Selene Posted February 18, 2015 Share Posted February 18, 2015 A speech is a classical art...A cross of gold!"Man shall not be crucified upon a Cross of Gold!"http://historymatters.gmu.edu/d/5354 Nice website - has an audio with portions of the speech from a 1921 appearance on "the Circuit," where he repeated his "great speech" that got him nominated sin 1896 for President by the Democrats. Also the full text of the speech.Politics has always been a full contact "sport." ^^^^His actual peroration makes the political cartoon even better.Therefore, we care not upon what lines the battle is fought. If they say bimetallism is good, but that we cannot have it until other nations help us, we reply that, instead of having a gold standard because England has, we will restore bimetallism, and then let England have bimetallism because the United States has it. If they dare to come out in the open field and defend the gold standard as a good thing, we will fight the to the uttermost. Having behind us the producing masses of this nation and the world, supported by the commercial interests, the laboring interests, and the toilers everywhere, we will answer their demand for a gold standard by saying to them: You shall not press down upon the brow of labor this crown of thorns; you shall not crucify mankind upon a cross of gold.A... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roger Bissell Posted February 18, 2015 Share Posted February 18, 2015 @ Jonathan in #745:You're begging the question. Just as your quoting 12 or so people in support of your view that music is essentially like abstract art makes it neither true nor a fallacy, my citing various people in support of my view does not make it true, but neither does it make it a fallacy. It just points out that there is a larger group in the conversation or debate than just the two of us. But in your several recent insult-ridden posts, you seem to have operated on the assumption (or wishful hope) that I am spinning theories in the wilderness, making up my own "special little" definitions, and that no one else of any philosophical or aesthetic worth holds such views. Now all of a sudden, now that I've begun to cite such people (in addition to the numerous ones already cited in my 2003 essay), you do a 180 and say that there is a horde of such deluded fallacy-mongers, instead of just me. Well, that sword cuts both ways. So, why not instead just drop all the wild thrashing about, careening from Roger's a crazy lone wolf to Roger's a craven pack animal, and stop straw-manning me (see below), and just consider the arguments?Example 3, which supposedly shows the "folly" and "high irrationality" of my position, shows nothing of the kind. It is NOT my position! I have NEVER made such a claim that genuine demonstration is "rationalization" or accused such a fact-based interpretation of "insanity." What I object to is artists belittling those who don't get their art, claiming their art is very profound and only special people can grasp the profundity of their work, when there's nothing profound about it that can be pointed to and explained, or that they're unable to point to it and explain it. You have given an example 180 degrees from the kind of syndrome I'm talking about. It's debatable, but plausible and worth debating - but only in terms that can be pointed to and explained, not just asserted. One viewer may get it, another may not - but that does prove either that it's there or that it's *not* there. But if there's something there to "get," it's also got to be explainable. Those who reject the obligation to explain are the ones I'm leery of, not those who use demonstrably present metaphors or connotative in making their explanatory case.I'm really incredulous that I could be so radically misrepresented. (This is not a substitute for an argument, just an expression of amazement.)REB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anthony Posted February 18, 2015 Share Posted February 18, 2015 Abstraction is cognition and art is a way into the brain via abstraction bypassing thinking?--BrantQuite true, I think. Nothing existing in the world is.....that 'a' word. (What next, angels and fairies?)Our vision sees reality, hearing hears reality. What the mind makes of and derives from musical input has an explanation.It's not good enough to name anything not yet fully understood (or like nearly all abstract art, incomprehensible) "abstract". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Newberry Posted February 18, 2015 Share Posted February 18, 2015 ...my citing various people in support of my view does not make it true, but neither does it make it a fallacy. It just points out that there is a larger group in the conversation or debate than just the two of us ... now that I've begun to cite such people (in addition to the numerous ones already cited in my 2003 essay), you do a 180 and say that there is a horde of such deluded fallacy-mongers, instead of just me. Well, that sword cuts both ways. So, why not instead just drop all the wild thrashing about, careening from Roger's a crazy lone wolf to Roger's a craven pack animal, and stop straw-manning me (see below), and just consider the arguments?REB: )Glad you posted the review on representation in music - I read it twice, but it went over my head, it seem sincere. But I think I would need to read it about 10 times to have it sink in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonathan Posted February 18, 2015 Share Posted February 18, 2015 You're begging the question. Just as your quoting 12 or so people in support of your view that music is essentially like abstract art makes it neither true nor a fallacy, my citing various people in support of my view does not make it true, but neither does it make it a fallacy. It just points out that there is a larger group in the conversation or debate than just the two of us. But in your several recent insult-ridden posts, you seem to have operated on the assumption (or wishful hope) that I am spinning theories in the wilderness, making up my own "special little" definitions, and that no one else of any philosophical or aesthetic worth holds such views.You did make up your own personal little definitions. And then you went out and found a few others who also happened to make up the same little personal definitions due to the same ignorance as yours.Now all of a sudden, now that I've begun to cite such people (in addition to the numerous ones already cited in my 2003 essay), you do a 180 and say that there is a horde of such deluded fallacy-mongers, instead of just me.I've said no such thing. I've haven't said that there is a "horde." You've found a few people who have made the same mistake that you made. And you're trying to congregate those few people to appear to be a horde.And, seriously, did you actually somehow think that when I identified you as having made up your own personal little meanings of words, I was asserting that only you were doing so, and that no one else on the planet might have also made the same mistake?!!! Jesus. Captain Illogic!Example 3, which supposedly shows the "folly" and "high irrationality" of my position, shows nothing of the kind. It is NOT my position! I have NEVER made such a claim that genuine demonstration is "rationalization" or accused such a fact-based interpretation of "insanity."Bullshit. You don't allow for the possibility of a "genuine demonstration" of the contents and effects of abstract visual art. Your immediate response to my genuine demonstration of such was to inform me that your wife, who you asserted was a "very sensitive appreciator of art" (i.e. an important, seasoned arts authority like you) had read my comments an exclaimed "Give me a break!" On the same thread, you dismissed such genuine demonstrations as "poetic, touchy-feely descriptions of shapes and curves" and announced that they do "not convince" you, and you said "nor would thousands of prose by 'experts' rationalizing such descriptions convince me either."What I object to is artists belittling those who don't get their art, claiming their art is very profound and only special people can grasp the profundity of their work, when there's nothing profound about it that can be pointed to and explained, or that they're unable to point to it and explain it.No. No one has belittled you. No one has claimed that only "special people" can grasp the profundity of the work. The fact that you may have felt belittled because someone got something out of a work of art that you didn't doesn't mean that they belittled you. The fact that you may resent others for sharing their experiences that you can't share doesn't mean that they were belittling you. The fact that you want to LIE that they haven't pointed to and explained what's in the art, right after they have pointed to and explained what's in the art, doesn't make it true. The fact that you refuse to listen and to see doesn't make reality disappear.The reality is that you attempt to belittle them! You attempt to deny their aesthetic abilities, sensitivities and responses just because you don't also experience them. You drag out the tired old Objectivish tactic of citing The Emperor's New Clothes. Your angry denial of others' aesthetic responses comes across as the insecurity or your needing to believe that you must be the limit of aesthetic ability, sensitivity and response. I think that's the reason that you got so upset in a past discussion when I brought up the idea of challenging the assumption that all viewers are equally aesthetically qualified, and when I suggested that some people have the visual equivalent of a "tin ear." You seemed to be very upset that I, a professional visual artist, would even suggest that I might have some visual capacities and sensitivities that you, who are not a professional visual artist, lack. You apparently believed that my claiming to have such capacities can't possibly be real, but can only be a vicious insult designed to "belittle" you. Any exploration of the real possibility that someone might be more visually capable than you is not to be considered!You have given an example 180 degrees from the kind of syndrome I'm talking about. It's debatable, but plausible and worth debating - but only in terms that can be pointed to and explained, not just asserted. One viewer may get it, another may not - but that does prove either that it's there or that it's *not* there. But if there's something there to "get," it's also got to be explainable. Those who reject the obligation to explain are the ones I'm leery of, not those who use demonstrably present metaphors or connotative in making their explanatory case.Who in the hell are you talking about?!!! People offer explanations all the time, and then you plug your ears and LIE that they offered no explanation. You instantly reject their explanations, and attempt to mock them with your wife's personally incredulous ejaculations despite the fact that their explanations are exactly the same thing that you offer up when describing the effects of music, and then you repeat the LIE again that they offered no explanation.Kandinsky was the "father" of abstract art. Have you ever read and understood his explanations? Or do you adamantly refuse to read them so that you can LIE that they don't exist, and then LIE that you were told "to those who understand, no explanation is necessary, to those don't, none is possible"?I'm really incredulous that I could be so radically misrepresented. (This is not a substitute for an argument, just an expression of amazement.)You haven't been misrepresented. Fortunately, the arguments that you've made remain here in the archives.J Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brant Gaede Posted February 18, 2015 Share Posted February 18, 2015 Roger "as a craven pack animal." That's a great line, Roger. There's art in it. I'm trying to visualize the scene.--Brant Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roger Bissell Posted February 18, 2015 Share Posted February 18, 2015 I'm eagerly waiting for JJ to announce the public showing of his caricature art, so that I can contribute my vast collection of his half-vast posts about my views.REBCrazy lone wolf by day, craven pack animal by night Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonathan Posted February 18, 2015 Share Posted February 18, 2015 Here are a few of the caricatures of Objectivish-types that I've done over the years:I'll add you to the list of future projects, probably along with Newberry and Hicks in the same image.J Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BaalChatzaf Posted February 18, 2015 Share Posted February 18, 2015 Therefore, we care not upon what lines the battle is fought. If they say bimetallism is good, but that we cannot have it until other nations help us, we reply that, instead of having a gold standard because England has, we will restore bimetallism, and then let England have bimetallism because the United States has it. If they dare to come out in the open field and defend the gold standard as a good thing, we will fight the to the uttermost. Having behind us the producing masses of this nation and the world, supported by the commercial interests, the laboring interests, and the toilers everywhere, we will answer their demand for a gold standard by saying to them: You shall not press down upon the brow of labor this crown of thorns; you shall not crucify mankind upon a cross of gold.A...In a way this is a predecessor to the one percent versus the ninety nine percent rhetoric. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Selene Posted February 18, 2015 Share Posted February 18, 2015 Therefore, we care not upon what lines the battle is fought. If they say bimetallism is good, but that we cannot have it until other nations help us, we reply that, instead of having a gold standard because England has, we will restore bimetallism, and then let England have bimetallism because the United States has it. If they dare to come out in the open field and defend the gold standard as a good thing, we will fight the to the uttermost. Having behind us the producing masses of this nation and the world, supported by the commercial interests, the laboring interests, and the toilers everywhere, we will answer their demand for a gold standard by saying to them: You shall not press down upon the brow of labor this crown of thorns; you shall not crucify mankind upon a cross of gold.A...In a way this is a predecessor to the one percent versus the ninety nine percent rhetoric.Correct Bob...spot on.This is the playbook and 'they," [ platonists, marxists, progressives] do not change the end game, they vary the pawn structure and work hard on the middle game.A... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roger Bissell Posted February 18, 2015 Share Posted February 18, 2015 I especially enjoyed JJ's self-portrait, nestled fetchingly between Scooby's tail and hind legs.I've been caricatured in the local newspaper as a circus clown, for daring to oppose a federally mandated auto emissions program. I don't think JJ can beat that, but he's welcome to try.REBCrazy lone wolf by day, craven pack animal by night Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonathan Posted February 18, 2015 Share Posted February 18, 2015 What about the fifth image, Roger? What do you think of that one? (The one right above the Newberrian dog.)J Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roger Bissell Posted February 19, 2015 Share Posted February 19, 2015 That's the general idea, only with more of a lupine character. Plus, maybe with a cape and spikey collar on the lone wolf half and a pair of Clark Kent glasses and necktie on the pack animal half. I can see the animated cartoon series now, as well as all the incredulous parents of kiddies eagerly watching to see what kind of argument from authority and "special little" definitions will issue forth from my slavering, drooling mouth in each episode. But hey, I gotta run. PIXAR is on the phone...REB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonathan Posted February 19, 2015 Share Posted February 19, 2015 Roger, in your arbitrary world of personal little definitions and meanings, why did you leave out the difference between program music and absolute music? Why didn't you identify absolute music as being to program music what abstract art is to representational art? Did you do so because you like tonal absolute music, where you don't like atonal music? Do you share Nussbaum's arbitrary assertion that all tonal music is program music, and the implied denial of the existence of a valid distinction between program and absolute music?J Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonathan Posted February 19, 2015 Share Posted February 19, 2015 That's the general idea, only with more of a lupine character. Plus, maybe with a cape and spikey collar on the lone wolf half and a pair of Clark Kent glasses and necktie on the pack animal half. I can see the animated cartoon series now, as well as all the incredulous parents of kiddies eagerly watching to see what kind of argument from authority and "special little" definitions will issue forth from my slavering, drooling mouth in each episode. But hey, I gotta run. PIXAR is on the phone...REBNo, I was asking about the fifth image, not the dog image (which is the sixth).J Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roger Bissell Posted February 19, 2015 Share Posted February 19, 2015 The dog image is pretty amazing, but no, I wasn't referring to it. I was actually referring to the fourth image. (The fifth image does not display on my screen, even when I click on it. Perhaps it means to signify that I am a Zero...)The image of the two dancing stick guys was the one I was interested in. I thought they could be adapted to a sort of Jekyll-Hyde idea, with the craven pack animal and crazy lone wolf being the dark and darker aspects of the same person. If you wanted, you could adapt my beard/shades/hat photo for the lone wolf part - and there's probably a benign looking pic of me blandly smiling for the pack animal half. But I'm sure you have more than enough ideas of your own for whatever caricature you might do.Program vs. absolute music - according to the standard meaning of the terms, I think of them as similar to titled vs. untitled paintings - or plays with and without synopses. In each of the latter, you just have to enter the world of the artwork without training wheels and engage with it as an independent perceiver.In that respect, I like what Peikoff said in the introduction to the 35th anniversary edition of Atlas Shrugged: "...a novel (like a statue or a symphony) does not require or tolerate an explanatory preface; it is a self-contained universe, aloof from commentary, beckoning the reader to enter, perceive, respond." Aside from the rather jarring image of attempting to "enter" a statue, I think that's pretty much the way I like to partake of art.I like some atonal music better than I like some absolute (no training wheels) music. And I like some abstract art better than I like some representational art. My likes and dislikes don't determine my categories for aesthetic analysis. They are determined by my need for clear distinctions to help me understand what is "going on" in artworks I'm trying to understand and appreciate. If the concepts and distinctions I need aren't already "on the shelf," I make up my own.I'm eclectic, so I'm drawn to maverick thinkers and mainstream thinkers alike, but even more than that, I'm drawn to clarity and consistency. When someone I admire like Rand or Roger Scruton or John Hospers or Susanne Langer doesn't come through like I think they should, I work over the good ideas they have and adapt and improve them for my own purposes. This has made me a lot of enemies and door-blockers, but that's fine. I'm not beholden to anyone either.REB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Newberry Posted February 19, 2015 Share Posted February 19, 2015 Program vs. absolute music - according to the standard meaning of the terms, I think of them as similar to titled vs. untitled paintings - or plays with and without synopses. In each of the latter, you just have to enter the world of the artwork without training wheels and engage with it as an independent perceiver.I like that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brant Gaede Posted February 19, 2015 Share Posted February 19, 2015 Peikoff's introduction to Atlas Shrugged didn't and doesn't belong there. Unlike Rand's introduction to the 25th anniversary edition of The Fountainhead, it doesn't fit and it's hard to imagine Rand ever doing one for her magnum opus, assuming her having lived long enough. It was too explicit and massive out of the gate for that sort of thing. It would have been an expression of it not being enough. Of course it wasn't enough, but she shot her bolt on that one. What might not be enough is properly dealt with in other venues, such as OL or other books, etc.Peikoff parasitized himself off the novel. He did the same with the philosophy generally, not substantially say with OPAR, but with his silly king-of-the-hill-all-bow-down-to-me-or-get-out-of-Dodge routine he came to define his life with. He turned Objectivism into a hunk of intellectual lead. Apropos that, it was primarily Rand's fault (Galt's Speech) and the way the philosophy was presented by Branden as "Objectivism" in the late 1950s and 1960s. Peikoff couldn't keep the model working. No one could have; it was way, way, too top down. The ARI has turned into neo-con sludge.--Brant Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonathan Posted February 19, 2015 Share Posted February 19, 2015 The dog image is pretty amazing, but no, I wasn't referring to it. I was actually referring to the fourth image. (The fifth image does not display on my screen, even when I click on it. Perhaps it means to signify that I am a Zero...)The fifth image is displaying just fine on your screen. It may appear to you to be blank, but it's not. And it's not about you. I initially posted it on the "Art Quiz 4" thread to explore certain issues about the boundaries of various people's arbitrary rules about what is or is not art.As I wrote on that thread:"The following may appear to some people to be a blank space. It is not. If I and others can see and identify the realistic, representational image that it contains, but you can't, would the image therefore not be intelligible, expressive or meaningful to anyone, and would it therefore not be art to anyone?"And I later added some additional comments on this current thread:"In fact, I'm quite surprised that no one appears to have any curiosity about the realistic/representational image in question 4. I think it is quite clever. Can no one here see what it is, or figure out a very simple way to see what it is?!!! The more that you know about visuals, imagery, and the manipulation of images, the more comprehensible and clear you should be able to see the image. It's worth the little effort that would be needed! It's got some good humor to it!"The image of the two dancing stick guys was the one I was interested in. I thought they could be adapted to a sort of Jekyll-Hyde idea, with the craven pack animal and crazy lone wolf being the dark and darker aspects of the same person. If you wanted, you could adapt my beard/shades/hat photo for the lone wolf part - and there's probably a benign looking pic of me blandly smiling for the pack animal half.Ugh. You should stick with music rather than attempting to do visuals.Which reminds me:Ay yai yai!!!Program vs. absolute music - according to the standard meaning of the terms, I think of them as similar to titled vs. untitled paintings - or plays with and without synopses. In each of the latter, you just have to enter the world of the artwork without training wheels and engage with it as an independent perceiver.I was asking about the music itself, not the inclusion of the notes. Do you make any distinction between absolute music and program music if the program notes are removed from the equation?In other words, if a composer intended to create a piece of program music based on a specific narrative, and listeners were denied access to the explanation of the narrative, shouldn't they still be able to identify what the composer intended to "represent"? If you're going to categorize tonal music as being "representational" in the same category as representational visual art, and you require representational visual art to present immediately identifiable entities that the artist intended to represent, then shouldn't the same standard apply to tonal music, and therefore shouldn't all listeners be able to instantly identify the specific narrative that the composer intended to "represent"?Additionally, if a composer created a piece of tonal absolute music which was not intended to be "about" anything -- it wasn't based on a narrative, and it wasn't intended to "represent" anything -- then shouldn't listeners who claim to experience "virtual entities" in the music, and "virtual activities" or "virtual narratives," be accused of "just making stuff up" and "reading into" the music what is not there? Shouldn't they be identified as doing the aural equivalent of inventing their own constellations when looking at clusters of stars? Shouldn't it be "Give me a break!" time?If the composer of a tonal piece of absolute music didn't intend to "represent" anything, are you saying that his work is "representational" anyway?!!! If so, shouldn't the same be true of a visual artist who didn't intend to represent anything -- if some viewers were to say, "Hey, this smear of paint looks kind of like a butterfly," would you categorize the painting as "representational" despite the fact that it wasn't intended to be?In that respect, I like what Peikoff said in the introduction to the 35th anniversary edition of Atlas Shrugged: "...a novel (like a statue or a symphony) does not require or tolerate an explanatory preface; it is a self-contained universe, aloof from commentary, beckoning the reader to enter, perceive, respond." Aside from the rather jarring image of attempting to "enter" a statue, I think that's pretty much the way I like to partake of art.There's nothing jarring about Peikoff's comment. He didn't say anything about "entering a statue." He was referring to entering the universe of the statue.I like some atonal music better than I like some absolute (no training wheels) music.Why do you think that tonal music has needed "training wheels"? Doesn't that tell you something about your classifying it as "representational," and as being in the same category as representational visual art?Why do you think that program music which tried to be as "representational" as possible ended up actually mimicking/imitating the sounds of things in reality? Do you think that maybe it was because that's what the term "representation" actually means?Why is the idea of program music -- music with external program notes -- perfectly acceptable to Objectivish-types, but the idea of external gallery notes accompanying abstract visual art is extremely upsetting and something to be fiercely ridiculed as being overwhelmingly conclusive evidence that abstract visual art has absolutely no effect whatsoever on its own?Do you think that it is reasonable to consider the idea that it might be possible that the reason that Objectivish-types get so uptight and upset about others' responses to abstract paintings and sculptures is that maybe the O-types are resentful of people who don't need "training wheels" when it comes to visual art?And I like some abstract art better than I like some representational art.What about your depth of aesthetic response? Do you have deeper aesthetic responses to any pieces of atonal music than you do to certain pieces of tonal music?My likes and dislikes don't determine my categories for aesthetic analysis. They are determined by my need for clear distinctions to help me understand what is "going on" in artworks I'm trying to understand and appreciate.I'm eclectic, so I'm drawn to maverick thinkers and mainstream thinkers alike, but even more than that, I'm drawn to clarity and consistency.You may have been interested in "clear distinctions" and "consistency" years ago, but not any more. You do too much evading of pertinent questions. You get way too upset and storm out of the discussion when faced with effective criticism that you can't answer. That's not the behavior of someone who is interested in "clear distinctions" and "consistency," but of someone who is emotionally invested in a flawed theory.When someone I admire like Rand or Roger Scruton or John Hospers or Susanne Langer doesn't come through like I think they should, I work over the good ideas they have and adapt and improve them for my own purposes. This has made me a lot of enemies and door-blockers, but that's fine. I'm not beholden to anyone either.I agree with the idea of adapting and improving the ideas of someone I admire.J Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonathan Posted February 19, 2015 Share Posted February 19, 2015 Peikoff parasitized himself off the novel. He did the same with the philosophy generally, not substantially say with OPAR, but with his silly king-of-the-hill-all-bow-down-to-me-or-get-out-of-Dodge routine he came to define his life with. He turned Objectivism into a hunk of intellectual lead.Dagny was "Slug," and Peikoff is "Slag."J Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brant Gaede Posted February 19, 2015 Share Posted February 19, 2015 (edited) I finally saw what I thought was just a blank in J's post. It started as an empty canvas, but I kept looking--it's Kasper, the friendly ghost!--Brantamazing Edited February 19, 2015 by Brant Gaede Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anthony Posted February 19, 2015 Share Posted February 19, 2015 .As I wrote on that thread:"The following may appear to some people to be a blank space. It is not. If I and others can see and identify the realistic, representational image that it contains, but you can't, would the image therefore not be intelligible, expressive or meaningful to anyone, and would it therefore not be art to anyone?"And I later added some additional comments on this current thread:"In fact, I'm quite surprised that no one appears to have any curiosity about the realistic/representational image in question 4. I think it is quite clever. Can no one here see what it is, or figure out a very simple way to see what it is?!!! The more that you know about visuals, imagery, and the manipulation of images, the more comprehensible and clear you should be able to see the image. It's worth the little effort that would be needed! It's got some good humor to it!"JI'm curious. Do tell what the trick is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
william.scherk Posted February 19, 2015 Share Posted February 19, 2015 (edited) The dog image is pretty amazing, but no, I wasn't referring to it. I was actually referring to the fourth image. (The fifth image does not display on my screen, even when I click on it. Perhaps it means to signify that I am a Zero...)The fifth image is displaying just fine on your screen. It may appear to you to be blank, but it's not.[...]"In fact, I'm quite surprised that no one appears to have any curiosity about the realistic/representational image in question 4. I think it is quite clever. Can no one here see what it is, or figure out a very simple way to see what it is?!!! The more that you know about visuals, imagery, and the manipulation of images, the more comprehensible and clear you should be able to see the image. It's worth the little effort that would be needed! It's got some good humor to it!"The fifth image, with contrast enhanced:Looks a lot like the painting "Elizabeth Throckmorton, by Nicolas De Largilliere: Edited February 19, 2015 by william.scherk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brant Gaede Posted February 19, 2015 Share Posted February 19, 2015 (edited) Did you see it before you contrasted it? Or are you pulling our legs?--Brantkinda looks like me--no kidding--or Boy Georgeyep, I found it Edited February 19, 2015 by Brant Gaede Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anthony Posted February 19, 2015 Share Posted February 19, 2015 Huh, a gimmick, and I supposed I was going to learn the gift of second sight. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now