anonrobt

of course, this is not available in this area, his show...........

Between the Popemobile and the Darth Vadermobile, they've covered it all.............

There is no such thing as a 'social contract' - an association with others is NOT a contract...

Interesting to think about, for sure.........

INDEED !!

I know nothing of the Orlando or even St Pete as far as theaters go, but as for Tampa itself found it best for me to go to the Citrus Park theater as it showed from noon on, and the price was reasonable... however, this is also because have no transportation other than the city buses... otherwise it would had been the Hyde Park Cinebistro, which is upscale, plays in the evening, costs double, and was the original independent theater to offer the movie here [it, or rather its predecessor, also opened We The Living when it played way back some years ago]...

I think I will go see it again tomorrow after the tea party. By then they should have had the time to fix the flaws in the movie, replaced the actors with people at least 10 years older (Jodie, you in?) and made it a half hour longer.

Kat

Agree that a half hour more would had taken care of much of the seeming discrepancies...

Does anyone else know very well another book of the same scope that has been made into a movie? We own or have seen every Pride and Prejudice. Some are better than others, regardless of the matinee draw of the stars.

I think that like that, and Star Trek, this movie will play best to fans.

Gone With the Wind.

War and Peace...

please have a look at this:

http://www.tudelft.n...3-2bicycles.pdf

Bikes have been around for about 200 years and we are just beginning to understand how they balance and how they turn. One would think it could be deduced straightforwardly from Newtonian physics but things are not as simple as one would expect.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Interesting........

Of course Binswanger completely ignores David Kelley's excellent The Art of Reasoning...

Latest word is they're now talking of expanding to 50 cities - due to overwhelming channeling to chain theaters... http://www.abc27.com/Global/story.asp?S=14365694

.

Congratulations, Aaron and Jenn and other organizers on your 2011 presentations!

.

Dang - forgot about this... ah well, gives me a year to polish up what was going to try to present - 'Theming in Art - a Themescapist View'...

Of course there won't be an EU by 2020, so moot there, too......

Indeed, a most Happy B'day...... B)

The translation I have of Les Miserables is by Fahnestock & MacAfee, and is an unabridged translation [most are truncated ones], but also have it in French, as with the others of Hugo - Notre Dame De Paris, The Man Who Laughed, Toilers of the Sea, and Ninety-three [indeed, his works are one of the reasons for learning French and why keep my fingers in it enough to coarsely read it]... very true, those translations done in the 19th and early 20th century were full of prudery, whatever the languages [Aristophanes, for instance, was terribly bowdlerized], tho Constance Garnett's Russian ones were considered quite good...

As for Ayn's translatings, they were only to the extent of providing those examples in her essays and articles - she never translated any of the books as such, as she was fluent in French...

Vatican City -- Pope Benedict XVI has made a sweeping exoneration of the Jewish people for the death of Jesus Christ

But of course, objectively, he is wrong again, second time round.

A few "Jewish people" were palpably responsible for the execution of one of their own.

The first time round was the sweeping assertion that Jews, qua Jews, were responsible - and forever would be.

Thereby laying Original Sin on them.

I suppose two wrongs make a right in some places...

Tony

it was Roman soldiers who pounded in the nails and put cousin Joshuah up on a cross. Crucifixion is not a form of capital punishment specified in Halachah (Jewish law). The forms provided in Jewish law are : stoning and strangulation. And even these were very rarely invoked.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Face it - very few outside the Jewish community understand Jewish culture and/or laws - and that especially means 99% of Christians....

Many thanks - could never, as a 'starving artist' afford getting these over the years, tho had always wanted to...

the full firebird....

The Painted Word

PEOPLE DON’T READ THE MORNING NEWSPAPER, Marshall McLuhan once said, they slip into it like a warm bath. Too true, Marshall! Imagine being in New York City on the morning of Sunday, April 28, 1974, like I was, slipping into that great public bath, that vat, that spa, that, regional physiotherapy tank, that White Sulphur Springs, that Marienbad, that Ganges, that River Jordan for a million souls which is the Sunday New York Times. Soon I was submerged, weightless, suspended in the tepid depths of the thing, in Arts & Leisure, Section 2, page 19, in a state of perfect sensory deprivation, when all at once an extraordinary thing happened:

I noticed something!

Yet another clam-broth-colored current had begun to roll over me, as warm and predictable as the Gulf Stream ... a review, it was, by the Time’s dean of the arts, Hilton Kramer, of an exhibition at Yale University of “Seven Realists,” seven realistic painters . . . when I was jerked alert by the following:

“Realism does not lack its partisans, but it does rather conspicuously lack a persuasive theory. And given the nature of our intellectual commerce with works of art, to lack a persuasive theory is to lack something crucial—the means by which our experience of individual works is joined to our understanding of the values they signify.”

Now, you may say, My God, man! You woke up over that? You forsook your blissful coma over a mere swell in the sea of words?

But I knew what I was looking at. I realized that without making the slightest effort I had come upon one of those utterances in search of which psychoanalysts and State Department monitors of the Moscow or Belgrade press are willing to endure a lifetime of tedium: namely, the seemingly innocuousobiter dicta, the words in passing, that give the game away.

What I saw before me was the critic-in-chief of The New York Times saying: In looking at a painting today, “to lack a persuasive theory is to lack somethingcrucial.” I read it again. It didn’t say “something helpful” or “enriching” or even “extremely valuable.” No, the word was crucial.

In short: frankly, these days, without a theory to go with it, I can’t see a painting.

Then and there I experienced a flash known as the Aha! phenomenon, and the buried life of contemporary art was revealed to me for the first time. The fogs lifted! The clouds passed! The motes, scales, conjunctival bloodshots, and Murine agonies fell away!

All these years, along with countless kindred souls, I am certain, I had made my way into the galleries of Upper Madison and Lower Soho and the Art Gildo Midway of Fifty-seventh Street, and into the museums, into the Modern, the Whitney, and the Guggenheim, the Bastard Bauhaus, the New Brutalist, and the Fountainhead Baroque, into the lowliest storefront churches and grandest Robber Baronial temples of Modernism. All these years I, like so many others, had stood in front of a thousand, two thousand, God-knows-how-many thousand Pollocks, de Koonings, Newmans, Nolands, Rothkos, Rauschenbergs, Judds, Johnses, Olitskis, Louises, Stills, Franz Klines, Frankenthalers, Kellys, and Frank Stellas, now squinting, now popping the eye sockets open, now drawing back, now moving closer—waiting, waiting, forever waiting for . . . it . . for it to come into focus, namely, the visual reward (for so much effort) which must be there, which everyone (tout le monde) knew to be there—waiting for something to radiate directly from the paintings on these invariably pure white walls, in this room, in this moment, into my own optic chiasma. All these years, in short, I had assumed that in art, if nowhere else, seeing is believing. Well—how very shortsighted! Now, at last, on April 28, 1974, I could see. I had gotten it backward all along. Not “seeing is believing,” you ninny, but “believing is seeing,” for Modern Art has become completely literary: the paintings and other works exist only to illustrate the text.

...

copyright © 1975 by Tom Wolfe

Always liked that book.... about sums it all up [except am sure someone will claim is a 'shallow' view lacking 'aesthetic sensibilities']...

New Umberto Eco novel scheduled for October 2010! Woo-hoo!!

http://czechmatediary.com/2010/07/07/umberto-ecos-next-novel-targets-prague/

It’s made the Vatican and a high profile Rabbi unhappy, this bodes well. But it may be up to a year before a translation gets published.

http://threemonkeysonline.com/book_blog/2010/novels/umberto-ecos-cemetery-of-prague-creates-controversy

According to Amazon, The Cemetery of Prague is due out in November, 2011...

"An additional problem is Rand's insistence that art must communicate without reference to "outside considerations," such as titles, artists' or composers' statements, etc. How much of your responses to music, Stephen, involve access to "outside considerations"? How much of Rand's did? In my experience, if you inform a person of what a piece of music is supposed to be "about," even with something as simple as a brief title, they tend to visualize what they were told to visualize. It's very hard for people to disregard "outside considerations" once exposed to them." [Jonathan]

just where did Rand actually say this? or is this actually YOUR interpretation?

[eg - the title of a novel is an integral part of the work - you're supposed to have read Atlas Shrugged without knowing the title?? the same is, properly, with regards a painting, as it is the theme/title which sets the stage, in the same manner as so with the novel... and one could, for the same reason, say the same with music...

Ok Ted, that clears your comments up for me.

Carol and primness...hmmm

Ted explains #6...

That's a shame.

I liked watching Jack Lalanne over the years. I even got a kick out of seeing his infomercials for his juicer.

He lived well and the world now has one less light in it.

Michael

He was my fitness guru when in college - the hardest 15 minutes of the day, but worth it - and ye not had to get any fancy equipment either, as he used the kitchen chairs and so forth as the props needed... had hoped he'd make it to the century mark...

Some novelists, Jane Austen notably, simply grab the first available name for their characters and get on with the story. Others choose their characters' names carefully, and I believe Ayn Rand was one of these, as she chose every element of her major novels carefully. (Please note I am thinking about this only as reader; someone who read her novels once, remembers them in part, and has read many commentaries on them since then.)

My main impression was that her character names were surprisingly boring.

First, the syllabic predictability. Everybody has two two-syllable names, just like real Anglo-Saxons, or two one-syllable ones to denote singularity.

We know Hank Rearden is legally Henry Rearden (Ron Reagan-Ronald Reagan).The Ellsworth Tooheys and so on are funnily parodic, but they're still two-two syllables.

Second, the harshness or bleakness of the female names. "dagny taggart" has an ugly, harsh sound to my mental ear. Perhaps it was not so for Rand, a Russian speaker, but she gave beautiful names to the characters in her best novel , We The Living.

The exception is Dominique Francon, whose name is French as were the stories Rand loved in her youth, and who is the character she famously described as "myself in a bad mood."

Well, we canna name all our characters Clem Cladyddihopper...

I don't get it Rich.

is just mirror confusion - his...