vanvlietart

"Well, I don't consider myself an Objectivist--I guess because I think for myself, and I am an artist doing my own thing. I love Rand's art, like I love lots of other art: Michelangelo, Beethoven, Puccini, hahahaha, Aristophanes (my wicked alter ego!!!). I have met a few great friends through Objectivism, and I have a few great friends that are mystics, communists (Greek ones, during WWII, the Greek communists were the only group fighting for Greek independence, hell I would have joined them. (I lived in Greece for 9 years.)) Objectivist or not, I take one person at time, and I care for a lot more than just what they write online. "

Hi Michael, I didn't know this about you. It hits me pleasantly. I think the objectivist label is dangerous because it means different things to different people. Most of all using a label, encourages stereotyping, which is a lazy form of communication. When meeting a stranger and using a label, it ought to be clarified so proper expression of thought can be achieved. I know in my own experience of putting my art in the public eye I have only been rudely dealt with twice, by "objectivists". I assume they saw my work when they were having a bad day. Hell, I am never satisfied with my own artwork. We show it, because we want to share who we are in our own way. For me, I am sharing my struggle to become a proficient artist, day by day. One day when my skills are polished to a certain level, then I might be able to attempt some of the work I have in mind. Then I will begin to enjoy the fruit of my labor. Thank you for sharing your insights and experience.

Gordon.

Hi Michael, it has been a long time since I have seen this piece you are working on. I must say it is becoming a masterpiece. I haven't been in this forum for many months. Nice to see you here. Gordon van Vliet

An interesting speech was given by Fred Ross on Academic art to the Oil Painters of America. I think it is worthy of note and highlights many objectivist values. What do you think?

Link:

Fred Ross Speech to OPA

I'm a huge Rush fan and always will be.

I first discover RUSH from an objectivist's bio in NYC. I remembered RUSH from HS and bought Chronicles just to understand his praise for them. Glad I did. Now I play it loud as a pick me up anytime I can. The best inspirational music I have ever heard.

Ok, Thank you for the email and input Michael. I have adjusted the pictures with ones from my new photobucket account. Hopefully these will continue to work. I am hoping that this forum is lively and advantageous to all of us. Is there a spell check here? I have not seen it and it is something that is useful to me.

Yes, I agree with this. Also, I have seen argued that the law of causality follows directly from the law of identity. I do not accept this at this point.

Also, I have a hard time understanding how the law of identity has any real meaning at all. Since there is no restrictions on what something could be, there is nothing that something cannot be - know what I mean. If something can be anything other than what it's not, then I don't see how that's any different than saying "Something can be anything" and I get no meaning out of it.

On identity, what is not being addressed is a delimitation of reality. What is being addressed is that we observes that all things have a separate singular essence that we can examine, being that this essence cannot contradict itself (for example exist and and not exist at the same time) without invalidating our reason. Causality merely states that we observe that things have particular aspects that behave in specific manners, thus they can be studied.

Nothing more.

[reponse]

The about question/comment and answer/reply helps me tremendously work through everyday dialogs I am involved with. In my conversations with individuals of different persuasions I at least want the other party to walk away with well supported reponses to think about. Michael you seem to have the ability to do this well... and Victor also. Dialog between the two of you is interesting and instructive. I need better disapline and tools for sorting out issues as both of you seem to have.

Thank you for posting this. Years ago I printed this and it hangs framed as a daily reminder.

Find a picture or two and I'll compose an illustration. Let's see if we can imagine a dynamic depiction of you that all true individuals will admire and will be a welcome challege to paint. Thanks for the welcome and the humor.

Is this thread what happens when painters talk about quantum physics?

Michael

Well at least you can still smile. Perhaps we can not understand or see the world until we paint it.

"This is an extraordinary lapse of logic: a failure to distinguish between the means of observation, and the act of observation itself. The misleading use of the words "observe" and "measure" is to blame. Quantum states do not have indefinite values which become definite when they are measured---they have indefinite values which become definite when the quanta interact in certain ways with other quanta. The means of observation are these interactions, which are going on all the time whether we are watching or not: our observations depend on them, not vice-versa! Observation is secondary--not primary."

I am new here, so bear with me if you will.

When I started painting and dealing with oil colors, I believed that color was absolute, but artists would tell me that it is relative (subjective). My brain told me a subject was wearing a white shirt, thus I wanted to paint it white. My work suffered immensely because what an observer sees is almost everything but pure white yet Our indoctrination has informed our mind to judge it white. With my simple understanding of objectivism I recoiled that my senses could be deceived. However, this is my current understanding and it came to mind from the above quote from Victor.

Color as we know it is a relationship subject to an interplay of several elements: The object observed, the observers eye and interpretation by his mind (some see red others blue), light and atmosphere between the object and observer. Sometimes (certain conditions, interplay) we may say the object is blue, then the light chances and now it is red, or in the case of a chameleon the object changes, or fog roll in and changes our observation, or we take a hit of acid and our interpretation changes. What does not change is the nature and identity of any of the elements interplaying.

When quantum theory states that quanta change due to observation, perhaps they do. Does that change their nature? Does that mean that reality is subjective and not objective. I don't think so. To me that is like saying a red object nature is changed because through interplay with an observer it now measures blue. Certainly by our language of measurement it is now blue, but that just instructs us as to its nature.

I certainly think that ones pre-disposition to philosophy influences many scientists pronouncements on the nature of the universe and nowhere as it does in Quantum Physics.

A brilliant friend of mind PhD Nuclear Physicist turn Evangelical Preacher, gave up on science because Quantum Theory instructed him that Man really at the end of the day can know nothing, because the world is all a massive illusion wielded by the Master Magician.

Again, please use patience with me if you can. I hope that this reply adds something useful to this discussion.

Gordon,

Welcome to OL. I hope you enjoy it here.

I looked over your site and you have some very interesting paintings - a few quite beautiful.

One word on why your image is not loading: bloodcity3.0.jpg

Because of a security issue, images on OL need to have a simpler file name. Please remove the period in "3.0" (by renaming the file or copying it to a new name). Don't forget to change the name in your post. Then it should load fine.

Michael

Thank you for the comments and suggestion with the pic file. I believe it is corrected now.

I have been reading your discussion with Victor from Toronto. It serves as a good mental exercise for me. In particular the stages of thinking, i.e. epistimological before ethics.

26 years after I had begun in business I was rereading the Fountainhead and thought about Roarks reply to the college folk about why he wouldn't compromise and work for the big elite architects firm. He had but 40 or so good years to do his work and couldn't waste them to half measures and false starts. Well maybe I paraphrased what was meant a little but...

I looked at the calendar on the wall behind me, a big calendar. The wall was maybe 100 feet long and I sat in the middle. I was born at the corner and had spend the last 18 years in that very room building corporate office furniture (my business) and glancing the other way thought, I may not make it to yonder corner. I have so many other interests to pursue. I'm going to run out of time, life. So 18 months later the business is SOLD, the income gone (I'll be alright folks) and now I am a painter. Watch me paint the town.

Intent: hone skills while building audience, then paint my souls delight with passion!

Example of ideas from

Blood City

Blood City, by Gordon van Vliet

coyright November 2005 all rights reserved

This piece was displayed in an art show during the spring of 2006. It is signed, dated and titled at the bottom. The work measures 5"w x 14"H inches oil on 1/4" hardboard.

Blood is a metaphor of life flowing through our veins. Likewise, the life blood of the city are the individuals who inhabit it and are the city's motive force. First works are for survival, when secured, time and energy are spent on larger , more complex ideas. These ideas are represented as buildings and towers, finally a pinnacle soaring upward. As the towers are illuminated in the sun so too may an Individual reach great heights. All people are benefited from the such success.

Also represent here is the idea of the city as the center or natural result of separate individuals need of fellowship, society. This is a mix from those just surviving to those able to achieve further goals. I have always viewed the tower as an inspiration of what can be accomplished through productive thought and work.

More on this theme in future posts.

Hi Judith,

I have just arrived in this forum and also reside in Upstate New York....Rochester. Maybe I'll paint a great picture of you in action on the horse or sporting a shotgun. How about 6' high and with me, the painter staring right down the shotgun barrel. Un-loaded please.