Apples - Rand on Still Life Paintings, Plus

[Brant Gaede]

Tony, insofar as Ayn Rand was an aestheticist it was her philosophy called "Objectivism," but it wasn't, isn't, Objectivism. You are consistently working with her philosophy only and the implicit assumption--implicit if not explicit--of it's universal validity. Thus you have an unending argument with the likes of me and Jonathan. I care mostly about the philosophy and he cares mostly about the aesthetics. The only one meeting you square here, is Ellen.

Now about subjectivism: Rand accepted the subjectivist theory of value in economics for she embraced the Austrian school. This contradicts your bifurcations. Your last paragraph above is just ignorant-silly anti-conceptual in itself. You've even embraced the analytic-synthetic dichotomy with your cross-disciplines' smearing.

--Brant

[anthony]

Brant: I always respect your balanced and independent evaluation, on the few times I don't agree with it, even. Art is essential to man's concepts, which means his reason, which means his consciousness.

I say there's no split between the philosphy and the aesthetics, one is the other. I know with the certainty of experience that it (all of it) is mostly about the *direction* one takes, less the destination or the arrival. Sometimes art supplies the direction signs while being its own reward.

That's another "implicit", which I'm not going to be able to "prove" to anyone else.

No matter, time to drop out of this one. Thanks. (To you too, Ellen.)

[Jonathan]

Ellen. First, my "buying into Rand's ideas" is such rot.

You haven't just bought into Rand's ideas, but you've done so uncritically, which is why you evade my questions about proving your and Rand's assertions. You've gone beyond Objectivism and have become Obedient.

Tony, there are a lot of visual artworks in existence that Rand didn't comment on. There must be some, if only a few, that you would feel safe in classifying as art without Rand's permission, and which you think are examples of great art. So, as I've asked you several times now, please give us some examples of romantic visual art which qualify as great art, and explain how you've rationally/scientifically tested and verified the fact that you haven't subjectively misread the work and that the artists did not fail in communicating their "views" to you. Please describe the method that you used in discovering what "view" the artist intended to convey. If you believe that the artist didn't know what he intended to convey, but that he ended up conveying his "metaphysical views" anyway, then demonstrate how you came to that conclusion using logic and reason. And also show how your method differs from Rorschach tests, witch trials and all other forms of pseudoscience.

Please, Tony, apply the stated Objectivist principle of proof. Stop evading, stop arguing against phantom straw men, and start directly answering questions.

Many other Obedient Objectivists share your Solipsistic PseudoEsthetic mindset, including Dr. Mrs. Dr. Comrade Sonia, PhD, Michael Newberry, Stephen Hicks, Pigero, Ed Hudgins, Roger Bissell (and his wife), and several of the kiddies over at OO. Like you, they also appoint themselves as infallible and as the limit of aesthetic sensitivity and capacity. But they sometimes disagree with your judgments of art, and with each other's, and they therefore assert that you're "in denial" and "just really wrong" and "just making thing up where anyone with a brain could see that they're wrong." The question is, when you aesthetic giants and centers of the universe disagree, but you're each claiming to be the standard and limit of objectivity and aesthetic judgment, how would we decide which of you geniuses is superior to all of the other centers of the universe?

J

[Brant Gaede]

Sigh. Facts can't fight a story if the investment in the story is great.

I've been changing my story since I first read Atlas Shrugged in 1963.

It took me decades to now to become an individualist though I've been working off that premise since 1972 when I realized learning Objectivism was learning a catechism.

--Brant

I think the next step might be to become a humanitarian

[dldelancey]

Cognitive abstractions are formed by the criterion of: what is essential? (epistemologically essential to distinguish one class of existents from all others). Normative abstractions are formed by the criterion of: what is good? Esthetic abstractions are formed by the criterion of: what is important?

Critics would keep art at the level of "esthetic abstractions", regarding the cognitive and normative abstractions as out of bounds. They drag art towards mysticism while Rand dragged it into light, consciousness and identity. Does it mean that every instance of visual art is easily identifiable? no of course not. Much can give pleasure, for its aesthetics or originality alone. Etc. However, revering just

the aesthetics is like stopping at the level of percepts, never integrating them into concepts.

"This is what life means (or doesn't mean)to me" - is the almost greatest ~selfish~ statement which could be made.

It presupposes an ego, volitional judgement and authority in oneself, usually squashed down by the altruism-collectivism of previous and modern times.

I have yet to see anyone claim that what Vermeer or Shakespeare depicted is what "life meant" to him or her. "Ah but we don't accept those premises!"(Convenient cop-out). But the beauty of Shakespeare's brilliant words, his aesthetics, does not gainsay his -obvious to anyone who can read- gloomy view of a determined existence. Vermeer portrays the humble folk and the privileged gentry with an accurate and caustic eye. The beauty of his aesthetics only makes his view of life worse by comparison to that beauty, by showing it up with his outstanding technique and light.

In all this discussion of Vermeer there has hardly been a single personal evaluation of his work: "charming" is about all I recall. Easy enough to challenge my submissions, without taking in my intent (as poor as it is next to Rand's intent), less easy to honestly make your own judgements- and possibly open oneself to ridicule.

All of this is essentially not about art, it's about conflicting philosophies. The anti-conceptual, the determinist, the mystical, the empiricist, the intrinsicist, the altruist and the subjectivist. Contra Objectivist.

Actually, I attempted to engage you and honestly discuss the milkmaid painting and my impressions with you. I went a bit beyond "charming" even. Ridicule me if you want, but that painting brings to my mind the deep, personal bond I have with my only child and the comfort and security our home provides for him. I'm still unclear as to whether you think my impression is somehow not a valid one. If it isn't, then why isn't it?

[Jonathan]

"Calm serenity"? You mean as you'd find in a mental asylum? Or in a bucolic existence milking the cows every day, and delivering milk to the Mistress, every day? Without even considering the title, I'd say my impression of servitude and drudgery has more validity than "serenity".The only question remains, honestly, would you or anyone here be able to state, after a quick scan of The Milkmaid:"THIS is what life means to me!"

I'm getting the impression that Tony has some rather hateful notions of women.

First, instead of looking at a panting without prejudices, he brings a seemingly endless list of irrelevant requirements, and one of the primary ones is that if the painting includes women, then their physical appearance must be very pleasing to him. Regardless of context, women must be pretty and thin, because that's the way that Tony likes his ornaments.

Second, a woman who is depicted in a painting is deserving of respect only if she pursues a career that Tony has been programmed to find acceptable. She can be a novelist, obviously, and a railroad executive, but if she works in any other field, she is to be looked down upon. She is filth. She is not Ayn Rand or Dagny Taggart, and therefore her work, by definition, is "servitude" and "drudgery." If she enjoys the virtue of productivity, it must come only from writing novels or running railroads. All other types of work that a woman might do are so disgusting, futile and meaningless as to induce a mental state that one would find in a "mental asylum."

Third, apparently to Tony, women are stupid. While enjoying performing a simple task, they cannot think of, say, being in love, or of having found new opportunities to rise, or of the general joy of existence. No, they're women, and therefore their minds are capable of focusing only on what is in front of them. If they appear to be serene and contemplative, then they must be contemplating only the simple task that Tony can see. (If someone were to point out that there are little symbols in the painting which might indicate what a character's mind is on, Tony will laugh with incredulity because a lowly woman who settles for such shitty work could not be thinking those types of thoughts. People are therefore "just making things up" and "reading meaning into meaningless objects." Remember, Tony is the limit of aesthetic sensitivity, and if he doesn't see, say, a Cupid as representing anything in a painting, then anyone who does is delusional.)

J

[Brant Gaede]

"Calm serenity"? You mean as you'd find in a mental asylum? Or in a bucolic existence milking the cows every day, and delivering milk to the Mistress, every day? Without even considering the title, I'd say my impression of servitude and drudgery has more validity than "serenity".The only question remains, honestly, would you or anyone here be able to state, after a quick scan of The Milkmaid:"THIS is what life means to me!"

I'm getting the impression that Tony has some rather hateful notions of women.

First, instead of looking at a panting without prejudices, he brings a seemingly endless list of irrelevant requirements, and one of the primary ones is that if the painting includes women, then their physical appearance must be very pleasing to him. Regardless of context, women must be pretty and thin, because that's the way that Tony likes his ornaments.

Second, a woman who is depicted in a painting is deserving of respect only if she pursues a career that Tony has been programmed to find acceptable. She can be a novelist, obviously, and a railroad executive, but if she works in any other field, she is to be looked down upon. She is filth. She is not Ayn Rand or Dagny Taggart, and therefore her work, by definition, is "servitude" and "drudgery." If she enjoys the virtue of productivity, it must come only from writing novels or running railroads. All other types of work that a woman might do are so disgusting, futile and meaningless as to induce a mental state that one would find in a "mental asylum."

Third, apparently to Tony, women are stupid. While enjoying performing a simple task, they cannot think of, say, being in love, or of having found new opportunities to rise, or of the general joy of existence. No, they're women, and therefore their minds are capable of focusing only on what is in front of them. If they appear to be serene and contemplative, then they must be contemplating only the simple task that Tony can see. (If someone were to point out that there are little symbols in the painting which might indicate what a character's mind is on, Tony will laugh with incredulity because a lowly woman who settles for such shitty work could not be thinking those types of thoughts. People are therefore "just making things up" and "reading meaning into meaningless objects." Remember, Tony is the limit of aesthetic sensitivity, and if he doesn't see, say, a Cupid as representing anything in a painting, then anyone who does is delusional.)

J

I think you're trying to get into Tony's mind with your ideas attached to the two-by-four you're hitting him over the head with, but, if so, it won't work, for the ideas without your escort didn't get in before and armoring them up with ad hominem just creates more resistance. Both you and he seem to be making different moral arguments, with you inside esthetics and he inside Objectivism. One problem with the latter--not the only problem--is being inside Objectivism in his sense is not being inside oneself, which he will naturally dispute, which pretty much explains how much of a dead-end Ayn Rand's philosophy has become qua philosophy.

--Brant

Peikoff's basic mistake, too, and Rand's

[Jonathan]

Here's an old post of mine from RoR on Vermeer, Objectivist stupidity and double standards:

http://rebirthofreason.com/Forum/ArticleDiscussions/1558_5.shtml#103

The entire thread is a fun read. It's got the same elements as this thread, including some real dimwits proudly reciting the things that they were programmed to say. Marnee Dearman was my favorite, and I was highly amused by Jody Gomez's challenge that I take a poll on Vermeer, and his bet that Rand would outshine me as a judge of art. Brainwashed zombies.

J

[PDS]

"Calm serenity"? You mean as you'd find in a mental asylum? Or in a bucolic existence milking the cows every day, and delivering milk to the Mistress, every day? Without even considering the title, I'd say my impression of servitude and drudgery has more validity than "serenity".The only question remains, honestly, would you or anyone here be able to state, after a quick scan of The Milkmaid:"THIS is what life means to me!"

I'm getting the impression that Tony has some rather hateful notions of women.

First, instead of looking at a panting without prejudices, he brings a seemingly endless list of irrelevant requirements, and one of the primary ones is that if the painting includes women, then their physical appearance must be very pleasing to him. Regardless of context, women must be pretty and thin, because that's the way that Tony likes his ornaments.

Second, a woman who is depicted in a painting is deserving of respect only if she pursues a career that Tony has been programmed to find acceptable. She can be a novelist, obviously, and a railroad executive, but if she works in any other field, she is to be looked down upon. She is filth. She is not Ayn Rand or Dagny Taggart, and therefore her work, by definition, is "servitude" and "drudgery." If she enjoys the virtue of productivity, it must come only from writing novels or running railroads. All other types of work that a woman might do are so disgusting, futile and meaningless as to induce a mental state that one would find in a "mental asylum."

Third, apparently to Tony, women are stupid. While enjoying performing a simple task, they cannot think of, say, being in love, or of having found new opportunities to rise, or of the general joy of existence. No, they're women, and therefore their minds are capable of focusing only on what is in front of them. If they appear to be serene and contemplative, then they must be contemplating only the simple task that Tony can see. (If someone were to point out that there are little symbols in the painting which might indicate what a character's mind is on, Tony will laugh with incredulity because a lowly woman who settles for such shitty work could not be thinking those types of thoughts. People are therefore "just making things up" and "reading meaning into meaningless objects." Remember, Tony is the limit of aesthetic sensitivity, and if he doesn't see, say, a Cupid as representing anything in a painting, then anyone who does is delusional.)

J

I think you're trying to get into Tony's mind with your ideas attached to the two-by-four you're hitting him over the head with, but, if so, it won't work, for the ideas without your escort didn't get in before and armoring them up with ad hominem just creates more resistance. Both you and he seem to be making different moral arguments, with you inside esthetics and he inside Objectivism. One problem with the latter--not the only problem--is being inside Objectivism in his sense is not being inside oneself, which pretty much explains how much of a dead-end Ayn Rand's philosophy has become qua philosophy.

--Brant

Brant:

There is a ton of wisdom in that last sentence of yours above. Also, before I forget: kudos for "leave the gun, take the canolies." Very nicely done.

[tmj]

This is why I love this forum, so much wisdom being bandied about , so much to offer for chewing, from intelligent and spirited participants( for the most part, I'm more a viewer) and not to belittle any argument, but someone should write the novel(or novella) Panting Without Prejudice

[PDS]

This is why I love this forum, so much wisdom being bandied about , so much to offer for chewing, from intelligent and spirited participants( for the most part, I'm more a viewer) and not to belittle any argument, but someone should write the novel(or novella) Panting Without Prejudice

Perhaps it could be written under the nom de plume "Jane Airs".

[Jonathan]

...but someone should write the novel(or novella) Panting Without Prejudice

Heh. Wears Role & when ewe knead hymn?

J

[anthony]

I think you're trying to get into Tony's mind with your ideas attached to the two-by-four you're hitting him over the head with, but, if so, it won't work, for the ideas without your escort didn't get in before and armoring them up with ad hominem just creates more resistance. Both you and he seem to be making different moral arguments, with you inside esthetics and he inside Objectivism. One problem with the latter--not the only problem--is being inside Objectivism in his sense is not being inside oneself, which he will naturally dispute, which pretty much explains how much of a dead-end Ayn Rand's philosophy has become qua philosophy.

--Brant

Peikoff's basic mistake, too, and Rand's

Brant, I can only guess what you mean by "being inside Objectivism...and not being inside oneself".

But you don't know me, friend, for all your usual insight.

To maybe bore you with details, I came back to Objectivism, properly, 5-6 years ago. Not green behind the ears - with a shitload of experience, good and bad. I have come a long ways to fully grasping Objectivism after the lazy, false start I made in my 20's. Looking back on my life and observations of others' lives, and particularly in my applications of Objectivism now, it all fits. Mostly, I've done it my way, thinking Objectivism through without all the peripheral baggage of personalities and doings - I believe I've left nothing Rand said untried and untested. The results, for my personal growth and my understanding of all things, have been startling. I'm not "inside Objectivism", it has become my tool. It's confirmed for me stuff I'd only guessed at or felt before, including art.

And I think unexamined art is not worth much. I think that to suspend consciousness, or even suggest one should -in any field- is against life and one's own life. I don't even think the art-authoritarians, who oppose my opinions (calling ME authoritarian, quite ironically) get the best out of art, themselves. Like all knowledge itself, a skeptic doesn't really believe an understanding of a piece of art is possible, and any attempt to judge it is almost immoral.

Just tell that to the artists who genuinely want to be 'known' with clarity!

'Selfishly' drawing cognitive and moral value from an artwork - even at the risk of being wrong - is beyond the pale for many. It's the nub of Objectivism, (as opposed to Skepticism) that to be wrong today means you can correct it tomorrow, nevertheless one acts on today's knowledge.

Let J. have his childish rave. It's amusing. At least it's honest and out in the open, not smearing me behind the scenes. Funny though: I evidently hate women. Not the painting representing all women who lived their lives in service from children to worn out 50-ish, trapped in an unjust class system and by their own gender: No, just women.

(I'd like to see any female member here say The Milk Maid "is what life means" to her).

The possibility that Vermeer himself wished to high-light exactly the injustice of that class system --is a guess I will of course NOT have the temerity to make.

(Oh. Too late.)

[Jonathan]

I think you're trying to get into Tony's mind with your ideas attached to the two-by-four you're hitting him over the head with, but, if so, it won't work, for the ideas without your escort didn't get in before and armoring them up with ad hominem just creates more resistance.

I don't think it's possible to reach Tony. He is Obedient. It's like Jonestown, Heaven's Gate or the Branch Davidians. He is incapable of understanding the nonsense of his position.

He is like Marnee Dearman here claiming that "the evidence of [her] senses tells" her that Rand was right about Vermeer, and therefore that there is no possibility that Rand might have been wrong in imagining that she could look at a single painting and identify with absolute precision and certainty the artist's "sense of life," "metaphysical value-judgments," deep "inner conflicts" and psychological problems. Dearman is self-congratulatorily "egotistical" in believing that she is rewarding herself by preferring Bryan Larsen over Vermeer! (I have to wonder if she'd have the same preference for Larsen if she didn't know ahead of time of his fondness for Objectivism.)

If you ask the Obedient to prove their loony assertions, and offer them evidence that an artist did not have the views and psychological problems that the Obedient attribute to him, they slither and use the snake-oily Randian tactic of claiming to know the artist better than he knew himself. They abandon the ideas of logic, rationality, objective proof, falsifiability, reason, fairness, and critical thinking when it comes to aesthetics.

In short, their method is the opposite of everything that Objectivism stands for in the other branches of the philosophy. Their method is the nonsense thinking and tactics of witch trials, it is the intentionally irrational strategies of non-falsifiability of anthropogenic global warming, etc.

Both you and he seem to be making different moral arguments, with you inside esthetics and he inside Objectivism.

I disagree with you there, Brant. Tony is not "inside Objectivism." He is only "inside" the Objectivist PseudoEsthetics. He's actually contradicting the Objectivist Epistemology by uncritically buying into the irrationality -- the anti-objectivity -- of the so-called Objectivist Esthetics. Of the two os us, I am the one coming from inside the Objectivist Epistemology and from a rational approach to aesthetics.

J

[Jonathan]

Let J. have his childish rave. It's amusing. At least it's honest and out in the open, not smearing me behind the scenes.

No one has been talking about you behind the scenes, let alone "smearing" you. Try to lose the paranoia.

Funny though: I evidently hate women. Not the painting representing all women who lived their lives in service from children to worn out 50-ish, trapped in an unjust class system and by their own gender: No, just women.

But Tony, I've Objectively confirmed your hatred of women by using "the evidence of my senses!" What's your beef with that? You and your fellow Obedient aesthetic witch hunters believe that you can know more about Vermeer, or any other artist, than he knew himself just by looking at a painting, but it upsets you that I claim to know your view of women based on the prejudices that you bring to prejudging Vermeer's "pantings"? So, it seems that you're expecting to be exempt from the tactics that you use on others. You like the witch trials except when you're the target?

(I'd like to see any female member here say The Milk Maid "is what life means" to her).

I'd still like to see you identify visual works of art which represent what "life means" to you. I'd like to see you do so in regard to paintings that Rand did not comment on, and which were not created to be Obedient to her ideas. Are there any works of art in existence, other than Rand's and those of her declared followers and loyaltist, which don't receive your nutty witch hunt condemnations?

The possibility that Vermeer himself wished to high-light exactly the injustice of that class system --is a guess I will of course NOT have the temerity to make.

(Oh. Too late.)

You know nothing about the class system of Vermeer's time or the treatment of women in the culture in which he lived.

J

[Brant Gaede]

Tony, we do know you to some extent. That's what posting on a forum like OL gets you. Do I know you well? No. And I'm probably wrong to some extent about what I think I know.

Since this thread is about some issues of esthetics it should be understood when I say trapped inside Objectivism I especially meant esthetics. If not for the rest of the philosophy, fine. However, there is no such thing as Objectivist esthetics, only Objectivism applied to esthetics. Either way it all goes off the rails. For all the back and forth only one good and interesting thing, to me, has come from this discussion when you mentioned how art was used to make Objectivism. That's well worth exploring and interesting as all hell. Your views of an ancient artist and one of his works dressed out in an Objectivist insights are from the same cloth as Peikoff trying to make Objectivism--what he says is Objectivism, explicit or implied--do the same for physics. Even if the two of you are right in your observations, they still must in the general nature of things turn the philosophy into a joke fest. One needs to understand that the philosophy of Ayn Rand is not Objectivism; she just caled it that. That's why some philosophical idiots go around saying if she said it or wrote it or endorsed it in her lifetime, it's Objectivism. If you boil off the Randian lard you get a philosophy of reason. That's what science is all about also--reason applied. That's half the philosophy right there; metaphysics and epistemology. Something found to be true is not Objectivism save it's reason applied. Truth is truth. Objectivism doesn't broker truth; reason does. Reason basically requires individualism. That's why it's the philosophy of rational self interest and laissez faire capitalism or individual rights. It's off these basic principles in ethics and politics that we deal with man the social animal and his social needs. Whatever the social needs are, however, when they spill over into politics to the extent of violating rights, it's a moral no go. Now, where in the heck in all this is esthetics? Nowhere. Esthetics is a discipline. Science (and its branches) is a discipline. Psychology is a discipline.

While you might make a philosophy out of your esthetics, when the esthetics tide goes out the philosophy is left on the beach and has become a land animal or--it goes back into the ocean and drowns.

--Brant

[dldelancey]

(I'd like to see any female member here say The Milk Maid "is what life means" to her).

I have been saying, repeatedly, that I see something in The Milk Maid that speaks direclty to part of what life means to me. Apparently my posts are invisible to you.

[Ellen Stuttle]

(I'd like to see any female member here say The Milk Maid "is what life means" to her).

I have been saying, repeatedly, that I see something in The Milk Maid that speaks direclty to part of what life means to me. Apparently my posts are invisible to you.

I'm glad you chimed in, since I was going to look for quotes from your posts - which apparently, as you say, have been invisible to Tony.

Also, apparently, invisible to Tony was this by me (bold emphasis added):

The only question remains, honestly, would you be able to state, after a quick scan of The Milkmaid:

"THIS is what life means to me!"

Even acknowledging you don't cater to "cognitive and normative abstractions" is art, I don't believe you would.

I don't believe I would make such a statement upon viewing ANY art work. Certainly there's a range in

my liking->disliking art works, and there are greater to lesser extents to which I feel a similarity of sensibility, and there are works which might have aspects which remind me of features of myself and my life ("The Milkmaid" is such a work), but I simply don't recognize my way of reacting to art in the way Rand says everyone does react.

[....]

Incidentally, it isn't "'cognitive and normative abstractions' is art." It's aesthetic abstractions, which Rand says are formed by the criterion "What's important?" [....]

Ellen

[Ellen Stuttle]

One needs to understand that the philosophy of Ayn Rand is not Objectivism; she just caled it that. That's why some philosophical idiots go around saying if she said it or wrote it or endorsed it in her lifetime, it's Objectivism.

I'm one who does NOT "understand that the philosophy of Ayn Rand is not Objectivism."

One can argue of course that there are inconsistent features in what Rand called "Objectivism," thus that not all, if any, of Rand's philosophy is true, but what you seem to mean is that "Objectivism"="true philosophy," thus Rand misused the name in using it for HER philosophy.

Ellen

[Brant Gaede]

One needs to understand that the philosophy of Ayn Rand is not Objectivism; she just caled it that. That's why some philosophical idiots go around saying if she said it or wrote it or endorsed it in her lifetime, it's Objectivism.

I'm one who does NOT "understand that the philosophy of Ayn Rand is not Objectivism."

One can argue of course that there are inconsistent features in what Rand called "Objectivism," thus that not all, if any, of Rand's philosophy is true, but what you seem to mean is that "Objectivism"="true philosophy," thus Rand misused the name in using it for HER philosophy.

Ellen

It's a courtesy to Ayn Rand to call her philosophy Objectivism as that's what she called it. Tony made the interesting point how her esthetics grew into her philosophy. Crudely, I have rendered them out. It's captivating and inspiring and seductive to hear her describe her philosophy as man as an heroic being with reason as his only absolute, but it's actually a brain freeze even if a call to action of some kind. Even a call to action is something dubious, however. Going on strike, for instance, was a call to non-action, a kind of passive-aggressiveness. John Galt didn't get to be heroic until the baddies got their hands on him. Francisco had to be to destroy his businesses from the inside for the looters could have fed off them for generations. The most abstract striker most continually heroic was Ragnar being a pirate a la the German raider Atlantis early in WWII.

Objectivism is not a true philosophy, it is a truth-seeking philosophy, but that is not the philosophy of Ayn Rand; she had found the truth. She was Prometheus. She was heroic.

--Brant

hence all the genuflection

[Ellen Stuttle]

Objectivism is not a true philosophy, it is a truth-seeking philosophy, but that is not the philosophy of Ayn Rand; she had found the truth. She was Prometheus. She was heroic.

Best I can make sense out of your post (I can't make much sense out of it), you indeed are co-opting the name "Objectivism" and saying that Rand wasn't entitled to use it. And I think you're saying that she didn't in fact have a philosophy.

Ellen

[anthony]

Let J. have his childish rave. It's amusing. At least it's honest and out in the open, not smearing me behind the scenes.

No one has been talking about you behind the scenes, let alone "smearing" you. Try to lose the paranoia.

Funny though: I evidently hate women. Not the painting representing all women who lived their lives in service from children to worn out 50-ish, trapped in an unjust class system and by their own gender: No, just women.

But Tony, I've Objectively confirmed your hatred of women by using "the evidence of my senses!" What's your beef with that? You and your fellow Obedient aesthetic witch hunters believe that you can know more about Vermeer, or any other artist, than he knew himself just by looking at a painting, but it upsets you that I claim to know your view of women based on the prejudices that you bring to prejudging Vermeer's "pantings"? So, it seems that you're expecting to be exempt from the tactics that you use on others. You like the witch trials except when you're the target?

(I'd like to see any female member here say The Milk Maid "is what life means" to her).

I'd still like to see you identify visual works of art which represent what "life means" to you. I'd like to see you do so in regard to paintings that Rand did not comment on, and which were not created to be Obedient to her ideas. Are there any works of art in existence, other than Rand's and those of her declared followers and loyaltist, which don't receive your nutty witch hunt condemnations?

The possibility that Vermeer himself wished to high-light exactly the injustice of that class system --is a guess I will of course NOT have the temerity to make.

(Oh. Too late.)

You know nothing about the class system of Vermeer's time or the treatment of women in the culture in which he lived.

J

Who the hell do you think you are? You make nothing but scurrilous attacks on me, put words and attitudes in my mouth, and presume to know what I mean and know. "Condemnation". For any who have followed, I have not "condemned" any piece of art here. You cannot begin to know what I know about social injustice of any period. Or what works of art are necessary to me: and those you have not earned the right to know. "Witch trials"? "Tactics I've used on others" Are you mad?

I have stayed only on the ideas - the personal insults and devious tactics have been all yours.

But far easier to attack and undermine others thinking than to reveal anything original or truthful, anything which means something to you, right? It is obvious by the tone, lack of substance and irrationality of your nasty little remarks, that you've felt threatened by some of what I've said.

Y'know, wherever you pitch up discontent and conflict soon follow. Honesty always takes a back seat to your psychological bullying (which you call logic, or something). And yes, I have little doubt you orchestrate these personal vendettas from back stage, I've seen it before and I've not been the only target.

When I speak for myself, it's egotism - when I interpret Rand agreeably, it's Randianism.

Ha, you sure have your tactics well practised. Win at all cost.

[Brant Gaede]

Objectivism is not a true philosophy, it is a truth-seeking philosophy, but that is not the philosophy of Ayn Rand; she had found the truth. She was Prometheus. She was heroic.

Best I can make sense out of your post (I can't make much sense out of it), you indeed are co-opting the name "Objectivism" and saying that Rand wasn't entitled to use it. And I think you're saying that she didn't in fact have a philosophy.

Ellen

She was entitled when she was alive.

She certainly did have a philosophy. Everybody has a philosophy. Objectivism as I use it is inside her philosophy. It's also inside my philosophy.

--Brant

[Brant Gaede]

Well, Tony, if it's not argumentum ad hominem it's close enough to be objectionable ad hominem. I don't think he's being devious, however, just exasperated, and I don't think I've ever exchanged any PM with Jonathan in my life.

--Brant

[anthony]

(I'd like to see any female member here say The Milk Maid "is what life means" to her).

I have been saying, repeatedly, that I see something in The Milk Maid that speaks direclty to part of what life means to me. Apparently my posts are invisible to you.

Yes Deanna, I've seen them. Think about this, and what you saw and why it affected you, and perhaps you'll realise you are reacting on a subliminal level to some aspects of the painting, connotating warmth and homeliness in Vermeer's painting. 'Perhaps' - subconsciously, to his aesthetic ability.

In all honesty can you say it's what LIFE means to you, or does some small thing in it remind you of someone/something important? Will it have the same effect on anyone?

I don't know evidently. An extreme and simple example of it can be catching a glimpse of a shape or colour at some moment, and getting an instant flashback of a place or person, as I've done. And all have done.