Jonathan

Members
  • Content Count

    7,214
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    56

Everything posted by Jonathan

  1. Heh. "“You’re a much more reasonable guy in person than you seem to be on television.” Lol. J
  2. Yes, Tony, I already knew that my applying Rand's method of judging art and artists to her and her own work upsets you. And, yes, her method is indeed sourpussery at its sourest. J
  3. No, he knew and cared. Re-read the novel. He knows exactly what a rip-off and fuck-over the project is. He is morally opposed to it, at least in thought. In action, he decides that the thrill of working on the project is worth joining in on ripping off and fucking over those who are being forced to pay for it. Yeah, he adopted the principle of the ends justifying the means. That's just wrong-headed typical Tonyism. And you'll be extending that generous attitude to all other artists and works of art, right? Just like Rand did? Heh. J
  4. Is Wilder-Lane's review available anywhere that you know of? I'd like to read it. J Poetry, Wilder style: Old Dan Tucker was a fine old man Washed his face with a fryin' pan Combed his hair with a wagon wheel And died with a toothache in his heel...
  5. Thanks for the link. An additional ploy us the erasing of Dayton. El Paso is being cited constantly by the press, but Dayton not so much. The shooter doesn't fit the Narrative. So, Dayton needs to be forgotten while El Paso gets hyped.
  6. My criticisms here really aren't about the novel, but about the Objectivist Esthetics, and some of Rand's other bluff and bluster. C'mon, you boys know me. I like to apply a person's method of judging others to them and their own work. J
  7. No, I get that, too. Recently you wrote a really nice post about the aesthetic trance. In The Fountainhead, Rand achieved that with me, and she succeeded in suspending my disbelief. My comments on the technical holes and deviations are post-trance analyses. J
  8. What made them "bad guys"? In Roark's case, what made them "bad guys" was the fact that they didn't like his work and wouldn't hire him. He was too independent for their tastes. They wanted someone who would be more traditional in his architectural designs. Such a mindset is unappealing to me, but it's not a crime. Someone's holding that point of view doesn't make them a "bad guy," and it certainly doesn't justify force, or property destruction. Yes, but the difference is that Ragnar was opposed to government projects, and wanted nothing to do with them, where Roark was exc
  9. Yeah, Toohey was a douchebag. And Roark pretended not to think of him. And then he punished other people. And committed fraud. Dont get me wrong. It's a fabulous novel. It's just that it has some holes. It doesn't say what Rand intended it to say. And it's not consistent with Rand's later philosophy, despite her claim that she always held the same beliefs. J
  10. Mistakes and errors? Heh. Oopsie, I blew up a building. Oh, well. Forgive me?
  11. Roark also was wrong to commit the fraud of passing off his work as someone else’s for the purpose of subverting the owners’ right not to hire him. And his courtroom speech was irrational as hell: He tried to claim that he had a contract with the people from whom he specifically and intentionally hid his participation in the project. i think a typical reader can tell that Rand hadn’t yet worked out her philosophy of Objectivism while writing the novel.
  12. Sounds like something Ed Gein would say.
  13. He would take the above to be evidence of your inferior soul. Thanks for rambling. Your comments, in conjunction with Newbsie's having fixed the "claw," brought to mind Diane Arbus's photo, Child with a toy hand grenade in Central Park, N.Y.C., and its specific "trance" effect: https://www.metmuseum.org/toah/works-of-art/2001.474/ Pretty creepy, and intentionally so. Not as creepy, though, as certain O-vish works which were intended to be joyously romantic and not creepy at all. J
  14. Newbsie has revisited his painting, Counterpose, and has fixed part of it. Billy, he calls you an "uncharitable person" for having brought to his attention the reality of his difficulties with human anatomy. Or at least I assume that he's referring to you -- put perhaps I'm misremembering who pointed out the claw hand while we were all helping to mentor him. Here he is from Facebook: Made a change to a 29 year old work, Counterpose, oil on linen, 36x42”.
  15. You'we just a wacist Twump apowogist, and a wascawwy wabbit, so I expected you to tawk twash about the hewowic Bwook. J
  16. Shwill, angwy Bwook is in cwassic Peikoff mode, demanding that "Twump apowogists" nevew use the wowd "Objectivist" to wefew to themsewves, because Bwook owns Objectivism now, and you are not an Objectivist if you disagwee with him. Way to go, Elmer Fudd. You make Trump look calm and reasonable -- and even truly Objectivist -- in comparison. J
  17. There are other means of establishing position other than knowing "where his feet are." All of the entities in the space, including the moving ones, not only cast shadows, but receive them as well. You're only considering a few of the shadows. Try accounting for all of them, and see if you can discover how doing so provides the information that you've claimed doesn't exist in th image. There are also reflections in the space, and other indicators, such as the height of the camera's viewpoint and the relationships of the entities to the horizon line, and all of the information that su
  18. False. I suspect that you're misidentifying either the number and positions of lights in the room, or whose shadows are whose, or both, and also maybe the depth of the room and the variations of its surfaces. J
  19. Would you all mind choosing a different word than "artifact"? Thanks, J
  20. There's an overwhelming over-abundance of more than enough information. And that's just in any single frame of the video. Consider all of the content of all of the frames, and there are multiple, layered, redundant means of determining whether or not any entity, attribute, action or effect seen in any frame conforms to reality. The space, the objects within it, and the motions are all precisely measurable. Then add all of the visual information from other cameras at other vantage points... Each participant on this thread who has commented on the visual evidence is right about some th
  21. Okay, so I’m an empirical-mystical thinker, but my art is “quite suited to romantic realism”? How is that possible? Doesn’t an artist's work reveal his naked soul, his sense of life, and view of existence? Doesn’t his style "project his psycho-epistemology and his view of man’s consciousness"? If I’m a misguided follower of early philosophers and religionists, and "haven’t taken on board the reality-consciousness-consciousness mode” (it’s so nice, Tony says it twice?), shouldn’t my art necessarily reflect my fucked up mindset, and be decidedly anti-romantic-realist? C’mon, there must be some s
  22. Thank you. And right back at you. J
  23. So, since not one single work of alleged art has ever been objectively shown to have complied with Rand's definition and criteria, all alleged works of art, including Rand's, are "obscurantist or self-indulgent." Try to remember what we've discussed several times, Tony: I've tested you and other Objectivists and your ability to identify artists' meanings in representational realist paintings. There was nothing obscure or self-indulgent about the works of art. In fact, they were quite ordinary and they easily fell within the representational tradition that you demand. Anyway, Tony, I