• Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Posts posted by Jonathan

  1. 13 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

    But think about presenting Rand to social justice snowflakes. Like it or not, these people vote and will soon be the ones in power.

    My view: Don't present Rand to them, or to anyone.

    Present ideas instead, and in a real-time context in regard to real-world current events. Argue your point, make your case, and destroy the opposition's case. Do what Ben Shapiro and Charlie Kirk do.

    Stop following Rand's muddle-headed, vanity-driven notion that people must be taught her philosophy from bottom to top, and convinced to accept it as a perfectly integrated whole, etc., etc.

    Get past the remaining traces of cult of personality.


    • Like 1
  2. I have nothing against Grossman, and perhaps the Rand imitation bit could be used well if it were delivered in small doses, and if it were well-crafted aesthetically. But, with the example that I see online after doing a vid search, 42 minutes in anti-romantic/anesthetic pretend interview mode is a flop of an idea, especially since what we're seeing is soft, pretty, make-believe Rand, rather than hard, deadly serious Rand. It's kind of like seeing a Disney princess version of Rand.


  3. 12 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

    It's take out Bernie time.

     Yup, and it's a risky, last-minute panic now. Stopping Bernie (and the squad as well) would have been easier if the Dems had been standing up to him consistently all along instead of staying silent or capitulating to his crazy ideas. It's probably too late now.


  4. By the way, it appears that photography and 3D printing might have begun to have a positive effect on Sabin Howard's sculptures: from what I could see, it appears that one or two of his figures might actually include facial expressions other than the default ones that his models happened to be displaying while posing!


  5. Hey, check this out: Auntie Kamhi is suddenly cool with artists using photography and machine-made figures in their art!

    The Rehumanization of Public Art

     January 23, 2020 /  Michelle Kamhi /  Contemporary art, Public Art /  3 Comments

    Print This Post Print This Post

    For anyone who shares my utter dismay regarding the dehumanization of public art in recent decades,1 I have good news. An extraordinarily ambitious, heartfelt, and skillful work of figurative public art is underway that communicates without the aid of an artist’s statement.

    Sabin Howard - A Hero's Journey - detail

    Sabin Howard, A Soldier’s Journey, first section, full-size clay model in studio prior to casting in bronze.

    It is the slightly larger-than-life sculptural relief for the National World War I Memorial —designed by a very young architect, Joseph Weishaar (b. 1990), and a seasoned classical sculptor, Sabin Howard ...


    I responded on her blog (my response will not appear there):



    Hmmm. So, now you're okay with an artist copying photos, and using computer/machine-generated figures? Apparently you've changed your position. Remember when you used to claim that artworks which relied on photography, or which were in any part made by machines, did not qualify as art by your criteria?

    So, I'm interested in discovering what you've changed in your philosophy. Clearly, you've jettisoned many of your old, mistaken beliefs. Kudos to you for having the courage to do so!




    • Like 1
  6. 23 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

    I caught this meme out on the Interwebs.

    This is so wrong, but it is funny.




    Yeah, the opposite is true. It's the Bernie Bros and Warren Wenches who are all "Mine, mine, mine," and "You don't get a doll" (especially if you are the one who created the doll).

    It's just a continuation of the canards behind economic anti-semitism (

    As the popular memes sum up Marx, "Gibs be dat for free."


  7. On 1/24/2020 at 10:58 AM, atlashead said:

    Music, Physics, Architecture, other forms of art.
    You see, I've been enslaved.  I don't know how to get out of it.
    I've been doing good work, but I don't let myself think beyond the range of the moment; I mostly peruse the internet and when I stumble across something I work on it.  Or send privately the music I'm working on.  My confidence may be broken in the musical aspect.  I've got 6 physics books I need to read and probably 18 after that.  But the thought of working when I can never achieve totally gets in my way profanely.
    This is a work in progress of a work in progress:

    Ego [vers.mp3Unavailable

    The file is unavailable.

    Anyway, the rest still sounds like bullshit. Fantasy. Pretend.


  8. On 12/23/2019 at 3:59 PM, Michael Stuart Kelly said:
       On 12/23/2019 at 10:02 AM,  Jonathan said: 

    The above is true of almost all art, not just "modern art."



    Not popular art.





    Or worse, for the representational art intellectual crusaders, will representational artists suddenly inherit all this moolah if they can convince the public they are more aesthetically legitimate than modern artists are?

    The art world is actually very complex, and all sorts of styles are valued, including representational art. There are even very old-fashioned-ish artists who are making very good livings selling tradition figurative paintings today. Marketing is applicable to art just as it is to any other profession, and people can recognize the value of trading something which has succeeded in the market, even though the thing may not be an item that the trader personally likes or finds much use for.

    Financially speaking, a crowd draws a crowd. It doesn't matter if it's "modern art" or some other fashion or trend which has happened throughout all of history, people will latch onto and make money off of crazes, and then, later, on retrospectives of past crazes, and then on a resurgence of the craze with a new twist, etc.

    To answer your question: No, no one is going to be talked out of their own tastes, or our of investing in the popularity of others' tastes, by philosophical zealots, especially ones who are generally aesthetically deficient. Self-unaware dorks posing as cool kids and looking down their noses at what they dislike isn't a good marketing strategy.


  9. On 12/20/2019 at 10:54 PM, atlashead said:

    I've chosen the work I want to do and the way I'll have to do it.  I love my work, it is my pride & joy.

    What work is that?



    And for some reason I'm crying right now because the word that describes it is "Sanctity".  I'm scared, I now see, that man's evolution isn't going to give me enough work this way; so I draw it out.  I want to rape my work.  But the missing/desired/unexpressed I guess is that I'll never win.  WIN TO LIVE MY LIFE FOR MY LOVE OF IT, NOT FOR OTHERS, OR OTHERS FOR I.  I guess this had to be said.  Everyone who wants to live in their own capacity give your warcry!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    maybe this doesn't's still unexpressed
    i guess this is metaphysics.  As you feel pain/pleasure, happiness/sadness, & physical pleasure in response to things & you can choose the positives to not feel, and the negatives to feel.  What is the driving force behind free will?  I have never believed in god.  But man's clash with nature, that's the most heroic battle ever told.  There are no contradictions such as man choose.  So maybe it's the slimers living the easy road that we should have had which destroys me.  I will win.  I will destroy peter keating, wesley mouch, the zero(sum)

    my childhood best friend, a prime mover said, a parasite does not have consciousness.

    So now to the title:  you may have heard the term "egodeath".  I am now defining it: I have felt the total nonexistence.  I have felt lesser forms.  DO NOT EVER LET THEM THINK YOU ARE BEING ROBBED, BEING CHASED, BEING TORTURED, WATCHING A FIRING SQUAD, OR THE GUILLOTINE.
    In my tribute to Rand I will say: I have felt all physicals pains.  They are NOTHING to the torture of the altruist-collective.


    Do you think that anyone is buying your bullshit?


  10. On 12/20/2019 at 3:57 PM, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

    Art galleries specializing in modern art. 

    1. The average Joe does not take modern artists or modern art critics--and their peeps--seriously. Normal people have no interest in following their activities. That makes the modern art world a perfect environment for hiding spooks in plain sight.

    2. Since average people do not participate in the modern art world (with an exception here and there), this is a perfect playground for the elites and spooks in high places. 

    3. Modern art is ungodly expensive. Do you smell that? That's the smell of laundered money.

    The above is true of almost all art, not just "modern art." Such is the nature of subjective phenomena.

    And, in my experience, it's especially true of Objectivishists: Generally, they don't participate in the art world, except for consuming Rand's art, and also virtue-signaling about (but not actually purchasing) works of art which they've been told (or have assumed) properly conform to Rand's theories and tastes. They generally tend to be quite aesthetically stunted and deficient, and uninterested in the art world. They're interests and cognitive strengths tend to be elsewhere.

  11. Hey! Check it out! Randroid aesthetic sychophant Alexandra York is still alive and serving her long-dead master:

    "Art at its best is created to communicate life-serving values beautifully as did the pre-historic cave painters and as serious contemporary representative artists do today; thus, art can afford a spiritual experience as well as an aesthetic one. Good decorative (abstract) art is valid as an aesthetic experience but communicates nothing more. “Art” as nonsense or novelty is absurd or offensive to any mature individual..."

    Same old unsupported assertions. Same old tack of imposing one's own personal aesthetic and cognitive limitations on all of mankind, setting oneself up as the universal standard while arbitrarily denying others' experiences. Where is the objective proof to back up the unsupported claims of the validity and depth of spiritual experiences that have allegedly been properly "communicated" and the invalidity of others?


  12. 3 hours ago, atlashead said:

    how to judge:
    the means are either 1.statics/mechanics (architect) 2. structural analysis (soft engineering) 3.Roark's formulas for stress & strain (limit of what I think a person can use) 4. Finite/Boundary methods (computerized)
    they deal with vibrations from earthquakes, wind; and stresses from the soil.


    So, no aesthetics involved, in your view?


  13. 21 hours ago, Jon Letendre said:

    I wish I could disagree with you. I’ve been following Atlas Society’s Instagram feed and it is.pathetic. 90% is just ten year old recycled memes of the theme: socialism is bad and it’s for dummies. Shitty cartoonish memes that were obviously authored by teenagers with little life experience. The feeling is that you are in a place by teenagers for teenagers who are on an anti-collectivist spree but who are not very serious, deep or philosophical. Collectivists are retards who put their fingers into electrical sockets, that sort of thing. Over and over.

    I hadn't visited their site or social media in a while. Jesus. It's gotten even worse. Some of it is cringe-worthy. 

  14. On 11/30/2019 at 1:29 AM, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

    I see an audience.

    Do you want to know why organized Objectivism is not spreading too well? Where are the tweets from ARI or TAS? They shrugged, I guess. They walked off the field and just left Rand's very name to those who hate and fear her.

    They don't have any originality or talent. And they don't have the courage to step out into the open. They know that they suck, and that they have to therefore limit themselves to appearing only on ground that they hold and control. Rand'a legacy has been left to weaklings and cowards, and she bears significant blame for empowering fifth-rate turds as her "heirs."

    You're right, though, that enemy territories out there on Twitter et al are perfect opportunities. 

  15. 9 hours ago, Maximus said:

    The main reason for all this is that Trump unlike previous Republicans does not back down. The left's tricks aren't working like they usually do. One example is Mitt Romney and "binders full of women" controversy. A normal person would of laughed at liberals about this and much worse. But he backed down like a little girl.

    The left has gotten used to these easy victories. They now don't know what to do. Like a henpecked husband who finally discovered his courage. When he ignores his wife's menacing stare she won't know what to do.

    Exactamundo. And in not knowing what to do, they just keep on doing the same old thing, only louder and more frequently. That's their method toward everything: If it doesn't work, do more of it!

  16. Doh!

    Kookburger Newbsie is back to flogging his straw man construction of Kant:

    It is truly astounding contemplating all that Newbsie has refused to know, especially after all of the repeated exposures here to information which has corrected his embarrassing idiocy. After all of this time, he is still dedicated, religiously devoted, to the false myths that his deity Ayn told him to believe, and to denouncing the Satan that she invented out of her own historical  incompetence.

  17. 15 hours ago, Ellen Stuttle said:

    Just going from Michael's description and from patterns in Diana's history, I wonder if she's making another attempt at courting ARI standing.


     I don't think so. I think that she's drifted away from Objectivism, and from wanting to be Ayn Junior. Her thought process has often become quite opposed to "objectivity" and "rationality." She's an interesting study.

  18. Have any of you checked in on Dr. Comrade Sonia lately?

    She has drifted substantially from objectivity and rationality.

    If you read enough of her tweets and retweets, certain patterns emerge, and take on psychologically revelatory significance, and I it think lends some perspective to her oddly public behavior over the years.

    Who hurt you so badly, Dr. Comrade?