and know that other folks are watching.

end quote

And the contributors may have never thought of why they are here, other than to note that this is where Rand’s ideas are discussed. Most of the time I have responded to an idea from a specific person, but instead of personally contacting them, I referenced something they wrote and respond on the forum. So I agree. I must want other folks to watch the give and take. I suppose the socializing is as important as the thoughts.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

So I agree. I must want other folks to watch the give and take. I suppose the socializing is as important as the thoughts.

Peter,

And there's no shame in it. It's just the way humans are.

Some people in Randland think this gets too close to a Peter Keating idea. I used to, too.

So they cut themselves off and get more and more unhappy and bitter as time passes.

That's one of the traps I believe we fall into at some time or other when we get into Rand.

Real wisdom about this (in my view) comes in trying to understand the difference between Peter Keating and the urges we feel inside ourselves to connect with people. Need for approval versus social climbing. Striving for recognition versus sucking up. And so on. One is good because it's based on the law of identity of who we are. The other is sleaze.

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

So I agree. I must want other folks to watch the give and take. I suppose the socializing is as important as the thoughts.

Peter,

And there's no shame in it. It's just the way humans are.

Some people in Randland think this gets too close to a Peter Keating idea. I used to, too.

So they cut themselves off and get more and more unhappy and bitter as time passes.

That's one of the traps I believe we fall into at some time or other when we get into Rand.

Real wisdom about this (in my view) comes in trying to understand the difference between Peter Keating and the urges we feel inside ourselves to connect with people. Need for approval versus social climbing. Striving for recognition versus sucking up. And so on. One is good because it's based on the law of identity of who we are. The other is sleaze.

Michael

That's why I suck up.

--Brant

thanks, Michael, I don't need recognition (as a suck up); someone might make me a major character in a novel and not give me credit for she didn't want to be needlessly cruel not realizing I would glory in it--the recognition--uh, wait a minute, now I'm confused . . .

(at least I'm not sleazy)

[Ellen Stuttle]

Eva to Michael:

Might you kindly intervene once in a while to suggestively nudge the conversation back on track?

For example, here, the book in question slid over into Vermeer, which slid over into the realism of photography on a cheep postcard, which slid over into the realism of photography as such , wich slid over to a challenge that i knew nothing of optic physiology and/or the techniqes associated with image re-mastering.

I and perhaps others, too went to the thread to discuss the subject. Therefore, the only virtue to even a mild form of intervention on your part would be to insure readership per intent.

Thanks, Eva

Is anyone stopping you from discussing the subject?

Note, it was you who "slid over into the realism of photography as such" by making pronouncements which were challenged by someone - Jonathan - who you might by now have realized is an accomplished and knowledgeable visual artist. Looks to me as if you're hoping that Michael will intervene to head off your being creamed.

Ellen

[Brant Gaede]

Now, if Adam would post a clip of a lady getting a cream pie facial . . .

--Brant

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Here.

Let's make some of the abstract concrete.

For Eva and any interested reader who doesn't yet know, here is a small glimpse of Jonathan:

Paintings

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

Here.

Let's make some of the abstract concrete.

For Eva and any interested reader who doesn't yet know, here is a small glimpse of Jonathan:

Paintings

Michael

Very good, extremely good, great!, but only because they've been photographed. (Let me have [a big photo of] the naked lady archer one.)

--Brant

the limitations of painting: the old masters weren't seen as masters until color photography, but they knew that someday color photography would arrive so they used techniques that would enhance their work centuries later after they'd been photographed and Jonathan has obviously copied the old master competence (not original Jonathan; others were competent before you!)

(seriously, "Pensive" is very special)

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Dayaamm, Brant!

LOL...

It took me a minute to realize you were horsing around. And my mind started going in circles with WTF?

You got me, dude.

Michael

[Peter]

Thanks for the link Michael. Jonathan's "Pensive," reminds me of the old masters.

[Jules Troy]

It is as I said! Someone plucked Jonathan out of the renaissance and dropped him in our laps to show us what good art is all about, I have the UTMOST respect for him. I oil paint wet on wet landscapes. Nothing like the skill of Jonathan, I may once I have a really large photography portfolio use my own stock as reference to learn how to paint wildlife (Robert Batemanish) I can already draw them in pencil, just have to research more in the properties of oil. Oils can be tricky on the one hand but you doo have time to fix stuff because it is wet for a long time.

[Backlighting]

Kids born with one functioning eye from amblioglia (lazy eye: An eye disorder characterized by an impaired vision in an eye that otherwise appears normal, OR out of proportion) or some other malady can still play ball. When the ball is pitched, the kid will move their heads two or more times to get two or more readings on the ball coming towards them, and so they are simulating “depth perception.” Sometimes a child’s eye is crossed, but early intervention and glasses can correct the eye and just as importantly the area of the brain built to receive the sensory / perceptual data will be utilized. If a parent waits too long, that portion of the brain in the child is lost. If it goes unused an adult with amblioglia will never be able to utilize that part of their brain, though research into neural plasticity may change that.

Peter, I can vouch for that. Early treatment.

My grandfather noticed my eyes crossed. I was 2-3(?) at the time (my mom told me the story). Surgery followed, wore eye glasses til I was 9 or so & then no need for them till I hit 50. Thanks to gramps & the docs.

[eva matthews]

Eva to Michael:

Might you kindly intervene once in a while to suggestively nudge the conversation back on track?

For example, here, the book in question slid over into Vermeer, which slid over into the realism of photography on a cheep postcard, which slid over into the realism of photography as such , wich slid over to a challenge that i knew nothing of optic physiology and/or the techniqes associated with image re-mastering.

I and perhaps others, too went to the thread to discuss the subject. Therefore, the only virtue to even a mild form of intervention on your part would be to insure readership per intent.

Thanks, Eva

Is anyone stopping you from discussing the subject?

Note, it was you who "slid over into the realism of photography as such" by making pronouncements which were challenged by someone - Jonathan - who you might by now have realized is an accomplished and knowledgeable visual artist. Looks to me as if you're hoping that Michael will intervene to head off your being creamed.

Ellen

Jonathan knows how to paint. That hardly makes his ex-cathedra pronouncements on either photography or optic neurology either 'knowledgeable or in any way correct. You seem to fall for the 'artiste' bit. I don't.

EM

[Jules Troy]

He also knows more about photography than you ever will and so do I actually.

[Brant Gaede]

Jonathan knows how to paint. That hardly makes his ex-cathedra pronouncements on either photography or optic neurology either 'knowledgeable or in any way correct. You seem to fall for the 'artiste' bit. I don't.

EM

Go ahead and stomp him, Eva, stomp him right into the ground. Nobody here will cry for the poor, dear, departed-with-his-tail-between-his-legs Jonathan. This T. Rex 'artiste' Godzilla has beena attacked on several forums with airplanes, bombs and rockets, but he just keeps coming.

--Brant

you're our last hope (Tokyo's too)

[Jules Troy]

Jonathan knows how to paint. That hardly makes his ex-cathedra pronouncements on either photography or optic neurology either 'knowledgeable or in any way correct. You seem to fall for the 'artiste' bit. I don't.

EM

Go ahead and stomp him, Eva, stomp him right into the ground. Nobody here will cry for the poor, dear, departed-with-his-tail-between-his-legs Jonathan. This T. Rex 'artiste' Godzilla has beena attacked on several forums with airplanes, bombs and rockets, but he just keeps coming.

--Brant

you're our last hope (Tokyo's too)

[Jules Troy]

You got that popcorn ready yet Brant?

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

It never occurred to me until just now, but when I look at that beautiful lady archer, Jonathan was doing the Hunger Games before they were even created.

Michael

[Jonathan]

The physiology of optic depth-reception is interesting. A small part of the eye (macula, i believe) constantly makes micro-adjustments of focal length relative to the ontours of a rough surface, the result being a slightly-out-of focus 'shimmer'.

No camera can alter the focal length in this manner.

Who said that a camera would have to alter focal length in that manner? You seem to be very confused by your own limited knowledge of photography and your limited thinking abilities. A photograph is an image on a surface, and that surface can be "glossed" or rough or both, just as a painting can. The surface can be photo-texturally manipulated in ways that you can't imagine. So maybe you should stop pretending to be an expert who wants to tell everyone what is or is not possible?

Rather, depth is understood by the mind as shadowing that occurs with rough surfaces block light. And because the optic system is far more detailed and needs no shadow, it's far more precise--as anyne who's actually been in a museum can testify.

You're talking out of your ass.

Re glossing techniques of various artists who've worked in oil: feel free to do your own research, and then we'll discuss.

Hahaha. Just as I thought. I called your bluff, and you have nothing but more bluff to back it up.

And you're employing the Doubly Irrational Genius Pose, which is a tactic that I identified here:

http://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=13569&p=191473

J

You're free to consult Wiki on 'glossing oil painting' or its synonym, 'varnishing oil painting'. Ha Ha.

EM

So, you're telling me to go look for something to support your argument? Is that the way that you imagine that the onus of proof works? You make a statement, and then anyone who challenges your statement has the responsibility to go out and search for something that might support your argument? Heh.

There's nothing out there that supports your position. In fact, you argument isn't even internally consistent, let alone consistent with reality. It's as if you misread some online source that you hastily referred to in your quest to pretend that you're knowledgeable, misinterpreted it as meaning something other than what it actually means, and then you came to a false conclusion and didn't even bother think about the irrationality of what you were saying.

Let's go over your position. Here's what you said:

Moreover, the sensation of depth and shimmer that Vermeer, et al, achieved was enhanced by glossing the surface...

....The physiology of optic depth-reception is interesting. A small part of the eye (macula, i believe) constantly makes micro-adjustments of focal length relative to the ontours of a rough surface, the result being a slightly-out-of focus 'shimmer'.

So, your contradictory position is that "depth and shimmer" occur on "rough surfaces," yet that Vermeer, and an unidentified "et al," achieved "depth and shimmer" by eliminating the "rough surfaces" of dried oil paintings by "glossing the surface"!!!!

How are you not understanding that "glossing the surface" doesn't result in "rough surfaces" that "shimmer"? Do you not know what the word "gloss" means?

So, I think what you need to do is to cite the sources from which you imagine you're getting your information on "the physiology of optic depth-reception," and then maybe some of us can review it and help you resolve your misunderstandings, errors and contradictions.

J

[Jonathan]

Eva to Michael:

Might you kindly intervene once in a while to suggestively nudge the conversation back on track?

For example, here, the book in question slid over into Vermeer, which slid over into the realism of photography on a cheep postcard, which slid over into the realism of photography as such , wich slid over to a challenge that i knew nothing of optic physiology and/or the techniqes associated with image re-mastering.

I and perhaps others, too went to the thread to discuss the subject. Therefore, the only virtue to even a mild form of intervention on your part would be to insure readership per intent.

Thanks, Eva

Is anyone stopping you from discussing the subject?

Note, it was you who "slid over into the realism of photography as such" by making pronouncements which were challenged by someone - Jonathan - who you might by now have realized is an accomplished and knowledgeable visual artist. Looks to me as if you're hoping that Michael will intervene to head off your being creamed.

Ellen

Jonathan knows how to paint. That hardly makes his ex-cathedra pronouncements on either photography or optic neurology either 'knowledgeable or in any way correct. You seem to fall for the 'artiste' bit. I don't.

EM

So, let me get this straight. My decades of hands-on experience as a professional artist, which include applying paint and varnish, as well as other media, to hundreds if not thousands of works of art, and observing and controlling their effects, are dismissed as just an "'artiste' bit" that others are "falling for," but, on the other hand, your inexperience with paint and varnish, as well as with photography, somehow make you an expert on paint, varnish and photography?

Btw, my "knowing how to paint" isn't all that I bring to a discussion on the effects of varnish on oil paintings versus what is possible with photography. In addition to being a painter, I'm also a professional photographer. Prior to the digitalization of the industry, I was using, and sometimes inventing, very advanced special effects techniques combining large format cameras, stat cameras, masking techniques, the combination of multiple film styles and formats, selective surface embossing techniques, etc.

Why are you so upset about the fact that others know more about certain subjects than you do? You seem to be quite fragile and insecure about the idea that someone else can gain more knowledge through decades of study and experience than you can gain from emoting and doing a quick wiki search. What's the problem? Do you feel small and insignificant when you're not posing as an expert on every subject? Do you actually fool yourself with your posing? Does it make you feel better?

J

[Jonathan]

It never occurred to me until just now, but when I look at that beautiful lady archer, Jonathan was doing the Hunger Games before they were even created.

Michael

Diana, the goddess of the hunt, has been around a lot longer than my lady archer or Katniss. :-)

J

[Jonathan]

It is as I said! Someone plucked Jonathan out of the renaissance and dropped him in our laps to show us what good art is all about, I have the UTMOST respect for him. I oil paint wet on wet landscapes. Nothing like the skill of Jonathan, I may once I have a really large photography portfolio use my own stock as reference to learn how to paint wildlife (Robert Batemanish) I can already draw them in pencil, just have to research more in the properties of oil. Oils can be tricky on the one hand but you doo have time to fix stuff because it is wet for a long time.

Thank you, Jules!

[Brant Gaede]

deleted

[eva matthews]

Eva to Michael:

Might you kindly intervene once in a while to suggestively nudge the conversation back on track?

For example, here, the book in question slid over into Vermeer, which slid over into the realism of photography on a cheep postcard, which slid over into the realism of photography as such , wich slid over to a challenge that i knew nothing of optic physiology and/or the techniqes associated with image re-mastering.

I and perhaps others, too went to the thread to discuss the subject. Therefore, the only virtue to even a mild form of intervention on your part would be to insure readership per intent.

Thanks, Eva

Is anyone stopping you from discussing the subject?

Note, it was you who "slid over into the realism of photography as such" by making pronouncements which were challenged by someone - Jonathan - who you might by now have realized is an accomplished and knowledgeable visual artist. Looks to me as if you're hoping that Michael will intervene to head off your being creamed.

Ellen

Jonathan knows how to paint. That hardly makes his ex-cathedra pronouncements on either photography or optic neurology either 'knowledgeable or in any way correct. You seem to fall for the 'artiste' bit. I don't.

EM

So, let me get this straight. My decades of hands-on experience as a professional artist, which include applying paint and varnish, as well as other media, to hundreds if not thousands of works of art, and observing and controlling their effects, are dismissed as just an "'artiste' bit" that others are "falling for," but, on the other hand, your inexperience with paint and varnish, as well as with photography, somehow make you an expert on paint, varnish and photography?

Btw, my "knowing how to paint" isn't all that I bring to a discussion on the effects of varnish on oil paintings versus what is possible with photography. In addition to being a painter, I'm also a professional photographer. Prior to the digitalization of the industry, I was using, and sometimes inventing, very advanced special effects techniques combining large format cameras, stat cameras, masking techniques, the combination of multiple film styles and formats, selective surface embossing techniques, etc.

Why are you so upset about the fact that others know more about certain subjects than you do? You seem to be quite fragile and insecure about the idea that someone else can gain more knowledge through decades of study and experience than you can gain from emoting and doing a quick wiki search. What's the problem? Do you feel small and insignificant when you're not posing as an expert on every subject? Do you actually fool yourself with your posing? Does it make you feel better?

J

Granted, knowing how to paint gives one a bit of insight into the physiology of optics. From Renaissance to Impressionism, great painters have tried to understand how the eye catches and processes light; they have written accordingly.

Moreover, much of what they passed along to their students in terms of technique deals with these insights.

You, as a competent artiste, paint flat surfaces, with or without varnish which, btw is another word for 'gloss'.(Upon my use of 'gloss in a previous post, you pitched a hissyfit, but now you admit to its use in your own work!)

But again, eye physiology is 'biology', which is not 'art history' or skill with brush and oil. That you've nothing concrete to say in this particular means simply that: you paint, therefore you rant. That you have a peanut galley of followers means nothing more than their ignorance in physiology is matched by their mediocrity in artistic taste.

EM