Why is modern art so bad?


Recommended Posts

Brant, I've never claimed objective standards for art... only the objective process of matching when the world and what is in us harmonize causing us to perceive beauty. This objective fact of inner matching outer is what accounts for the subjective reactions of some people loving beauty while others love ugliness.

Ayn Rand expressed objective standards in her written art...

Two people can read her exact same words (outer world) and yet have wildly different subjective reactions to them (within). This is because what is inside people can be as different as night and day.

Greg

What you've claimed many times, Greg, is that people who do not react positively to the exact same art that you react positively to, are in some way inferior to you. You suppose that you possess some inner goodness that is lacking in them. That your self-esteem requires you to pass those judgements is unfortunate.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 229
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

"Better than", "worse than" is an individual value judgment. It all hangs on the totality of one's life: the past, experiences, thinking, emotions, morality, aspirations, subconscious, integrity and level of rationality, at any given moment.

Therefore a value judgment has context, and the context is YOU.

That's what "subjective" means! It means "belonging to, proceeding from, or relating to the mind of the thinking subject and not the nature of the object being considered..."

"Subjective"? I don't believe so. Unless objectivity means a value-choice is universal to everybody, which is ridiculous. My marrying Sue is an objective choice of a partner, in seeking an objective value - of love, intimacy, and so on.

Would this mean that every objectivist in the world should also want Sue?

Yes, that's what "objective" means! It means that a proposition is true regardless of the perceiver. It means "of, relating to, or being an object, phenomenon, or condition in the realm of sensible experience independent of individual thought and perceptible by all observers..."

Further, the Objectivist view of subjectivity is that it is the state when a person "cannot tell clearly, neither to himself nor to others – and, therefore, cannot prove – which aspects of his experience are inherent" in the object and which are "contributed by his own consciousness." Your preferring Sue as a romantic partner where others do not is such a state. Your preferring DaVinci to Vermeer, or Robert Florczak to Adam Schickling, is a subjective preference. Your preferring very bluntly spelled-out novels and realist paintings to more subtle and abstract art forms such as music, architecture and abstract paintings is subjective.

See, all of your judgements don't become objective just because you want them to be. Objectivity doesn't mean subjectivity when you want it to.

J

It really is OK by me what you think "subjective" or "objective" is, but you and I are always tripping up over this. Your dictionary definitions are highly limited. Proceeding from them, your line of thought has to surely be that nothing AT ALL is objective for the individual - everything is "subjective", according to his "subjective tastes" - until, I suppose, one reaches the realms of science and pure "objectivity". You have to admit though, this is in contradistinction to anything in Objectivism.

You'd have to go to the philosophical explanations-definitions, if you want to see my above point of view. For one:

"[The intrinsic theory holds that the good resides in some sort of reality, independent of man's consciousness]; the subjectivist theory holds that the good resides in man's consciousness, independent of reality."

So reality is mutable, by wish, feeling and whim, to a subjectivist.

Being objective as much as possible does not mean one is always 'right' (which would be omniscience).

Or that any value is scientifically measurable, and so a common standard to all men.

It does mean that one should take infinite care to identify existents in reality, independent as they are of the mind. So no: my wife, my favorite music, my work etc. aren't "subjective" values to me.

If I adored my wife, all along believing her to be upright, loving and loyal, in spite of all indications that she didn't care a damn for me--now that's subjectivity!

Link to post
Share on other sites

A farmer puts his healthy cow--healthy to him--to pasture. Only it's not healthy and a stranger comes up and says that's the case for so and so reasons and he and the farmer argue and the cow drops dead. Instead of attending to that obvious fact, the farmer goes to the barn and returns with five more cows also seemingly in great shape--but they aren't or it's dubious--and continues the argument with the stranger as if the five live cows were the one dead cow.

--Brant

and there are quite a few more cows in that barn, btw

Link to post
Share on other sites

Brant, I've never claimed objective standards for art... only the objective process of matching when the world and what is in us harmonize causing us to perceive beauty. This objective fact of inner matching outer is what accounts for the subjective reactions of some people loving beauty while others love ugliness.

Ayn Rand expressed objective standards in her written art...

Two people can read her exact same words (outer world) and yet have wildly different subjective reactions to them (within). This is because what is inside people can be as different as night and day.

Greg

What you've claimed many times, Greg, is that people who do not react positively to the exact same art that you react positively to, are in some way inferior to you.

You seem especially sensitive to this topic. What I said is that different reactions to art are the result of each of us living by different values. Whatever in the outside world matches what is inside of us, we will perceive that as beauty. What does not resonate will be perceived as ugliness. The fact that contemporary art possess a fair amount of ugliness is proof that a fair amount of people are ugly inside. That's the only way ugliness comes into the world... from peoples' insides. Exactly the same goes for beauty... because all truth is a double edged sword that cuts both ways.

Both you and I hold the same belief that we are aspiring to live by the right ideals. So the only way you can know the veracity of your values for yourself is by observing how your own life has turned out. There's where you'll find your truth.

Greg

Link to post
Share on other sites

"Better than", "worse than" is an individual value judgment. It all hangs on the totality of one's life: the past, experiences, thinking, emotions, morality, aspirations, subconscious, integrity and level of rationality, at any given moment.

Therefore a value judgment has context, and the context is YOU.

That's what "subjective" means! It means "belonging to, proceeding from, or relating to the mind of the thinking subject and not the nature of the object being considered..."

"Subjective"? I don't believe so. Unless objectivity means a value-choice is universal to everybody, which is ridiculous. My marrying Sue is an objective choice of a partner, in seeking an objective value - of love, intimacy, and so on.

Would this mean that every objectivist in the world should also want Sue?

Yes, that's what "objective" means! It means that a proposition is true regardless of the perceiver. It means "of, relating to, or being an object, phenomenon, or condition in the realm of sensible experience independent of individual thought and perceptible by all observers..."

Further, the Objectivist view of subjectivity is that it is the state when a person "cannot tell clearly, neither to himself nor to others – and, therefore, cannot prove – which aspects of his experience are inherent" in the object and which are "contributed by his own consciousness." Your preferring Sue as a romantic partner where others do not is such a state. Your preferring DaVinci to Vermeer, or Robert Florczak to Adam Schickling, is a subjective preference. Your preferring very bluntly spelled-out novels and realist paintings to more subtle and abstract art forms such as music, architecture and abstract paintings is subjective.

See, all of your judgements don't become objective just because you want them to be. Objectivity doesn't mean subjectivity when you want it to.

J

It really is OK by me what you think "subjective" or "objective" is, but you and I are always tripping up over this. Your dictionary definitions are highly limited. Proceeding from them, your line of thought has to surely be that nothing AT ALL is objective for the individual - everything is "subjective", according to his "subjective tastes" - until, I suppose, one reaches the realms of science and pure "objectivity". You have to admit though, this is in contradistinction to anything in Objectivism.

You'd have to go to the philosophical explanations-definitions, if you want to see my above point of view. For one:

"[The intrinsic theory holds that the good resides in some sort of reality, independent of man's consciousness]; the subjectivist theory holds that the good resides in man's consciousness, independent of reality."

So reality is mutable, by wish, feeling and whim, to a subjectivist.

Being objective as much as possible does not mean one is always 'right' (which would be omniscience).

Or that any value is scientifically measurable, and so a common standard to all men.

It does mean that one should take infinite care to identify existents in reality, independent as they are of the mind. So no: my wife, my favorite music, my work etc. aren't "subjective" values to me.

If I adored my wife, all along believing her to be upright, loving and loyal, in spite of all indications that she didn't care a damn for me--now that's subjectivity!

So well spoken, Tony. :smile:

I believe that the two views on objectivity and subjectivity are derived from each of our life experiences. For my own, the concrete bedrock reality of utter impersonal objectivity is a constant reminder, as I deal daily with something utterly impersonally objective... electricity. It doesn't give a crap about my subjective perceptions of it, or my emotional feelings about it, or any of my intellectual theories for that matter. If my actions are not in harmony with the objective reality of what it is, I'm either injured or dead.

In contrast... other people are involved in far more nebulous theoretical intellectual emotional subjective pursuits, so their view will naturally reflect their perceived primacy of subjectivity over objectivity.

Greg

Link to post
Share on other sites

Your dictionary definitions are highly limited.

I didn't just give dictionary definitions, but also quoted Rand on the subject of subjectivity. Apparently you disagree with her on what subjectivity means.

Proceeding from them, your line of thought has to surely be that nothing AT ALL is objective for the individual - everything is "subjective", according to his "subjective tastes" - until, I suppose, one reaches the realms of science and pure "objectivity". You have to admit though, this is in contradistinction to anything in Objectivism.

No. Under my concept of objectivity -- and Rand's, and the dictionary's, and everyone else's other than yours -- it excludes content contributed by individuals' consciousnesses: content which is not inherent in the object. So, no, my line of reasoning doesn't result in nothing at all being objective, but rather your line of "reasoning" results in nothing being subjective.

You'd have to go to the philosophical explanations-definitions, if you want to see my above point of view. For one:

"[The intrinsic theory holds that the good resides in some sort of reality, independent of man's consciousness]; the subjectivist theory holds that the good resides in man's consciousness, independent of reality."

That's not a philosophical explanation-definition of "subjectivity," but of "the subjectivist theory." You're confusing the two. "The subjectivist theory" is a set of beliefs and principles. "Subjectivity" is not. It is a state of mind. It is a type of response. Subjectivity is not "independent of reality." It is not a theory. It is not an act of philosophically advocating what is good or bad.

So reality is mutable, by wish, feeling and whim, to a subjectivist.

Experiencing something subjectively doesn't make one a "subjectivist." Making a subjective value judgment doesn't make one an adherent to the philosophy of subjectivism. In fact, recognizing that one's subjective responses are subjective is an act of objectivity.

When Objectivists cannot tell clearly, neither to themselves nor to others – and, therefore, cannot prove – which aspects of an experience are inherent in an object and which are contributed by their own consciousnesses, their experience is subjective by Rand's meaning of the term.

Rand's preference for Frank is an example. By her own theory of romantic love, he was not worthy of being her husband. She could not prove that he possessed the value that she attributed to him (because he didn't). He was not accomplished. He was not driven. He was not very intellectual. He was only subjectively valuable to her. Check out Rand's condemnation of Patrecia as being unworthy of Branden, then apply the same exact standards to Frank.

Being objective as much as possible does not mean one is always 'right' (which would be omniscience).

Or that any value is scientifically measurable, and so a common standard to all men.

False. Logic and reason are the common standard. Rand's notion of "objectivity" was that it is the process of volitionally adhering to reality by following the rules of logic and reason. Preferences in things such as music, beauty and sexuality, etc., are not the result of applying logic and reason. Rand didn't choose Frank by using logic and reason.

It does mean that one should take infinite care to identify existents in reality, independent as they are of the mind. So no: my wife, my favorite music, my work etc. aren't "subjective" values to me.

Yes they are. That's what "subjective" means by Rand's definition and by dictionary definitions.

J

Link to post
Share on other sites

In contrast... other people are involved in far more nebulous theoretical intellectual emotional subjective pursuits, so their view will naturally reflect their perceived primacy of subjectivity over objectivity.

Greg

No one is perceiving a "primacy of subjectivity over objectivity." Rather, what we're doing is advocating the primacy of objectivity by practicing it: we are objectively identifying the reality that your subjective responses are subjective.

J

Link to post
Share on other sites

In contrast... other people are involved in far more nebulous theoretical intellectual emotional subjective pursuits, so their view will naturally reflect their perceived primacy of subjectivity over objectivity.

Greg

No one is perceiving a "primacy of subjectivity over objectivity." Rather, what we're doing is advocating the primacy of objectivity by practicing it: we are objectively identifying the reality that your subjective responses are subjective.

J

Who's "we"? Are you the Borg? Is resistance futile? :wink:

I'll rephrase a similar idea as I know it:

As subjective beings it is impossible to be objectivity itself... however, it is possible to subjectively agree or to subjectively disagree with what is objective. But both are only subjective responses to what is objective, and are both totally powerless to alter what it is.

Greg

Link to post
Share on other sites

Who's "we"? Are you the Borg? Is resistance futile? :wink:

My use of "we" was meant to refer to all of the people here who have tried to get you to grasp ideas that are obviously way over your head.

I'll rephrase a similar idea as I know it:

As subjective beings it is impossible to be objectivity itself... however, it is possible to subjectively agree or to subjectively disagree with what is objective. But both are only subjective responses to what is objective, and are both totally powerless to alter what it is.

Greg

You should stick with electricity. Philosophy just isn't ever going to work out for you.

J

Link to post
Share on other sites

Who's "we"? Are you the Borg? Is resistance futile? :wink:

My use of "we" was meant to refer to all of the people here who have tried to get you to grasp ideas that are obviously way over your head.

I'll rephrase a similar idea as I know it:

As subjective beings it is impossible to be objectivity itself... however, it is possible to subjectively agree or to subjectively disagree with what is objective. But both are only subjective responses to what is objective, and are both totally powerless to alter what it is.

Greg

You should stick with electricity. Philosophy just isn't ever going to work out for you.

The Borg got him, J, it's that damn Borg!

--Brant

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm trying to find out if you think that there are standards of technical proficiency which aren't artist's-intentions dependent.

No, I don't think that there are objective standards of technical proficiency which are not artist's-intentions dependent. I think that sometimes we can know to a fairly high degree of certainty that an artist lacks certain technical skills, but we can't know for sure without interviewing him about his intentions.

I'll ask what I'm trying to get at a different way.

Do you think that more skill was needed to paint da Vinci's "The Last Supper" than was needed to paint the examples in post #19?

I think that the answer is definitely "yes," irrespective of what either artist was trying to achieve and irrespective of whether Robert Florczak (the artist who did the paintings in post #19) could have done something comparable to da Vinci's "The Last Supper" if he'd intended to.

Ellen

Link to post
Share on other sites

My use of "we" was meant to refer to all of the people here who have tried to get you to grasp ideas that are obviously way over your head.

That's bound to happen when you believe that the only reason anyone could disagree with your view is because they don't understand it.

You should stick with electricity.

Thank you, I will... as it's purchased economic freedom you'll never know.

Greg

Link to post
Share on other sites

My use of "we" was meant to refer to all of the people here who have tried to get you to grasp ideas that are obviously way over your head.

That's bound to happen when you believe that the only reason anyone could disagree with your view is because they don't understand it.

I don't believe that the only reason anyone could disagree with my view is because they don't understand it. I only think that YOU don't understand it, and that's because you're incapable of answering questions and criticisms. You're incapable of backing up your nutty opinions with logic and reason. You don't understand what logic and reason are. A great example is when you used the Doubly Irrational Genius Pose. You don't grasp the onus of proof.

You should stick with electricity.

Thank you, I will... as it's purchased economic freedom you'll never know.

Why do you assume to know how much economic freedom that I've had, or ever will experience?

Heh. First you were morally and politically superior to everyone here at OL prior to knowing anything about anyone. There was even a point where you moronically misidentified me as being a statist liberal. Then your aesthetic tastes were superior. And now you're the economic equivalent of Bill Gates.

I think that Deanna was right in post 51. You have a desperate need to chest-thump and claim superiority, especially when you lack any information about others and therefore have no basis of comparison. That smacks of very low self esteem.

J

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm trying to find out if you think that there are standards of technical proficiency which aren't artist's-intentions dependent.

No, I don't think that there are objective standards of technical proficiency which are not artist's-intentions dependent. I think that sometimes we can know to a fairly high degree of certainty that an artist lacks certain technical skills, but we can't know for sure without interviewing him about his intentions.

I'll ask what I'm trying to get at a different way.

Do you think that more skill was needed to paint da Vinci's "The Last Supper" than was needed to paint the examples in post #19?

I think that the answer is definitely "yes," irrespective of what either artist was trying to achieve and irrespective of whether Robert Florczak (the artist who did the paintings in post #19) could have done something comparable to da Vinci's "The Last Supper" if he'd intended to.

Ellen

Both Da Vinci and Florczak seem to lack skills in certain areas, but are quite good in other areas. Florczak's anatomy is more realistic than Da Vinci's, but that may be due to Florczak's probably using photographic reference where Da Vinci didn't have that option. Da Vinci's flesh coloring, halftone modulation and sfumato are much more realistic than Florczak's.

So, it comes down to which set of skills we subjectively prefer as viewers. Which type of lack of skill are each of us more likely to forgive, or perhaps not even notice? Personally, discoloration probably stands out more to me as looking amateurish, but I don't think that that could be called an objective preference. I once had a discussion with an artist friend about which was worse about another artist's painting: the human figure's merbromin flesh tones or it's disproportionate, jackrabbit feet and stovepipe ankles. I went with the coloring being worse, he went with the feet. Both are subjective preferences.

J

Link to post
Share on other sites

Your dictionary definitions are highly limited.

I didn't just give dictionary definitions, but also quoted Rand on the subject of subjectivity. Apparently you disagree with her on what subjectivity means.

Proceeding from them, your line of thought has to surely be that nothing AT ALL is objective for the individual - everything is "subjective", according to his "subjective tastes" - until, I suppose, one reaches the realms of science and pure "objectivity". You have to admit though, this is in contradistinction to anything in Objectivism.

No. Under my concept of objectivity -- and Rand's, and the dictionary's, and everyone else's other than yours -- it excludes content contributed by individuals' consciousnesses: content which is not inherent in the object. So, no, my line of reasoning doesn't result in nothing at all being objective, but rather your line of "reasoning" results in nothing being subjective.

You'd have to go to the philosophical explanations-definitions, if you want to see my above point of view. For one:

"[The intrinsic theory holds that the good resides in some sort of reality, independent of man's consciousness]; the subjectivist theory holds that the good resides in man's consciousness, independent of reality."

That's not a philosophical explanation-definition of "subjectivity," but of "the subjectivist theory." You're confusing the two. "The subjectivist theory" is a set of beliefs and principles. "Subjectivity" is not. It is a state of mind. It is a type of response. Subjectivity is not "independent of reality." It is not a theory. It is not an act of philosophically advocating what is good or bad.

So reality is mutable, by wish, feeling and whim, to a subjectivist.

Experiencing something subjectively doesn't make one a "subjectivist." Making a subjective value judgment doesn't make one an adherent to the philosophy of subjectivism. In fact, recognizing that one's subjective responses are subjective is an act of objectivity.

When Objectivists cannot tell clearly, neither to themselves nor to others – and, therefore, cannot prove – which aspects of an experience are inherent in an object and which are contributed by their own consciousnesses, their experience is subjective by Rand's meaning of the term.

Rand's preference for Frank is an example. By her own theory of romantic love, he was not worthy of being her husband. She could not prove that he possessed the value that she attributed to him (because he didn't). He was not accomplished. He was not driven. He was not very intellectual. He was only subjectively valuable to her. Check out Rand's condemnation of Patrecia as being unworthy of Branden, then apply the same exact standards to Frank.

Being objective as much as possible does not mean one is always 'right' (which would be omniscience).

Or that any value is scientifically measurable, and so a common standard to all men.

False. Logic and reason are the common standard. Rand's notion of "objectivity" was that it is the process of volitionally adhering to reality by following the rules of logic and reason. Preferences in things such as music, beauty and sexuality, etc., are not the result of applying logic and reason. Rand didn't choose Frank by using logic and reason.

It does mean that one should take infinite care to identify existents in reality, independent as they are of the mind. So no: my wife, my favorite music, my work etc. aren't "subjective" values to me.

Yes they are. That's what "subjective" means by Rand's definition and by dictionary definitions.

J

AR:

"Most people...think that abstract thinking must be "impersonal" --which means that ideas must hold no personal meaning, value or importance to the thinker.

This notion rests on the premise that a personal interest is an agent of distortion.

But "personal" does not mean "nonobjective"; it depends on the kind of person you are. If your thinking is determined by your emotions, then you will not be able to judge anything, personally or impersonally.

But if you are the kind of person who knows that reality is not your enemy, that truth and knowledge are of crucial, personal, SELFISH importance to you and to your life -- then the more passionately personal the thinking, the clearer and truer."

[Philosophy: Who Needs It?]

J.

"Rand's notion of objectivity" is in this statement: "Objectivity begins with ...the law of identity".

Apprehending "the law of identity" begins with observation, logic and reason (conceptualizing).

"The process of thinking is the process of defining identity and discovering causal connections". [AR]

Therefore, objectivity is the consequence of reason -- perception, logic and reason precede objectivity, they don't define it as you indicated.

(You've seen from the passage I quoted that knowledge is not something apart from oneself, one's consciousness has identity also - in Objectivism).

"Man's knowledge is not acquired by logic apart from experience, or by experience apart from logic, but by the application of logic to experience. All truths are the product of a logical identification of the facts of experience". [AR]

Subjectivism, like intrinsicism and Objectivism, is a school of thought about the 'nature of the good'. I.e. Value. So, each explains how varied people approach what they believe is of value, and how they judge it.

A subjectivist believes reality is moldable to what he wishes. How, I ask, does an Objectivist who holds reality as his only authority, become "subjective" -- in his choice of wife, art (etc.)?

Your version of objectivity not only denies the objectivist, it also tries to impose commonality. So, if one is "objective", one should make the same value-choice as another individual who's objective, too? So, if they don't choose the same, that proves "subjectivity"?!

Wrong.

("Don't speak to me about 'subjective' values!" - Rand)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Why do you assume to know how much economic freedom that I've had, or ever will experience?

You made a personal comment and I answered you personally.

You don't and never will because of your attitude.

Greg

Link to post
Share on other sites

Why do you assume to know how much economic freedom that I've had, or ever will experience?

You made a personal comment and I answered you personally.

You don't and never will because of your attitude.

Greg

Well, I'm sure you feel all high and might, "moralist".

Link to post
Share on other sites

"The process of thinking is the process of defining identity and discovering causal connections". [AR]

Ayn Rand marks the exact spot where the rubber meets the road... identifying and understanding the causality between our actions and what happens as the result of our actions. Blaming others is the result of choosing not to face the reality of causation.

Greg

Link to post
Share on other sites

AR:

"Most people...think that abstract thinking must be "impersonal" --which means that ideas must hold no personal meaning, value or importance to the thinker.

Bullshit. Rand didn't know what "most people" thought about anything. She had her own subjective misinterpretations of others' ideas and motives. One really good example is her incredibly stupid and arbitrary opinion that people were angry at Hickman not because he killed a little girl, but because he had a daringly individualist attitude.

I've never known anyone who believed that abstract thinking must hold no personal meaning, value or importance to the thinker.

But "personal" does not mean "nonobjective"; it depends on the kind of person you are. If your thinking is determined by your emotions, then you will not be able to judge anything, personally or impersonally.

It does not depend on the "kind of person you are." Matters of taste are determined by emotions. They are not the result of objectivity, logical processes, or rational thinking. That is true regardless of what "kind of person you are." It is true of everyone. It was true of Rand. Her subjective tastes -- in foods, in music, and in a husband -- did not become objective just because she wanted to believe that she was a purely objective "kind of person."

"Rand's notion of objectivity" is in this statement: "Objectivity begins with ...the law of identity".

Apprehending "the law of identity" begins with observation, logic and reason (conceptualizing).

Aesthetic tastes do not follow the process of "observation, logic and reason."

"Man's knowledge is not acquired by logic apart from experience, or by experience apart from logic, but by the application of logic to experience. All truths are the product of a logical identification of the facts of experience". [AR]

Tastes are not a product of logic. They are not objective. Rand recognized that fact in her comments on music: she knew that unless certain criteria were met, musical preferences could not be called objective, but must be treated as a subjective matter. She knew that those criteria have never been met. She knew that her own stated process of objectivity has never yet applied to anyone's judgments of music.

Subjectivism, like intrinsicism and Objectivism, is a school of thought about the 'nature of the good'. I.e. Value. So, each explains how varied people approach what they believe is of value, and how they judge it.

The subject at hand is not "subjectivism," but "subjectivity." I've already explained the difference. Apparently you still don't understand it.

J

Link to post
Share on other sites

Why do you assume to know how much economic freedom that I've had, or ever will experience?

You made a personal comment and I answered you personally.

You don't and never will because of your attitude.

Greg

So, my attitude of laughing at your irrational posing will doom me to economic poverty? That's your theory? What an assclown.

J

Link to post
Share on other sites

Why do you assume to know how much economic freedom that I've had, or ever will experience?

You made a personal comment and I answered you personally.

You don't and never will because of your attitude.

Greg

So, my attitude of laughing at your irrational posing will doom me to economic poverty? That's your theory? What an assclown.

It's not a theory. Just a principle.

You won't succeed in life with your attitude.

If you changed it, you'd have a much better odds.

Greg

Link to post
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