Brant Gaede Posted February 24, 2015 Share Posted February 24, 2015 I didn't know Tony was an esthete [...]You didn't!!?? I'd say that he's made his familiarity with visual arts obvious over and over.EllenI'd say that he's revealed himself to be quite unaware and unobservant. Just like the rest of you, other than Billy.JOh, I don't think it was a good test. If we all had been looking for that image on his computer after I pretended to "see" Casper and fiddled with a computer knob or two like he did it would have revealed itself. That said, if the test had been better I admit I'd likely have flunked it too. I suspect Tony would have passed.--Brant (master of solipsism [using "truth"])I'm afraid you failed, J, heh, heh, hehBrant,First of all, I don't need to fiddle with the knobs in order to see the image. In working with minute differences in hue, saturation and value every day, I can see what many people can't. Secondly, as I said in a recent post, there's more to be seen in the adjusted mage that Billy posted, and you don't need to fiddle with any knobs to see it. To me, it stands out like a sore thumb. I'm blown away that no one has seen it. Quite revealing!And speaking of revealing, the interactive art/performance art aspect of my posting the image has been very successful in that you're all playing your roles exactly as predicted: When you fail to see or experience something -- including very obvious somethings -- you announce that I've failed in my presentation!JDon't I get any credit for what "Billy" found? Unknowingly I poked him and he went and found it. I don't claim any great visual acuity, btw. I was shooting the M-14 to qualify in 1964 and I was a natural lefty but my best eye was on the other side. It started raining and my glasses were rendered worse than useless so I switched to the right and knocked the target down. The sergeant monitoring it said, "I don't know how you did that" because all my movements were deliberate and slow including putting my glasses in my pocket while the timed target was just up and sitting there. Then in one swift and continuous motion I brought the "gun" ("This is my rifle, this is my gun; one is for fighting the other for fun") to my shoulder and pulled the trigger ("Bang!") and that was one dead mother-f**k**g target! But I digress. Uh, what was the question?--BrantI take PayPal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonathan Posted February 24, 2015 Share Posted February 24, 2015 Judgments of beauty and ugliness can only be subjective because we are wholly subjective beings.Greghmmmm, I bet their are millions of fans of glamor magazines, and others that would take issue with that!That's not true. Have you ever watched Project Runway, or other fashion-related shows, and seen the difference of opinions among professional fashionistas about what is beautiful and what is ugly.The overwhelming majority of people understand that judgments of beauty are subjective, including those in the glamour/fashion industries. There are actually very few people who resist that reality, and who insist on believing that such judgments are objective.It's especially pitiful when those people can't demonstrate judgments of beauty conforming to Rand's criteria of objectivity, or to their own!J Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonathan Posted February 24, 2015 Share Posted February 24, 2015 Uh, what was the question?The question is, "Go back and look at Billy's adjustment of the image again. Look more carefully. Now, what do you see that you missed before?"J Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brant Gaede Posted February 24, 2015 Share Posted February 24, 2015 An objective standard of beauty might be biological--that is, young men think young women are beautiful for mating purposes. This is species survival. But when it gets into art it seems quite subjective to me. I think the woman depicted in the Mona Lisa is beautiful. I do not try to figure out why. If I were an artist I might be motivated to take it further. It's like Rand not wanting to analyze romantic love--that is, her own feelings in particular.--Brant Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brant Gaede Posted February 24, 2015 Share Posted February 24, 2015 Uh, what was the question?The question is, "Go back and look at Billy's adjustment of the image again. Look more carefully. Now, what do you see that you missed before?"JI was talking about pre-adjustment, so I'll go back and look at your original. I had no problem seeing it in his first rendition.--Brant Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brant Gaede Posted February 24, 2015 Share Posted February 24, 2015 I found it by darkening my screen then tilting it down 45 degrees. Not otherwise. Not even after darkening then stopping there. This seems to be a computer thing more than in-my-eye thing for I don't see how this computer skill is a visual skill. Granted, we have to use computers on the Internet, but you seem to give no credit to differences in computers. Regardless, I've never claimed to be visually proficient the way you are. I only claimed I couldn't see what you implied was there. Back then I spent five minutes staring at the screen and all I saw was a bunch of thin wiggly lines that have nothing to do with anything we are talking about.--Brant Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonathan Posted February 24, 2015 Share Posted February 24, 2015 Uh, what was the question?The question is, "Go back and look at Billy's adjustment of the image again. Look more carefully. Now, what do you see that you missed before?"JI was talking about pre-adjustment, so I'll go back and look at your original. I had no problem seeing it in his first rendition.--BrantWhat I'm saying is that no one has yet identified seeing what I'm talking about as being clearly visible in Billy's adjusted version. There's still something very obvious that you all appear to me missing.J Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
moralist Posted February 24, 2015 Share Posted February 24, 2015 There is a huge technical problem, an artist may not have the tools to execute exactly what he wants. And the results can turn out ugly unintentionally. That could be a motive of postmodernists, if the foundations of a fine art education are not available, then an artist is incapable of creating beauty; a great part of that is technical mastery. Yet creating ugliness is open to anyone reagardless of skill. A well made point. The task of the unskilled, undisciplined, and unprincipled artist is then to try to convince suckers that their ugly pieces of crap are beautiful... ...and the real kicker is that there are plenty of suckers who believe the artist's lie because they share the same lack of morality as the artist! Greg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonathan Posted February 24, 2015 Share Posted February 24, 2015 An objective standard of beauty might be biological--that is, young men think young women are beautiful for mating purposes.You're equating sexual response with "beauty." That doesn't work when you expand your investigation to non-sexual things which people find beautiful -- flowers, sunsets, sea shells, etc. And it really doesn't work when you keep in mind the Objectivist concept of "objectivity," which is that it is the act of volitionally adhering to reality by applying clearly defined objective standards of judgment by means of following the rules of logic and reason. No one judges beauty by using anything resembling such a method. Rather, judgments of beauty are an immediate emotional response to the pleasure that one subjectively experiences in something. The Objectivist notion of objectivity excludes content contributed by individuals' consciousnesses: content which is not inherent in the object. Judgments of beauty are purely contributed by each individual's consciousness, and have nothing to do with volitionally adhering to reality by following the rules of logic and reason.To claim that judgments of beauty are objective is to reject the Objectivist Epistemology.J Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brant Gaede Posted February 24, 2015 Share Posted February 24, 2015 The dog image is pretty amazing, but no, I wasn't referring to it. I was actually referring to the fourth image. (The fifth image does not display on my screen, even when I click on it. Perhaps it means to signify that I am a Zero...)The fifth image is displaying just fine on your screen. It may appear to you to be blank, but it's not.[...]"In fact, I'm quite surprised that no one appears to have any curiosity about the realistic/representational image in question 4. I think it is quite clever. Can no one here see what it is, or figure out a very simple way to see what it is?!!! The more that you know about visuals, imagery, and the manipulation of images, the more comprehensible and clear you should be able to see the image. It's worth the little effort that would be needed! It's got some good humor to it!"The fifth image, with contrast enhanced:Looks a lot like the painting "Elizabeth Throckmorton, by Nicolas De Largilliere:She's smiling in the first and not in the original below. Brings into question what she's doing with her other hand which also brings into question who's hand depicted is that? There are strange highlights on the face but I don't know if they are apropos. She's mocking the viewer--the artist? The face seems more masculinized. The faces have been switched, I suppose.--Brant Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonathan Posted February 24, 2015 Share Posted February 24, 2015 The task of the unskilled, undisciplined, and unprincipled artist is then to try to convince suckers that their ugly pieces of crap are beautiful......and the real kicker is that there are plenty of suckers who believe the artist's lie because they share the same lack of morality as the artist! GregYou got that right! I've seen quite a lot of suckers in O-land being fooled into believing that low-grade work is fabulous.j Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonathan Posted February 24, 2015 Share Posted February 24, 2015 She's smiling in the first and not in the original below. Brings into question what she's doing with her other hand which also brings into question who's hand depicted is that? There are strange highlights on the face but I don't know if they are apropos. She's mocking the viewer--the artist?--BrantShe's a different person in the first!J Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anthony Posted February 24, 2015 Share Posted February 24, 2015 I didn't know Tony was an esthete [...]You didn't!!?? I'd say that he's made his familiarity with visual arts obvious over and over.EllenI'd say that he's revealed himself to be quite unaware and unobservant. Just like the rest of you, other than Billy.JI can see! Lawd almighty, I was blind, now I see!A silly techno-trick, J. As any kid would have done, I didn't fiddle with monitor contrast (or whatever).Not that I'm saying your test is infantile or anything ( no, wait... I am.)As someone who appreciates logic so much, I remind you of the O'ist definition of logic."The art of non-contradictory identification". "Identification" -- "non-contradictory"? Right?Now to see below a photo I shot and processed to Zone IX on Ansell Adams' Zone System scale.(You have 10 minutes to identify the obscure picture to win a prize).C'mon, let's see how visually aware you are! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonathan Posted February 24, 2015 Share Posted February 24, 2015 You're playing your role perfectly, Tony. You're illustrating and embodying my point. I'll be referring people to this thread for years to come. J Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anthony Posted February 24, 2015 Share Posted February 24, 2015 Bzzz. Time's up.It was (to anyone who can see) of course a pure white cat in a pure white bath tub under bright, shadowless light. Only the incredulous will disbelieve me.Zone IX is (to those who know) featureless white on the Grey Scale.And all that goes to show how technical bs can be used to baffle brains.(The prize was a holiday for two to the Hluhluwe Game Reserve). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonathan Posted February 24, 2015 Share Posted February 24, 2015 It's a waste of time to try to communicate a beautifully souled person that is physically ugly, or an ugly spirit in a beautiful shell.Perhaps it would be a waste of time for you, but it doesn't follow that it would be a waste of time for everyone. It would be quite easy to show a physically beautiful person with an ugly soul. Just show him or her engaged in a vicious activity and enjoying it. Ditto a physically ugly person with a beautiful soul -- show him or her engaged in a virtuous activity.Beauty and ugliness in art aren't nearly as subjective as they are in reality.Actually, they are just as subjective. There's nothing about the nature of art that makes subjective tastes any less subjective.J Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonathan Posted February 24, 2015 Share Posted February 24, 2015 Bzzz. Time's up.It was (to anyone who can see) of course a pure white cat in a pure white bath tub under bright, shadowless light. Only the incredulous will disbelieve me.Zone IX is (to those who know) featureless white on the Grey Scale.And all that goes to show how technical bs can be used to baffle brains.(The prize was a holiday for two to the Hluhluwe Game Reserve). Hey, Tony, check out Brant's post 835 and my post 837.J Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
moralist Posted February 25, 2015 Share Posted February 25, 2015 You got that right! I've seen quite a lot of suckers in O-land being fooled into believing that low-grade work is fabulous.That is your own subjective opinion.One person sees beauty while another sees uglyis because each lives by different moral values.Greg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Newberry Posted February 25, 2015 Share Posted February 25, 2015 There is a huge technical problem, an artist may not have the tools to execute exactly what he wants. And the results can turn out ugly unintentionally. That could be a motive of postmodernists, if the foundations of a fine art education are not available, then an artist is incapable of creating beauty; a great part of that is technical mastery. Yet creating ugliness is open to anyone reagardless of skill.A well made point.The task of the unskilled, undisciplined, and unprincipled artist is then to try to convince suckers that their ugly pieces of crap are beautiful......and the real kicker is that there are plenty of suckers who believe the artist's lie because they share the same lack of morality as the artist! Greg Who are the top 10 most expensive living Chinese artists at auction? artnet News was keen to find out. With the help of artnet's Analytics team and Fine Art and Design Price Database, we perused auction results from 2005 to 2014 and have selected the top 10 artists by lot. Zeng Fanzhi, The Last Supper (2001) sold at Sotheby's Hong Kong on October 5, 2013, for $23,269,070. Liu Xiaodong, Disobeying the Rules (1996) sold at Sotheby's Hong Kong on Sunday, October 5, 2014, for $8,530,818. Greg, these two works back up your point, hat tip to Scherk. They are undoubtedly conveying some kind of message, Chinese Uncle Toms in the Last Supper painting? Coal miners after some kind of accident being transported naked in the back of truck? Or male nudists on a tour? Regardless the paintings feel like the artists didn't give a shit about the means, they both show no talent, and makes it very hard to feel empathy for the subjects. The one below might show a spontaneous gestural painting marks - but that runs aground if the gestures are amateurish, not like a master Rembrandt, Sargent, or Degas. The sad part is that it is almost impossible to feel any empathy for the subjects - why would anyone spend money on these, much less than 24 and 9 million dollars? Somewhere going on: the artists, the collectors, the critics, the agents, the culture have an ugly, loathing view of the world, themselves, and/or their culture. I would feel sick to stomach for what the price tags for these works say about humanity, but after 40 years of seeing the elevation of crap I get the sense that the modern art field has opened the doors for and embraced sociopaths. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anthony Posted February 25, 2015 Share Posted February 25, 2015 That back of the truck painting is almost certainly from a photograph - split-second action pictures often are. Nearly all the subjects gaze self-consciously at the same point (an aimed camera) and a sundry detail like those gas cylinders gives the picture a photojournalistic style. (Not that a really good artist couldn't create the scene from scratch). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brant Gaede Posted February 25, 2015 Share Posted February 25, 2015 The only good thing about this painting is trying to figure out what it's about. I see hard hats and gas cylinders. Are these miners? Nothing really makes sense. Nothing adds up. Maybe the title refers to the artist. What else, btw, has he done? So far he looks several years away from graduation from art school."The last supper" is so completely junk the previous owner must have laughed all the way to the bank.--Brantand is laughing stillGoogling the artist Liu reveals quite a hodgepodge; he seems to have something going compositionally, that's all I can see; someone really good could duplicate him to the extent you'd not know who did what, not that one would; I didn't see anything I like nor much technical skill in painting and not being as esthete I can only say, "I just don't get it" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brant Gaede Posted February 25, 2015 Share Posted February 25, 2015 Could the Chinese art market be bogus--just a way of moving wealth around and hiding it?--Brant Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Selene Posted February 25, 2015 Share Posted February 25, 2015 Could the Chinese art market be bogus--just a way of moving wealth around and hiding it?--BrantCertainly possible. Might even reach probable with the disaster brewing in China.A... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brant Gaede Posted February 25, 2015 Share Posted February 25, 2015 "Disaster brewing in China" in the sense used has been manifesting itself one way or another since the Opium Wars. China can go down economically without taking the world with it, but contrarily the world can take China down with it. It has to do with balance of trade and the export dependency ratio in an economy. Germany is the ironical country in all this giant sea of credit and debt. It can't take down Europe but Europe can take down Germany. Greece, the little engine that couldn't, is trying to do(?) what Europe might/will eventually do. Germany conquered Europe with the euro, but eventually Europe will rebel. The EU will survive the euro, and it should.--Brant Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Selene Posted February 25, 2015 Share Posted February 25, 2015 "Disaster brewing in China" in the sense used has been manifesting itself one way or another since the Opium Wars. China can go down economically without taking the world with it, but contrarily the world can take China down with it. It has to do with balance of trade and the export dependency ratio in an economy. Germany is the ironical country in all this giant sea of credit and debt. It can't take down Europe but Europe can take down Germany. Greece, the little engine that couldn't, is trying to do(?) what Europe might/will eventually do. Germany conquered Europe with the euro, but eventually Europe will rebel. The EU will survive the euro, and it should.--BrantChina has an exponential problem in that India will surpass China as the most populous nation on the planet within two (2) decades and China is drowning in it's own sewage. The latter is potentially cataclysmic.However, your observations seem spot on to me. You know more about those issues than I do.A... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now