Jonathan

Members
  • Content Count

    7,212
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    56

Posts posted by Jonathan

  1. 18 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

    Jonathan,

    I had a specific reason for using that word and I borrowed it from audio processing for cleaning up sound and mixing (which I know more about). I knew they used this word in image, and I skooched it over without looking it up, thinking they used it in the same way. I just now looked it up for image, though, and it is the wrong word. In sound, artifacts don't have to come from compression.

    So I don't mind using a different word at all.

    Any suggestions?

    I don't know. Maybe keep it really broad. "Phenomenon"? "Effect"?

    J

     

  2. On 7/25/2019 at 1:10 PM, Max said:

    There is just not enough information in the picture to predict where exactly shadows should be seen.

    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 things, yet wrong about others. The issue is not that the visual evidence is insufficient, but that none of you has the technical knowledge to be making any conclusions, or to be dismissing anyone else's observations or concerns, or to be throwing accusations of kookiness or conspiracy theorizing at anyone who thinks that something in a photo looks a bit odd.

    J

    • Like 2
  3. On 7/22/2019 at 9:13 AM, anthony said:

    I don't argue with that. J's work is actually quite suited to romantic realism, what I've seen. But the making of art and the thinking about it can often be distinct from each other, self-contradictory and conflicting - his thinking is what I simply call the empirical-mystical mode in art. From what i can tell from artists and art critics etc.,, that's universally been ~long~ educated into artists and their following from some early philosophers and religionists. IE. The work of art "transcends" reality and minds. Which is why he hasn't taken on board - and tried to understand - the reality-consciousness-consciousness mode which, simplistically and broadly, constitutes the "Objectivist Esthetics".

    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 sort of saving means of condemnation of my art, no? My work MUST contain something like "bleak metaphysics” or “revoltingly evil” something or other.

  4. 11 hours ago, anthony said:

    Setting the tone for a fruitful debate.  ... and "meanings" are what you, not Rand, put into viewing art.

    To repeat, objectivity starts at knowing what you are seeing - not mind-reading the artist, second-guessing him. Only then - one can see what he sees, and be affected by his vision or not.

    You don't get "objectivity and rationality", so farewell. 

    Buh-bye.

  5. 1 hour ago, anthony said:

    Objectivity, in all things, starts at knowing what you are seeing. Even some little hint of a recognizably real entity would be good. 

    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 already know that you have nothing to offer to this thread. Actually, you have less than nothing. My post wasn't addressed to you, or meant to encourage your blather. It was actually an invitation to others to practice actual objectivity and rationality, and to recognize the bluff and nonsense of the Objectivist Esthetics.

  6. It's been more than a decade now since Pigero tried to demonstrate the "objective" superiority of his tastes in music. When his lame little piece was criticized, and ridiculed, he had claimed that it was just a skeleton upon which he would be applying serious scholarly flesh. Alas, after these ten-plus years, no flesh has been added.

    Heres my stroll down memory lane (this content was also cross-posted to Solopassion several times, but Pigero dodged and evaded it, and never addressed any of the substance):

    Damn, what an ass-kicking I dished out!

    J

  7. Bump:

    On 11/2/2017 at 1:35 PM, Jonathan said:

    Louis Torres and Michelle Marder Kamhi, What Art Is: The Esthetic Theory of Ayn Rand (pgs 57-58)

    "A work of art cannot be properly evaluated as 'good' or 'bad' on the basis of a sense-of-life response. She thus draws a crucial distinction between esthetic response (though she does not use that term) and what she terms esthetic judgment. The former is a spontaneous, emotional reaction to the work as a whole. The latter is a function of intellectual appraisal; it is a dispassionate evaluation of the success with which the artist projects his intended theme. Whether one shares or does not share an artist's fundamental view of life, Rand explains, 'is irrelevant to an esthetic appraisal of his work qua art.'"

    Torres and Kamhi are correct about everything in the above statement, including the appraising of the artist's intended theme.

    ---

    So, what are the obstacles to bringing the deceased Objectivist Esthetics back to life?

    First, there's the problem of Objectivism categorizing things as valid art forms which do not meet Objectivism's stated definition and criteria. There are restrictions which were apparently intended to be aimed only at "modern art," but which in reality hit a much wider target, definitely including music, architecture and dance, and very likely including most of all of the other art forms to one degree or another.

    Second, there's the problem of the missing means by which to make objective aesthetic judgments. Rand recognized the need to identify "the esthetic principles which apply to all art," and which "must guide an objective evaluation," but she never provided them. Nor has any of her followers. Since, as Kamhi and Torres correctly note above, mere aesthetic responses are "spontaneous, emotional reactions," they therefore do not adhere to the Objectivist philosophy's notion of objectivity, which is the act of volitionally adhering to reality by applying the rules logic and reason to any given individual situation. Objectivity cannot be practiced until those missing "objective esthetic principles" have been identified and put into practice. And nothing can qualify as art until that time, since Rand's view was there was no place for "whim" or for "the unknowable, the unintelligible, the undefinable, the non-objective in any human product." Nothing, therefore, can qualify as art until the moment that the missing objective means of making aesthetic evaluations has been delivered. There is "no place" for art until those means have arrived.

    Third, logically, the missing objective means must include the process of comparing viewers' interpretations of a work of art to the artist's intended meaning, and that intended meaning must be established by some means outside of the work of art (such as a written explanation or an audio recording of an interview with the artist, etc.). The same would be true of objectively evaluating any human action; one would have to compare the results to what was intended to be achieved. Since artists' statements of their intended meanings are actually pretty rare in comparison to the number of all art works, very little will qualify as potentially qualifying as art.

    Fourth, there's the problem of Objectivism not having addressed the issue that all viewers do not possess the same observational and cognitive abilities, and that such differences in abilities are relevant to objectively measuring how well any human action, including art, has been performed. In other words, the artist and his abilities are not the only things to be taken into consideration, but a truly objective means of making aesthetic judgments must account for differing abilities in viewers so that a work of art could not be judged to have failed when the reality was that only certain viewers had failed to identify meaning where others had succeeded.

    In order to overcome these four problems, a truly objective Objectivist Esthetics would have to be something very different from that which died on the operating table at the beginning of this thread.

    J

     

    On 11/5/2017 at 11:18 AM, Jonathan said:

    Ugh! I'm slipping. I forgot to include point five:

    Fifth, there's the problem of Objectivism misidentifying the concept of "esthetic judgments" as being about appraising the technical merits of how well an artist projected his view of existence. Such judgments are not aesthetic, but simply normal judgments. They are the same as judging how well a plumber, engineer or ditch digger performed his task. Actual "esthetic judgments" would appraise the effects and affects of what Kamhi and Torres in the above identify as "esthetic responses."

    Rand did a little sleight of hand. The field of aesthetics is about judgments of beauty, taste and sentiment. Such judgments are, as Rand, Kamhi and Torres recognized, "spontaneous and emotional." They are subjective. But Rand wanted them to be objective. Everything had to be objective. Therefore she tried to force aesthetics judgments to become objective by substituting a different concept for them. She might as well have declared that judging a writer's spelling to be correct is an "esthetic judgment." Or that measuring the dimensions of a canvas is an "esthetic judgment."

    It's a very similar tactic to how Dr. Ex-Mrs. Dr. Comrade Sonia, PhD., once tried to prove that judgments of beauty were "objective" by playing the little game of substituting the concept of "health" for the concept of "beauty." You just take a phenomenon which is subjective, and then hope that no one notices that you've switched to a different concept which has objectively measurable characteristics. Voila, the subjective thing is now objective by association, which is kind of almost the same as being objective, if we squint our eyes and pretend a little.

    Contrary to Rand's little shell game, real "esthetic judgments" are not about judging an artist's "technical mastery," but about the beauty, taste and sentiment with which he creates his art, and which his art evokes. Aesthetic judgments are about the "spontaneous and emotional" responses that Rand tossed aside and decided not to explore or have any curiosity about whatsoever, despite being a romanticist and craving the emotionally stimulating.

    J

    C'mon, O-vish necromancers, give it a jolt.

    J

    • Like 1
  8. 56 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

    (We already know Merlin is always right about everything and anyone who disagrees is a poo-poo head. And if you don't believe it, he'll tell you. Over and over and over.)

     

    I love seeing Merlin's "logic."

    Quote

    Your "proof" is hogwash and con art. Nobody on OL endorsed your "proof." I bet Hougen knows way more about geometry than you do. Responding to your "proof", he wrote, "To be honest, I'm not sure what you're doing above myself." Also, your con art shows no numerical distances. That by itself proves your "proof" is incorrect. Idiot, that's what's in dispute -- numerical distances.

    Pure belligerence and irrationality. He packs so many fallacies into one paragraph! And he does it effortlessly.

    J

  9. 50 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

    What about Epstein?

    That is the topic.

    What I'm seeing in my social media bubble is the left trying very hard to push the Narrative that Trump has ties to Epstein and is therefore likely a pedo, and it's just a matter of time before Trump is convicted and impeached and whatever. At the same time, rumors of Clinton's relationship with Epstein are just meh, then shouted down, and answered with 23 more memes portraying Trump as a pedo.

  10. On 1/16/2019 at 1:29 PM, Darrell Hougen said:

    For your amusement:

    Desargues_s_Theorem.gif.d4ae7302552b872a5cac4466759c7c57.gif

     

     

    Hey Darrell,

    I was curious if you've seen Merlin's statement about you over on a different thread:

    5 hours ago, merjet said:

    Your "proof" is hogwash and con art. Nobody on OL endorsed your "proof." I bet Hougen knows way more about geometry than you do. Responding to your "proof", he wrote, "To be honest, I'm not sure what you're doing above myself." Also, your con art shows no numerical distances. That by itself proves your "proof" is incorrect. Idiot, that's what's in dispute -- numerical distances.

    Jonathan pretends to know something about projective geometry. Heh. "Projective geometry is an elementary non-metrical form of geometry, meaning that it is not based on a concept of distance" (link, my bold). 😄  😃

     

     

    Fascinating, no?

    J

  11. 1 hour ago, merjet said:

     

    Here's the task that you were challenged with, and which you've been cognitively incapable of answering:

    https://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/topic/16583-aristotles-wheel-paradox/?do=findComment&comment=284372

    Quote

     

       On 1/7/2019 at 12:24 PM,  merjet said: 

    ...Its circumference is about 20% longer than the distance along the wires, which proves you are both wrong.

    Prove it.

    Demonstrate that you know how to account for the perspective in the images. Show us the geometry. Plot it out, and show your work. No more unsupported assertions.

    Heh.

    Um, here's a screen capture of the entire apparatus:

    45736149815_8dba2db191_b.jpg

    Do you see the vertical red rectangles that I've placed on the left and right sides of the image? They are both the same size. Notice that the one on the left is the same height as the wooden support next to it? See that? And on the other side, the wooden support appears to be shorter. Why is that?!!! Hmmm? Can you figure it out, genius?

    Is the post on the right really shorter than the one on the left? If so, do the strings go downhill? When the wheel reaches the right side, do the lines end up lower than the circles to which they are currently tangential? No? They don't? So, what could explain the wooden support on the right appearing to be about 20% smaller than it actually is?

    OMG, Merlin, look at this giant dog!!!

    5520355043_6b78711f71_z.jpg

    His shoulders come up to the deck of the Golden Gate bridge! He's way taller than the north tower of the bridge, but just shorter than the south tower.

    Dang, it's a new paradox. How is it that the bridge deck is level when the north tower is so much smaller than the south tower? Is the giant dog a part of the solution? 

     

     

    Prove that the wheel's circumference is "20% longer than the distance along the wires."

    I've proven otherwise. If you're still stubborn enough to disagree, then demonstrate, first, that you are capable of grasping the geometry of my proof, and, second that my geometry is incorrect.

    J

  12. 1 hour ago, merjet said:

    No, idiot. It should have been obvious to anyone except a moron like you that I was referring to the counts in the table by R. J. Rummel.

    LOL. We saw the butchered state of Aristotle's Wheel Paradox on Wikipedia -- before I modified it -- that you cited, misconstrued and lied about.

    Do you understand even an inkling of analytic geometry or calculus yet? Or are you too mathematically and conceptually inept to do so?

    I don't recall your having challenged me with any geometry or calculus problems that I haven't solved. I do, however, recall my having presented projective geometry (https://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/topic/16583-aristotles-wheel-paradox/?do=findComment&comment=284435) in response to one of your challenges, and then immediately giving you a challenge which remains unanswered. Still working on it? No? Too hard? Gave up? Yeah.

    J

     

  13. Oh no!!!

    Auntie Kamhi is dismayed, disturbed and distraught about something!

    And still arguing from the irrational and subjectivist position that her own personal cognitive and aesthetic limitations MUST be the universal limits of all of mankind -- still practicing nothing but the fallacy of Argument From Personal Incredulity. 

    Dismaying Exhibition of De Waal Installations at the Frick

    Edmund de Waal is the justly acclaimed British author of The Hare with Amber Eyes, a superb history/memoir of the Ephrussi banking family, of which he is a scion. He is also the creator of an unprecedented temporary exhibition now at the Frick Collection in New York City. Entitled Elective Affinities, it is the first exhibition of work by a living artist in the museum’s main galleries. Lamentably, it presents a dismaying contrast with the Frick’s permanent collection—as well as with his admirable book. It also exemplifies much of what is wrong with the contemporary artworld...

    https://www.mmkamhi.com/2019/06/23/de-waal-installations-at-the-frick/

  14. 12 hours ago, anthony said:

    There are always going to be superficial disagreements about Rand the person. My view is that she sincerely tried to do too much: 1.she became over-aware of herself as the public image and exemplar of her philosophy 2. over-extended herself in having to answer to every topical problem put to her, where she may have been lacking facts.

    Yeah. Hubris. Celebrity. Bluff.

    All of which has hindered the appreciation of her good ideas. And her acolytes copy her mistakes, adding fuel to the pyre.

  15. 2 hours ago, Peter said:

    If you drop her name, do you mean omit or bring her name into the conversation?

    By saying "dropping her name," I meant as in "name-dropping," as in using her name, referring to her, citing her. I meant that I generally don't bring her up, because mentioning her name only bogs the conversation down. It ends up focusing on the dumbest things that she said, and characterizes her as being limited to and equally those dumbest things.  It opens a can of shit which becomes a massive waste-of-time distraction.

    2 hours ago, Peter said:

    Like Freud she was a profoundly creative person but being human she was wrong about some things.

    As was Kant, and several other people whom she mischaracterized and upon whom she stupidly shat.

    2 hours ago, Peter said:

    If you drop her name, do you mean omit or bring her name into the conversation? I think you mean include. And it can open a can of worms onto the discussion table. Like Freud she was a profoundly creative person but being human she was wrong about some things. I have always been intrigued by putting her thoughts into logical or mathematical propositions though I wouldn't know where to start now other than her A is A proposition. I remember taking logic in college and having severe difficulties after the first three of her and Aristotle's basics. ergo. therefor. if then. equals. doesn't equal. a can of worms is not a plate of spaghetti.   

    I said can of shit, not can of worms.

    J

     

  16. 21 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

    Jonathan,

    Maybe.

    But do we have it coming?

    After all, Rand can't read anything anymore.

    :) 

    Michael

    What I meant was that Rand's reputation or rating as a serious thinker has it coming. She did it to herself.

    And, sure, you could say that we have it coming. ObjectiKarma. Those of us who value the things she got right -- enough to defend her -- will have her stupid shit thrown back in our faces. She made the task of defending her views hard enough that I think it's generally easier to avoid even mentioning her name, and to just stick to discussing ideas. Dropping her name opens up a whole a can of shit that's not usually worth the effort to sort through.