sjw

(Note from Administrator: This post has been moved here from another thread.) I agree. Shayne

(Note from Administrator: This post has been moved here from another thread.) It's true that my complaint has nothing to do with caricature per se. Your apparent belief that "drawing outside the lines" (so to speak) is inherently good is however not true. If you want to claim that torn flesh is good art then you'll have to do better than to point to creative people and say "but they were different too!" Besides, the torn flesh thing is tired and old. It goes right back to the Dark Ages in fact; it's a very Christian style. Go visit a medieval art gallery; your stuff would fit in well in that respect. Shayne

(Note from Administrator: This post has been moved here from another thread.) On the contrary, I am insulted when someone has the gall to put *their* views into *my* head. As far as I'm concerned, Michael initiated the insult with the presumption that he could speak for me concerning what I think. Shayne

(Note from Administrator: This post has been moved here from another thread.) Michael, You are trying to get at what I don't like about the art without asking me, and that's always a mistake. Why make poor guesses if you can just ask? The true explanation is much simpler. I think the vivid depiction of flesh being ripped apart is bad regardless of your intent (except, *maybe*, in very special contexts where profound values are at stake). And I don't pretend to know what Victor's intent was, that's why I asked. I think the sane, psychologically healthy response to that kind of explicit imagery is to be disgusted. Like Brant's "ugh". If that's the artist's intent then that's evil. If that is not the artist's intent then I think he's been psychologically numbed. It's akin to crude jokes. Some comedians spew forth filthy jokes as if filthiness was funny in and of itself. I think they are vile, but many seem completely numb to the vileness, as if that is just normal or something. And then they claim I have no sense of humor, when even ignoring the crudeness, it's just not clever or funny. Which is an indication of what they're really laughing at. Victor adds: Bull. Michael's lame guesses come across as either poor psychology or ad hominem. The metaphorical meaning is obvious. That's why I said that I didn't find it clever. If it were clever, then there might be some redeemable quality in it to appreciate. The only quality I find that can be appreciated is the technical aspect. Shayne

(Note from Administrator: This post has been moved here from another thread.) Again with the illogic: the fact that something has never been done before does not make it clever, nor does it make it a good idea. Since I wouldn't caricature Einstein I couldn't answer you. But I would say that I would not make any art that displays the crude type of imagery you seem to like. Bloated brains and skin, eyeballs popping out, it's just disgusting. There's nothing redeeming about showing flesh being ripped apart in this context. I'd say that some movies *might* call for it, if the values in question are very profound. But you use it gratuitously, and I find it quite tasteless. I wasn't echoing you on purpose. I was putting in my own words what I think. In retrospect though I see the similarity. I like how I put it better though, it's a lot more concise. If you think condensing something to essentials is "merely reiterating and echoing", well, that's a bizarre attitude for an artist to have. Shayne

(Note from Administrator: This post has been moved here from another thread.) Victor, I hope you realize two things. First, the fact that someone doesn't like your caricatures doesn't mean they don't understand art. Second, that there's nothing clever about the idea of showing Einstein's brain bursting out of his skull. I mean, that's an obvious gag to think up. You said a lot of things. But precious little about the Einstein caricature. Actually I wonder if it's fair to ask the artist to explain. It's definitely not your duty to. But I am interested and curious about what you thought you were trying to convey there. If you want to know what I get out of it I'll try to explain. I don't claim to be expert on the theory of caricature art. But I off the top of my head, the right approach would be along the lines of: amplify those physical characteristics which best underscore the essence of the person being caricatured. If you don't know who someone is, you can't really caricature them right I would imagine. A purely physical caricature (like gratuitously large nose or something) is a far lesser form of art than one that tries to convey something abstract and important about the subject. Shayne

(Note from Administrator: This post has been moved here from another thread.) I ask you to explain why you're defending something as good and you react by attacking me. That doesn't help your case. Yeah, the minute you try to answer I'm going to tape your fingers so you can't type... Unlike you, who doesn't have the power to ban me or delete my posts.... You're making almost as much sense as Victor. Shayne

(Note from Administrator: This post has been moved here from another thread.) It's a huge mistake to assume that I think caricature and parody art should yield the same aesthetic experience as romantic realism. Rather than make poor guesses about what I think about art in general, it'd be interesting to see an analysis of, say, the Einstein caricature, of the aesthetic value allegedly offered from that. Someone's brains popping out of their skull with shreds of skin dangling, I really am curious as to what somebody might think is great about that. Shayne

(Note from Administrator: This post has been moved here from another thread.) Well good for you. This is why I usually refrain from interacting with you. I mean, it's trivial to notice that "benevolent universe" does not equal "doesn't ever make negative evaluations of anything." You're not stupid. What alternatives does that leave? You like spewing irrational statements (not unlike your irrational art)? You simply are irrational as a habit and don't notice the illogic? You tell me, that kind of behavior I cannot fathom. Shayne

(Note from Administrator: This post has been moved here from another thread.)

(Note from Administrator: This post has been moved here from another thread.) You object to me stating an evaluation of Victor's art (the art I have seen anyway, that's all I can speak to), and in return make an even more sweeping evaluation of me. Don't be hypocrite. If you don't like it when others judge, then don't judge. You're the Christian, right? Or did I misunderstand. Anyway, you seem to subscribe to the Jesus view of "judge not". So at least be consistent. Judge not. Or is it your view that it's only valid to judge judgers? That the worst evil is to be "intolerant" of evil? Given your trashy tastes, I don't think it's speaking well to Victor's art that you like it. (For the record, I don't claim that all of Victor's art is bad since I have no idea what the scope of it is. I definitely did not like the Einstein rendering, I thought it was creepy.) Shayne

(Note from Administrator: This post has been copied from here.) I can see Victor making such a comment given his art (I think his "curmudgeon nihilist" remark isn't so far off the mark). I have no idea why you'd make it, the stuff you've shown here would fit in well at http://www.cordair.com for instance. Shayne

Jonathan, Just a quick comment for now: A lot of Objectivists might think they can determine a person's philosophy from their art but they lack the ability to actually do it right. That's a mistake. It's also a mistake to say that you can't learn something about a person from the art they like or create, including learning something about their philosophy. There's a lot of Objectivists out there of both the intrinsicist and subjectivist variety, and they definitely set each other off. Then there are the few who really get it, and set both off as well. It's kind of like how conservatives see us as liberals, and liberals see us as conservative. That happens within the movement too. Subjectivist-leaning Objectivists see true Objectivists as intrinsicists, while intrinsicist-leaning Objectivists see true Objectivists as subjectivists. Shayne

That you revel in trash is not something to brag about. And that's not mentioning how low you've got to be to mock someone for not respecting trash. Shayne

I agree. Except that it's not "can't we do better" it's more like "what an absolutely deranged answer." Rich, that is just sick. I wouldn't want to be anyone else for a day, but if I could know the thoughts and feelings of someone on a given day, then: Tesla, the day he left Edison for going back on a promise and went on to power the world with his AC motor, or the day they turned on the Niagra Falls generator many years after he dreamed of tapping its powers; or Newton, the day he invented calculus; or Aristotle, when he realized he could identify and systematize the laws of logic. Shayne

(Note from Administrator: This post has been copied to another thread. It is also now here.) I can see Victor making such a comment given his art (I think his "curmudgeon nihilist" remark isn't so far off the mark). I have no idea why you'd make it, the stuff you've shown here would fit in well at http://www.cordair.com for instance. Shayne

Now that would be nice. Is Ken an anarchist? Shayne

Your method is sound, at least at a general level (you might be leaning too hard on deduction, I couldn't say without more details). In fact it's part of the inductive process to circle back through deduction like this. To formalize is to finish. I'll have to get back to you on any other thoughts I might have on your deduction. Shayne

Wow. Something we can agree on. Great work, I'd like to see more! Shayne

Here's the point. The "talent people" have incessantly distorted Michael D's and my position. And they continue to do so since I walked off--everything you guys are responding to is a straw man. Everything you say that we allegedly said or meant is a totally bogus phantom you fabricated, either because you just could not grasp what we said, or worse, that you refuse to. We have tried to set you straight on what we meant (i.e., on what we actually *said* vs. your bizarre distortions), to no avail, so what's the point of continuing? There is no point. And that's not mentioning Victor and his "art". Shayne

And neither did I. In fact I said the opposite, early in this thread. And I objected later when they started claiming that I said the opposite of what I actually said. So it's not as if this hasn't been repeatedly pointed out to them. I agree, but I'm not bowing out, I'm walking off. Shayne

It's true that ethics is only in regard to beings with volition. But Rand's definition of life is much broader than that, it's intended to apply to all living entities not just us. Perhaps we could be of more help if you specified what your purpose is here. Are you trying to understand why one's life should be the standard in ethics? To prove that that's the case? Shayne

When we tell you what *we* think you start saying we're only parroting Ayn Rand. Then you act surprised at the vitrol you get in return. I already complained about your insults about a dozen posts up. Look it up if you care. I don't care enough to rub your nose in it. Shayne

It was Victor who started with the slimy insults. He richly deserves the angry edge from me. Shayne

To say "I'm a good teacher so it must be the kid's genes" is a recipe for self-delusion. So you don't have any blind spots when it comes to teaching, and you just axiomatically know it. No need to question *yourself*, it must be something outside of yourself that explains why you failed. Again with the sloppy reading and thinking. *I never said you said he didn't have it*. I said you have that attitude, and it probably rubbed off on the poor kid. And your "I wish the truth was as axiomatic" crap--I'll bet you say that everytime you bump into somebody who has the audacity to know something you don't. You come in here pretending to ask questions, and then when someone answers you, you aren't happy because they know something you don't so you start insulting them. Shayne