Authors needed

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I am reminded that I should like Perigo for lots of reasons, and shouldn't for lots of reasons, but I don't have a thought that I should resolve any of that kind of stuff. It will play itself out.

Michael,

I have no idea of what you mean by this, nor how it ties in to what we were discussing.

So let me ask... what does your "should like" Perigo or not, and what needs to be resolved or not--about him,.I presume (whatever that is)--tie in to the cognitive before normative perspective as opposed to the normative before cognitive perspective?

I don't consider that person a creator or a good thinker. Do you? If not, what's the connection? Hell, even if you do, what''s the connection?

Michael

[Newberry]

I am reminded that I should like Perigo for lots of reasons, and shouldn't for lots of reasons, but I don't have a thought that I should resolve any of that kind of stuff. It will play itself out.

Michael,

I have no idea of what you mean by this, nor how it ties in to what we were discussing.

So let me ask... what does your "should like" Perigo or not, and what needs to be resolved or not--about him,.I presume (whatever that is)--tie in to the cognitive before normative perspective as opposed to the normative before cognitive perspective?

I don't consider that person a creator or a good thinker. Do you? If not, what's the connection? Hell, even if you do, what''s the connection?

Michael

Sorry, the thought was that people can clash. Your prescription that Jonathan and I have common ground, or should, reminded me of finding common ground with Perigo. There all lots of commonalities in superficial ways.

Your discussion about normative and cognitive doesn't resonate with me, I think your setting up to be the arbitrator of two fractions. I am not playing along.

Of course Perigo is a good thinker...he can wrap 97% of thinkers around his little finger. He is quite a bit like Oscar Wilde, very similar.

Edited August 7, 2010 by Newberry

[Rich Engle]

"Of course Perigo is a good thinker...he can wrap 97% of thinkers around his little finger. He is quite a bit like Oscar Wilde, very similar quote."

I think I am about to barf up what was, once, a pretty good home-cooked meal.

Edited August 7, 2010 by Rich Engle

[Ellen Stuttle]

"Of course Perigo is a good thinker...he can wrap 97% of thinkers around his little finger. He is quite a bit like Oscar Wilde, very similar quote."

I think I am about to barf up what was, once, a pretty good home-cooked meal.

I think that Perigo's a pretty good thinker, not quite so good as Michael N. indicates, but he gets many of the basics of Objectivism dead on the money in a direct, no-frills way.

And, Rich, while you're barfing, it's ad nauseam.

ad nauseum

(That's probably the most-often misspelled of all Latin terms frequently used in English writing.)

Ellen

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Of course Perigo is a good thinker...he can wrap 97% of thinkers around his little finger. He is quite a bit like Oscar Wilde, very similar.

For someone to claim that, he has to be in the "judge first, then identify" mode.

Perigo is a bigot, a bully, a guru wannabe and an intellectual whore who uses what little understanding he has of Objectivism to promote hatred. Even when he gushes about Lanza, it is often to show his hatred of other kinds of art.

For the positive side, he likes lyrical classical music. But so what? Hitler did, too. That means nothing about character or good thinking.

If that is wrapping 97% of thinkers around one's little finger, I never want to be in that other 3%. I shudder to think who they are.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Your discussion about normative and cognitive doesn't resonate with me, I think your setting up to be the arbitrator of two fractions. I am not playing along.

Michael,

What I have been saying has nothing to do with competition. You don't have to play because there is no game.

90% of my work is cognitive, i.e. how to make it work. The normative stuff is done before I start and then runs in the background of my mind while I work.

This is exactly what I have been saying about the "normative before cognitive" mode.

Michael

[Newberry]

I didn't say he was nice.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I didn't say he was nice.

Michael,

Maybe I should add another kind of epistemological habit to my cognitive before normative, and normative before cognitive.

Push someone's buttons before either cognitive or normative.

Ya got me on that one...

I'll own that...

Michael

[Newberry]

...I never have considered you as a true believer...

lol

If you're looking at it from the vision and not from the perspective of a newbie struggling to get a handle on a whole new set of ideas, I can see why you would think that Rand was not a bad writing teacher.

Newbies, if they want to be writers, like painters, should write, study, find real life mentors that they respect, and perhaps seek advice by editors that they like and respect. Work on having an interesting life, to have some interesting experiences that are worth re-creating. And study other writers including their idols. If they are only focused on one writer they idol and are in default with the rest, they are not on a viable path.

Although my manner of stating this was not clear, I believe you will not see what I am getting at unless you step outside the vision and look at it from the ground up. I'm not so sure you would ever want to do that, though. (And, if you are in the middle of a lot of creation, maybe it is not a good idea.)

huh, I find this comment creepy.

That is what I was trying to convey in my words about "thou shalt not criticize Ayn Rand as being bad at anything in art," etc. Doing so doesn't fit the vision. And I don't mean the Randroid cult-like vision. I mean the vision of looking up to greatness almost as a primary.

The Romantic Manifesto is a treatise, it isn't a how to book. The arts of fiction and non-fiction writing she is discussing her process and view of those elements. I don't understand how you think Rand is a bad teacher when she isn't a teacher. I think the fault is with the person that expects Rand's writings to be how to books for newbies.

Imagine a sales situation where I have something that is just what you want, my delivery is tailored to your needs, etc., but I never look at you during the time we are together. Instead I keep staring at the wall right past your head. There's a good chance you will not buy from me.

I think you are quite right about that...it takes very special people to be able to wear both hats. I have a student and extremely successful designer, that has the uncanny ability to do all the creative stuff on one end, be an observer, and be the client...its all very well balanced. I may or may not acquire that kind of range...but that is hell of lot of multi-tasking, and a lot of time to spend to master each hat.

I believe the two perspectives I am discussing operate in a similar manner during discussions. A person who is in the throes of one perspective does not feel "seen" by anyone who is in the throes of the other.

Ah, but that is sometimes done on purpose.

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

Newbies, if they want to be writers, like painters, should write, study, find real life mentors that they respect, and perhaps seek advice by editors that they like and respect. Work on having an interesting life, to have some interesting experiences that are worth re-creating. And study other writers including their idols. If they are only focused on one writer they idol and are in default with the rest, they are not on a viable path.

Sorry, there is no intrinsic reason why wrong won't turn out right considering an active mind, especially such a mind bent on creation. If one doesn't know wrong one won't know right. Your advice is for mediocrities and not confined to art.

--Brant

Edited August 8, 2010 by Brant Gaede

[Newberry]

Okay Brant, they should follow your advice: don't write, don't study, don't seek mentors you respect, but mentors you don't respect are okay, and don't seek advice from people who are experts, rather go online and take pointers from morons. Sounds like a sure fire way not to get anything done to me. Mediocrity...sounds like you know more about that than I do. Why did you bother to post?

[Brant Gaede]

Okay Brant, they should follow your advice: don't write, don't study, don't seek mentors you respect, but mentors you don't respect are okay, and don't seek advice from people who are experts, rather go online and take pointers from morons. Sounds like a sure fire way not to get anything done to me. Mediocrity...sounds like you know more about that than I do. Why did you bother to post?

Mediocrity in art doesn't mean it's no good. Most of what passes for art is simply awful. As for writing, write. Your advice is best for someone in business, finance and medicine, to name a few. If I were a would-be painter I'd have no problem with you mentoring me if I were lucky enough to find you, but how many yous are out there? Even so it'd only be foundational at best. I imagined going back in time and mentoring Ayn Rand, knowing what she would do if I hadn't shown up, and all the scenarios only ruined her as a novelist except her kicking me out on my ass.

--Brant

Edited August 8, 2010 by Brant Gaede

[Newberry]

Mediocrity in art doesn't mean it's no good. Most of what passes for art is simply awful. As for writing, write. You advice is best for someone in business, finance and medicine, to name a few. If I were a would-be painter I'd have no problem with you mentoring me if I were lucky enough to find you, but how many yous are out there? Even so it'd only be foundational at best. I imagined going back in time and mentoring Ayn Rand, knowing what she would do if I hadn't shown up, and all the scenarios only ruined her as a novelist except her kicking me out on my ass.

--Brant

"Foundation at best" exactly, I think that is ideal for an artist, they don't have to spend years re-inventing the wheel, when they can learn grammar, or perspective in a relatively short time. Then they are free to go where their art passion takes them...personally I find it painful to see an artist's passion screwed by their lack of know how - their limitations begin to dictate what they can and cannot paint.

Billie Jean Kind once mentioned to me (she talks with anyone), that she would listened to any coach/teacher, took what she liked and implemented it - she knew with instinct if the advice was right for her. I think a bullet is the only way to ruin a great artist.

On a personal note, I am teaching/mentoring a lot these days, about 2 full days a week, its a lot for me. But I am loving the whole process, especially seeing the growth and individuality coming out in the artists. One of the consequences is getting an insane amount of clarity, and I feel my own work growing in new directions--a consequence I didn't expect.

[Brant Gaede]

My original post was too concise and should have been an elaboration on Michael's, not a criticism.

--Brant

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Okay Brant, they should follow your advice: don't write, don't study, don't seek mentors you respect, but mentors you don't respect are okay, and don't seek advice from people who are experts, rather go online and take pointers from morons. Sounds like a sure fire way not to get anything done to me. Mediocrity...sounds like you know more about that than I do. Why did you bother to post?

Michael,

This is not an accurate description of what goes on in the mind of a person who is trying to figure out what something is before he judges it on a premise level.

Michael

[Newberry]

This is not an accurate description of what goes on in the mind of a person who is trying to figure out what something is before he judges it on a premise level.

Michael

I wasn't describing, I was jabbing.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Michael,

Oops.

I keep forgetting the competition thing.

I am so far gone into "identify then judge" mode that I simply don't see it at times.

Michael

[Jonathan]

Of course Perigo is a good thinker...he can wrap 97% of thinkers around his little finger. He is quite a bit like Oscar Wilde, very similar.

For someone to claim that, he has to be in the "judge first, then identify" mode.

Perigo is a bigot, a bully, a guru wannabe and an intellectual whore who uses what little understanding he has of Objectivism to promote hatred. Even when he gushes about Lanza, it is often to show his hatred of other kinds of art.

For the positive side, he likes lyrical classical music. But so what? Hitler did, too. That means nothing about character or good thinking.

If that is wrapping 97% of thinkers around one's little finger, I never want to be in that other 3%. I shudder to think who they are.

Michael

On a SOLOP thread moronically titled "Stop the Mosque Petition" -- moronic because as written it makes it sound as if its author wants to stop the petition; a better thinker and writer would have named the thread "Petition to Stop the Mosque" -- Pigero had this to say:

During WW2 he would have said, if one had proposed shutting down Nazi clubrooms unless their frequenters could show these rooms were not beech-heads for the Axis war effort, that one was proposing a mass violation of rights on a par with the Nazis.

Were the Nazis notorious for making their clubrooms out of beech? Is Pigero worried that Muslims will be planting beech trees at ground zero, thus establishing a "beech-head"? Why is he so upset about beech trees? Has he used his amazing thinking skills to establish that beech is an "objectively inferior" wood?

J

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Jonathan,

LOL...

Well, I'll be a son of a beech.

btw - When I first read the title of that thread, I actually did initially wonder which petition they wanted to stop. And it didn't grok.

Michael

[Newberry]

Michael,

Oops.

I keep forgetting the competition thing.

I am so far gone into "identify then judge" mode that I simply don't see it at times.

Michael

After reading this I thought about the nature of forums...people putting their personalities out there, disagreements, showing off their efficacy, sharing knowledge down to sharing their negative reactions, pigeon holing. Anyway, it is different from real life work, and doing things with other people for fun.

In art there is no substitute for capturing liveliness than by working from life, drawing and painting from direct observation. I think that forums miss that kind of element; what people think and write are kind of abstract, and doesn't give you the whole picture of who they are, at least at that moment. Sitting down with them over a coffee, gives a lot more clues to their personality, and humor. Real life also makes it much easier to engage or leave people, if you hate their guts in real life, then it is really easy to walk away - or if you like them, to stay and chat further.

Anyway, there, for you, is a little identification stuff.

[Jonathan]

In art there is no substitute for capturing liveliness than by working from life, drawing and painting from direct observation.

I disagree. Depending on the artist, working from pure imagination is often much more effective for capturing liveliness. Or working from photographs. Or from computer generated objects. I've seen a lot of life-based paintings which look blank and staged because posing a model in an action pose usually doesn't work very well. It's never quite the same as taking photos of moments of actual action. The muscle structure is wrong and the center of gravity is off, to name just a couple of issues. And models rarely are able to maintain facial expressions for the amount of time that it takes to paint them from life, which is one reason that life-painting artists often end up avoiding facial expressiveness. The result can be blank faces on rigidly posed bodies which do anything but "capture liveliness."

I've known a few purists who insist that doing anything other than drawing directly from life is to be despised. They have rules for creating art, rules which aren't actually based on knowledge of the advantages that other options offer, or of the limitations that following rules can impose. Seeing themselves as being pure and looking down their noses is apparently more important to them than creating great art.

I think that forums miss that kind of element; what people think and write are kind of abstract, and doesn't give you the whole picture of who they are, at least at that moment. Sitting down with them over a coffee, gives a lot more clues to their personality, and humor. Real life also makes it much easier to engage or leave people, if you hate their guts in real life, then it is really easy to walk away - or if you like them, to stay and chat further.

I agree. There's a sort of "bravery of being out of range" in online communications. I think that if Objectivism's biggest online blowhard-guru-wannabes came face to face with the people they smear to their little audiences online, they wouldn't dare say the same ridiculous crap in person.

J

[Rich Engle]

MSK:

You've been stuck on the cognitive/normative thing for like what, 2 years now? Idea: if you want to keep it up, at least install one of those outdoor outlets, and upgrade your box. Maybe run a 220 line.

rde

Rapid switching is actually worse than alternating current, if you, er, think about it.

[Newberry]

In art there is no substitute for capturing liveliness than by working from life, drawing and painting from direct observation.

I disagree. Depending on the artist, working from pure imagination is often much more effective for capturing liveliness. Or working from photographs. Or from computer generated objects.

Somewhere here I mentioned we disagree fundamentally about issues. I gave one instance of that, by observing I have a signature (online signature, that shows my transparency by linking to who I am, what I do, where I live, etc.)You don't.

The above is another example of potentially a profound difference. Perception of reality is fundamentally important for taking in information and double checking one's conclusions about it and life. In life and art, people can spend their time only looking through magazines, tv, computer screens, news programs, or introspective only within their imagination, and etc...but they are not substitutes for the experience of direct contact with, and perception of people and reality. You can either agree with me that perception is fundamental to art and experience, or not. Regardless, I am certain of it's significance to life, art, and knowledge. (And to be clear, I am not saying other techniques and tools are of no use.)

[Jonathan]

Somewhere here I mentioned we disagree fundamentally about issues. I gave one instance of that, by observing I have a signature (online signature, that shows my transparency by linking to who I am, what I do, where I live, etc.)You don't.

Yeah, well I have reasons for not wanting to dump everything about myself online. One of them is that I don't see my online philosophy pals as a market. I'm not here to sell my work or to push a branding image of myself, but to have interesting discussions. Another is that, from what I've seen, Objectivism has a lot of vengeful nutjobs associated with it, some of whom know practically nothing about art but nevertheless go off on unbelievably angry rants about how the art that they personally dislike is destroying the world. Frankly, I don't want to make it easy for any rage-filled Objectivist Cultural Warriors with whom I've dared to disagree to deface any of the work of mine which is easily publicly accessible, or to harass individuals or organizations who have hired me.

Basically, I'm not comfortable giving out certain information online. I'm sure we all have different levels of how "transparent" we want to be, and about what should remain private. You, for example, haven't publicly listed your social security number or your credit and bank card numbers, and you haven't shared details of your financial information. Why aren't you telling us how much money you make each year, providing scans of your tax returns and other documents, as well as the names and addresses of your customers and how much you've charged each of them? Why haven't you volunteered any information about your sexual predilections and given details about those with whom you've been intimately involved? That would be true transparency, no?

The above is another example of potentially a profound difference. Perception of reality is fundamentally important for taking in information and double checking one's conclusions about it and life. In life and art, people can spend their time only looking through magazines, tv, computer screens, news programs, or introspective only within their imagination, and etc...but they are not substitutes for the experience of direct contact with, and perception of people and reality. You can either agree with me that perception is fundamental to art and experience, or not. Regardless, I am certain of it's significance to life, art, and knowledge. (And to be clear, I am not saying other techniques and tools are of no use.)

I haven't denied the importance of perception of reality. In fact, my point was that using photography and other indirect means can allow an artist to more effectively represent aspects of reality. Using photos of someone in action or in a moment of expressiveness, as well as studying the mechanics of movement and expression with a computer model, can achieve a "liveliness" that can't be achieved from looking at a live model in a staged pose. But it's probably pointless to continue discussing this issue with you, since you don't have much, if any, experience with photography or CGI -- you don't know what is or is not possible with those media or what levels of "liveliness" they can help a painter to achieve.

J

[Newberry]

...shows my transparency by linking to who I am...

The point is simple, I am a real person that anyone can confirm by email, call, visit. You could be anyone.

I haven't denied the importance of perception of reality...my point was that using photography and other indirect means can allow an artist to more effectively represent aspects of reality.

You won't confirm or deny the fundamentality of perception? I am just looking for a place where we can share common ground.