Michelle Marder Kamhi's "Who Says That's Art?"

[Brant Gaede]

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 ugly

is because each lives by different moral values.

Greg

Greg, using your zany notion of non-leftist, non-feminized logic, does it follow that the art that I create is ugly since you've decided that I have ugly moral values and that I see beauty in that which is actually ugly?

J

The problem seems to be that for Greg moral values are objective and absolute, but esthetic values--his and everyone else's--are subjective and that the esthetics flow out of the moral. If we are all "wholly subjective beings" why isn't morality also wholly subjective and how can one pass objective moral judgments? This only works if Greg himself sets all standards off himself. No one else gets to do the same. If you agree with his esthetic judgments then you as he is beauty and high morality revealed. If next you disagree with his judgment you fall out of heaven unto hell.

To cut to the chase, he is preaching his religion and to argue with him is to argue with an irrationalist. It's nothing but win, win, win for him because his basic reference is perfection with lip service to the fact he might make a mistake and contradict the objective standard which he always snaps back to. Reality as a religion makes reality ersatz for a scientist uses reason to figure out reality and Greg doesn't. Greg uses "Owe!" "Owe!", and more "Owe!". That's not enough; you gotta figure things out, but he only rationalizes. This animal level of response to reality chops off rationality and morality and philosophy generally. It is not what makes a man man. Lower level animals make no esthetic judgments about works of art nor do they create them.

Basically he always ends up saying, "I've got mine; good luck with yours; we're all naked. Man, you are one ugly mother!" This is his weasel way of saying you won the argument.

--Brant

truth is not subjective

[anthony]

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

Hey J. Yep, I see there are two images, one the original, and the other a re-working of it I guess. It puts me in mind of Spot the Difference! puzzles. Detail, major or minor, is missed and overlooked by people. That's your point, I suppose.

But it is common knowledge that people generally aren't very observant. Ask a news reporter or a policeman. Six onlookers might be witness to an incident, and there could be six differing descriptions and six varying accounts of what transpired.

The most fundamental benefit of art-viewing is better learning to see (what is actually there) independent of one's pre-suppositions and visual/cognitive/moral bias .

First, this is not a competition. Second, there's no rush: with sufficient interest and time to peruse a picture, everybody will discover everything within it. The work of art isn't going anywhere, especially once it is firmly established in the mind's eye.

To "fail to see" - instantaneously - is hardly a terrible failure. It can be rectified. Conversely, to be highly observant (and it's not surprising that you are) doesn't entitle one to the unsubstantiated claim of being capable of seeing other or further things not at all visually apparent.

[Brant Gaede]

Once I was blind

But now I see!

[Brant Gaede]

Well, people often value certain works of art very highly despite their being amateurish or otherwise revealing a lack of talent. After all, Rand praised Capuletti to high heaven despite his lack of talent. Kamhi adores Gauguin despite his.

And someone was willing to buy this:

OMG! & Jesus H. Christ!

I kind of like Gauguin. I wish I had some of his paintings.

--Brant

so I could sell them

What is wrong with the picture?

What is right?

edit: I realized there was some Michael Newberry in this and went searching and it's his! I'm happy to say out of a bunch of images of his I found a lot to like. But I don't like this at all.

edit 2: I'll have to study this some more tomorrow

What strikes me first is white and black skin. In spite of the hand holding it tends to divide not bring together the subjects in their common humanity.

Generally when artists do nude human figures--generally, not always--it's one at a time for painting. The esthetic requirements are quite different for man and woman and I think women are much harder to do for their bodies are depicted more in curves than straight lines. Or, the male is more angular. But when you combine the sexes you're fighting to overcome these differences instead of exploiting them. Here I'd say, success! Still, my preference is for the singular nude figure.

The couple is jumping. Gravity means down. There is not one shown reason why they are unnaturally looking up instead of down.

Is that some kind of sofa behind them?

The palm of the black guy is wrong, both color and texture, especially the color. This doesn't mean wrong for this painting, for it matches up with all the other wrongs quite well. A correctly done palm anatomically would be even more distracting, but a just a little lightening up is called for.

The painting seems to be partially done for the sake of a message favoring miscegenation. That's fine, but little reason to put in on your wall unless it's yours and you that's depicted. It would be more interesting if the guy was white and she was black as that's less common. It'd also be more more anti-racist as it contradicts the vulgar culture of the black man seeking and getting a trophy white woman pissing off black women who are left out. I'm aware a contrary argument can be made.

These two subjects simply seem to be in an alternate reality in which there is no up or down just in between, a kind of stasis manufactured by looking up but must be going down for there's no reason shown for them to be going up. Maybe that's the point--the anti-gravity comes from the ecstasy. I just don't see why not ecstasy looking down as in jumping down? Then the work would be harnessing the power of gravity instead of trying to belie it.

--Brant

[Ellen Stuttle]

Michael,

Thanks for your post #874.

I'm glad that you decided to join the discussion.

I bet that Jonathan is too - in a different way.

Ellen

[Jonathan]

Answer the question.

I did.

Why are you playing stupid, Jonathan? How can someone claiming to be so bright suddenly become so dull? Perhaps you're mistaking cunning for wisdom.

Well, in case you're not playing I'll repeat what I had just said just for your benefit.

Each of our tastes in art are completely driven by our moral values, or lack of them.

Each of our tastes in art are different because we each live by different moral standards. Each of us perceives beauty or ugliness subjectively because everyone is a completely subjective being.

Now, what each of us perceives to be beautiful or ugly can either agree or disagree with objective reality. Knowing a truth is beautiful even when that truth is ugly. Believing in a lie is ugly even when that lie appears to be beautiful.

Think about it. Or not. That's your own free choice. I don't care.

Greg

No, you didn't answer the question. You danced around it, and blathered on and on. It's a simple yes or no question. Here it is again:

"Does it follow that the art that I create is ugly since you've decided that I have ugly moral values and that I see beauty in that which is actually ugly?"

Yes or no. No more blathering evasion.

J

[PDS]

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 ugly

is because each lives by different moral values.

Greg

Greg, using your zany notion of non-leftist, non-feminized logic, does it follow that the art that I create is ugly since you've decided that I have ugly moral values and that I see beauty in that which is actually ugly?

J

The problem seems to be that for Greg moral values are objective and absolute, but esthetic values--his and everyone else's--are subjective and that the esthetics flow out of the moral. If we are all "wholly subjective beings" why isn't morality also wholly subjective and how can one pass objective moral judgments? This only works if Greg himself sets all standards off himself. No one else gets to do the same. If you agree with his esthetic judgments then you as he is beauty and high morality revealed. If next you disagree with his judgment you fall out of heaven unto hell.

To cut to the chase, he is preaching his religion and to argue with him is to argue with an irrationalist. It's nothing but win, win, win for him because his basic reference is perfection with lip service to the fact he might make a mistake and contradict the objective standard which he always snaps back to. Reality as a religion makes reality ersatz for a scientist uses reason to figure out reality and Greg doesn't. Greg uses "Owe!" "Owe!", and more "Owe!". That's not enough; you gotta figure things out, but he only rationalizes. This animal level of response to reality chops off rationality and morality and philosophy generally. It is not what makes a man man. Lower level animals make no esthetic judgments about works of art nor do they create them.

Basically he always ends up saying, "I've got mine; good luck with yours; we're all naked. Man, you are one ugly mother!" This is his weasel way of saying you won the argument.

--Brant

truth is not subjective

Brant: one small quibble to your otherwise incisive post: I think that's Greg's weasel way of saying he won the argument.

[Jonathan]

Ellen, I hope that you've finally noticed, due to my having bolded, enlarged and reddened the text, that Lakoff and Johnson put abstract visual art in the same category as music and not in the same category as representational visual art.

Lakoff and Johnson, according to the source quoted, say that both music and "abstract" painting and sculpture are "representational." (See #784 for your shouting-in-color repost of part of the excerpt from my #783.)

You're still missing the point. Yes, they want to expand the meaning of "representational" to include abstract visual art and music, but even in doing so, they still recognize a difference between what is currently called realist/representational visual art on the one hand, and abstract visual art and music on the other.

Unlike Roger, they classify music as being more like abstract visual art than representational visual art. They see abstract visual art and music as "varying considerably" from being "realistic." And after quoting them in his article, Simon Zagorski-Thomas states that he agrees, and that he sees music as being "abstract representational." Their views are not in agreement with Roger's. In other words, Roger's position that abstract visual art = atonal music where realistic/representational art = tonal music is not a position that Jakoff and Johnson and Zagorsky-Thomas share.

For the sake of argument, let's pretend that you'll get your way, the tail will wag the dog, and all art will be classified as "representational," and the word "abstract" in the arts will cease to exist. What word will you use then when talking about the difference between Vermeer's work and Kandinsky's?

I don't know where you get your idea of "[my] way." I've been trying to understand what you - and, so you say, (visual) art historians - mean by the term "abstract."

Oh, I'm sorry. You didn't appear to be trying to understand anything, but to be strongly advocating a position.

Regarding specifically your attempt to link music and "abstract" painting and sculpture, I've never thought that that held water, even when I thought you meant something different by the term "abstract" than apparently you do mean. Your idea that music should be classified the same way as "abstract" painting and sculpture on the basis of music's not presenting "aural likenesses of recognizable objects," I think is a stage-magician's misdirection trick. To begin with, sound doesn't give us object perception, and if all you mean is that music doesn't (usually) imitate natural sounds, so what? Why would it be expected to? Its medium is pure tones.

The above is a great example of what I meant in saying that you don't appear to be trying to understand anything, but to be strongly advocating a position. You seem to be actively not wanting to understand. You seem to want to resist and prevent understanding.

As for your questions, music would be expected to imitate natural sounds if it were to be accurately called "representational." That's what the word means. It means instantly identifiable imitations/likenesses of things in reality. It doesn't mean indirect, vague associations with aspects of things in reality. Music only rarely imitates natural sounds because it is generally an abstract art form. As you say, it is a medium of pure tones. It is a medium of abstract compositional relationships. The same is true of architecture and of abstract paintings and sculptures. They are media of pure forms, colors and textures. They are media of abstract compositional relationships.

As for your thinking of my classifying music as "abstract" being a "stage-magician's misdirection trick," Roger is the one who is pulling the misdirection trick. He is trying to both keep the established language and to alter it at the same time so that he can selectively apply to the two different meanings to two different art forms so as to pretend that they are in the same category of things. I think his reason for doing so is that he desperately wants music to qualify as art by Rand's criteria. He personally, emotionally needs music to be "representational" despite the fact that in reality it is not. He needs to apply misdirection in order to attempt to steal the prestige of the term "representational."

It's funny that you've fallen for such a cheap and obvious trick, and that you've been fooled so badly by it that you think that my showing how the trick was done is a trick!

J

[Jonathan]

Michael,

Thanks for your post #874.

I'm glad that you decided to join the discussion.

I bet that Jonathan is too - in a different way.

Ellen

Absolutely! Nothing demonstrates my points like Newberry showing up and embodying them. He is so laughably good at prejudging, hating, refusing to see, hating some more, and refusing to understand! And then hating again. He consistently demonstrates the opposite of what he claims to believe. And best of all, he has zero sense of self-awareness or embarrassment. I'm hoping that on this thread he will top his previous best feat of craving and practicing Kantian Sublimity while believing that he was heroically opposing it. He is hilariously fascinating to watch. It's quite enjoyably puzzling why someone with such a bumbling, anti-reality mindset would be attracted to Objectivism.

J

[Brant Gaede]

I don't think Ellen and Jonathan are nailing down on the same board.

[Jonathan]

I'd like to ask the haters to take another look at the painting above.

Look closely and carefully. Do you see any visual indicators of people maintaining their humanity, dignity, and warmth of brotherhood despite the conditions that they find themselves in?

If art expresses an artist's view of existence, and of how the world "might and ought to be," do you think that it might be possible that you would be just a bit too literalistic and dense if you were to take the view that the artist thinks that the nature of existence is that mankind is destined to be degraded and to ride around naked in the back of a truck like animals?

Might it be possible that the artist values humanity, dignity, and warmth of brotherhood in the face of adversity? Or are you firmly dedicated to being haters and needing to interpret the image in a manner which will fuel your hatred?

J

[Jonathan]

Hey J. Yep, I see there are two images, one the original, and the other a re-working of it I guess. It puts me in mind of Spot the Difference! puzzles. Detail, major or minor, is missed and overlooked by people. That's your point, I suppose.

No, there's still much more to be seen and recognized in the image, Tony. You've only been dragged kicking and screaming to seeing a mere fraction of what's there.

But it is common knowledge that people generally aren't very observant.

Yeah, but most people aren't actively resistant to observing. The resistance thing is mostly an Objectivish thing.

Ask a news reporter or a policeman. Six onlookers might be witness to an incident, and there could be six differing descriptions and six varying accounts of what transpired.

The most fundamental benefit of art-viewing is better learning to see (what is actually there) independent of one's pre-suppositions and visual/cognitive/moral bias .

First, this is not a competition. Second, there's no rush: with sufficient interest and time to peruse a picture, everybody will discover everything within it. The work of art isn't going anywhere, especially once it is firmly established in the mind's eye.

To "fail to see" - instantaneously - is hardly a terrible failure. It can be rectified. Conversely, to be highly observant (and it's not surprising that you are) doesn't entitle one to the unsubstantiated claim of being capable of seeing other or further things not at all visually apparent.

I disagree, especially when it comes to Objectivish types. In my extensive experience with them, they "fail to see" but yet are very quick to judge, and very motivated to judge with prejudice and hatred, and then very, very resistant to reconsidering their hateful interpretations after being made aware of all that they missed in an image.

J

[PDS]

I'd like to ask the haters to take another look at the painting above.

Look closely and carefully. Do you see any visual indicators of people maintaining their humanity, dignity, and warmth of brotherhood despite the conditions that they find themselves in?

If art expresses an artist's view of existence, and of how the world "might and ought to be," do you think that it might be possible that you would be being just a bit too literalistic and dense if you were to take the view that the artist thinks that the nature of existence is that mankind is destined to be degraded and to ride around naked in the back of a truck like animals?

Might it be possible that the artist values humanity, dignity, and warmth of brotherhood in the face of adversity? Or are you firmly dedicated to being haters and needing to interpret the image in a manner which will fuel your hatred?

J

I have stayed out of the "what's your interpretation" components of this thread so far, but must say that it is relatively obvious that the painting is consistent with what Rand would call a benevolent universe premise. Hell, there is even a hint of blue sky in the painting.

The guy in the green hat is wiping his brow and planning a maneuver of some kind, there are two (or more) brotherly hands on shoulders showing they are "in this together", and there at least two looks of defiance in the face of seemingly difficult conditions. Overall, the impression of the painting is one of prevailing against adversity. Best of all, I think, are the twinkles in the eyes of the subjects--not an easy task for a painter to accomplish with Chinese subjects who naturally otherwise squint. I don't think I am reading this into the painting--these conclusions are apparent within the four corners of the painting.

I like the painting a lot.

[Jonathan]

I have stayed out of the "what's your interpretation" components of this thread so far, but must say that it is relatively obvious that the painting is consistent with what Rand would call a benevolent universe premise. Hell, there is even a hint of blue sky in the painting.

The guy in the green hat is wiping his brow and planning a maneuver of some kind, there are two (or more) brotherly hands on shoulders showing they are "in this together", and there at least two looks of defiance in the face of seemingly difficult conditions. Overall, the impression of the painting is one of prevailing against adversity. Best of all, I think, are the twinkles in the eyes of the subjects--not an easy task for a painter to accomplish with Chinese subjects who naturally otherwise squint. I don't think I am reading this into the painting--these conclusions are apparent within the four corners of the painting.

I like the painting a lot.

Thank you for speaking up! I appreciate not being alone among the haters.

The twinkle in the eyes that you mention is indeed impressive, and not only because of the physical nature of Asian eyes, but because of the very broad, loose painting style of the artist. He has managed to capture quite a lot of personality and attitude despite boiling everything down to broad, general brush strokes.

J

[edited to add:] P.S. Actually, I haven't been totally alone. Brant has been pretty reasonable and generally non-hateful on this thread.

[Jonathan]

I have another question for the haters:

You're very upset about the fact that millions of dollars were paid for the paintings that Billy posted. You seem to believe that it is an injustice and a slap in the face of greater artists, and you seem to believe that "greatness" is defined as technical proficiency, and that you are all perfectly qualified as supremely competent judges of technical proficiency in the visual arts. Here's the question: Which works of visual art do you, with your superior and purely objective tastes, rate as being worthy of being purchased for prices higher than any other art works? Identify your top five, please.

J

[BaalChatzaf]

"If Art Can Be Anything, Then It Is Nothing"

That truth reminded me of a parallel...

"When people stop believing in God,they don't believe in nothing — they believe in anything."

-- G.K. Chesterton:

Not true. Many who have rejected the Abrahamic God have embraced physical nature. Physical Nature, you know, the -real- Reality, not the paltry myths and legends of late bronze age primitives.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[anthony]

I have another question for the haters:

.. and you seem to believe that "greatness" is defined as technical proficiency, and that you are all perfectly qualified as supremely competent judges of technical proficiency in the visual arts.

J

Now there's a turn-about:

If I'm one of the "haters", it's not I who has "defined "greatness" as technical proficiency".

You have. (I have already mentioned aesthetics and technicality as your apparent primary focus).

Repeatedly - to the point of calling Jose Capuletti talentless - of all dumb things -, merely because you think his perspective is off in one painting. (By such a small degree only a draftsman would complain). But not a word, that I've heard, about his composition, his use of brilliant light, the color harmony, his sense of the dramatic - or his themes and subjects - oh, yes, and the depth of his perspectives.

I think you should lay off on "haters", J. It interferes with some worthwhile discussion and our candid, personal opinions.

It appears that you have to aim at targets to negate: Kamhi, Rand, the posters here, etc. etc. -- however, I haven't called you "J the negator"!

[Brant Gaede]

I have another question for the haters:

You're very upset about the fact that millions of dollars were paid for the paintings that Billy posted. You seem to believe that it is an injustice and a slap in the face of greater artists, and you seem to believe that "greatness" is defined as technical proficiency, and that you are all perfectly qualified as supremely competent judges of technical proficiency in the visual arts. Here's the question: Which works of visual art do you, with your superior and purely objective tastes, rate as being worthy of being purchased for prices higher than any other art works? Identify your top five, please.

J

Didn't know I was a "hater." I thought I was an amazer as in those were amazing prices, especially for that "last supper."

--Brant

[Jonathan]

Now there's a turn-about:

If I'm one of the "haters", it's not I who has "defined "greatness" as technical proficiency".

You have. (I have already mentioned aesthetics and technicality as your apparent primary focus).

Repeatedly - to the point of calling Jose Capuletti talentless - of all dumb things -, merely because you think his perspective is off in one painting. (By such a small degree only a draftsman would complain). But not a word, that I've heard, about his composition, his use of brilliant light, the color harmony, his sense of the dramatic - or his themes and subjects - oh, yes, and the depth of his perspectives.

I didn't call Capuletti talentless. I called him a student-grade artist. And I didn't just point out the bad perspective in only one of his paintings, but have pointed out that it's just as bad, and even worse, in others. Contrary to what you say, the perspective is not off to a small degree. It's a freaking amateurish mess. I've also commented on his amateurish use of color, and his lack of understanding of color modulation, his bad anatomy, and his clumsy compositions. By any objective standard of technical merit, he was a mediocre artist.

If such objective standards are not the standards that you use in judging the greatness of art, what standards do you use?

I think you should lay off on "haters", J. It interferes with some worthwhile discussion and our candid, personal opinions.

It appears that you have to aim at targets to negate: Kamhi, Rand, the posters here, etc. etc. -- however, I haven't called you "J the negator"!

Um, heh, no, the haters aren't interested in having worthwhile discussions and giving candid, personal opinions (other than expressing their hatreds). You're no Sister Wendy Becketts. You don't share what you love, nor explain why you love it, and you certainly don't want to hear what others love if you're predetermined to hate it. You prefer to hate, and to spend the vast majority of your time and effort expressing your hatred. You love to rage about others' tastes in art, and to pose as having superior tastes. Nothing gives you more pleasure than imagining how Objectively heroic you are, just like Rand, for pissing on others' tastes and creations. I guess that pretending that others are so much lower than you is the only way that you feel good about yourselves.

Notice that, even when asked, you won't post what you think are the greatest works of art. All you want to do is shoot down others' preferences.

J

[Jonathan]

I have another question for the haters:

You're very upset about the fact that millions of dollars were paid for the paintings that Billy posted. You seem to believe that it is an injustice and a slap in the face of greater artists, and you seem to believe that "greatness" is defined as technical proficiency, and that you are all perfectly qualified as supremely competent judges of technical proficiency in the visual arts. Here's the question: Which works of visual art do you, with your superior and purely objective tastes, rate as being worthy of being purchased for prices higher than any other art works? Identify your top five, please.

J

Didn't know I was a "hater." I thought I was an amazer as in those were amazing prices, especially for that "last supper."

--Brant

Brant,

Check out the P.S. in my post 889

J

[Roger Bissell]

Looking at the painting of the naked guys in the truck, I noticed that near the center of the picture there's a guy in profile wearing a gray (?) cap, and he has his hand covering his face.

Is he just resting?

Is he feeling appalled and, yes, incredulous, to be with a truckload of guys who don't realize they're up shit's creek, headed for (we don't know what) their doom?

Is he trying to stifle his laughter at a joke that one of the guys made?

Is he dealing with a bad migraine headache?

Is he realizing that some sophistic artist is going to use them as pawns in his twisted pasttime of badgering and insulting various art lovers who don't like this particular painting, and who are shocked, appalled, resentful, whatever about how much money was paid for the painting?

Hard to tell.

But his "humanity" and "dignity" spoke more to me than the "warmth of brotherhood" of the majority of the guys who just seemed to be hanging out, crammed into a truck on the way to...where? Maybe they knew and were just trying to have a few moments of human connection before...what?

For me, looking at the painting gave me a mild version of the kind of catharsis Aristotle said we experience from a good tragedy (drama). "Sucks to be them - I guess my troubles aren't so bad after all."

Looking at it from a strictly aesthetic/technical standpoint, I don't see anything remarkable about it. Photos of prison camp scenes and the like have a lot more impact on me than this sort of painting.

Not all re-creation of reality is (to me) as worthwhile and stirring as a good photograph of reality - or, especially, reality itself. But reality won't hold still (for the most part) - and so we make photos and paintings and statues and music and architecture and literature that we can enjoy over and over, and ponder afresh each time.

REB

[Jonathan]

Just as I expected, Roger! Keep on hating!

J

[Jonathan]

Heh.

Looking at the painting of the naked guys in the truck, I noticed that near the center of the picture there's a guy in profile wearing a gray (?) cap, and he has his hand covering his face.

Are you just starting to learn the colors? You can't tell for sure which color the cap is, but we should take your opinions on visual art seriously?!?! And we shouldn't question whether you might be a bit visually lacking compared to others? Heh.

J

[moralist]

The problem seems to be that for Greg moral values are objective and absolute, but esthetic values--his and everyone else's--are subjective and that the esthetics flow out of the moral.

It's much better if you quote me directly instead of paraphrasing what you think I said. But since you already did, I'll clarify the difference between what you said I said, and what I actually said.

First, the fact that moral values are objective is not a problem for me. Like electricity, I can count on the absolutely objective impersonal effects of moral law being the same 100% of the time.

If we are all "wholly subjective beings" why isn't morality also wholly subjective and how can one pass objective moral judgments?

Thanks for asking... so I can repeat what I had said before.

Every human is a totally subjective being.

Moral law is totally objective.

Our subjective responses to objective moral law will either agree or disagree with objective moral law.

This only works if Greg himself sets all standards off himself.

They're not my moral standards, Brant. They don't belong to me. I did not originate them. My behavioral responses to objective moral law are just as subjective as everyone else's.

No one else gets to do the same.

Why are you playing the victim? Everyone else is free to do whatever the hell they choose. You don't need my permission. I'm not your mommie. Whatever you choose has nothing to do with me. I make my own choices and get my own consequences that I deserve.

If you agree with his esthetic judgments then you as he is beauty and high morality revealed.

If you happen to agree with my completely subjective aesthetic judgments... all it means is that we share the same moral values pertaining to those judgments.

Now, whether or not your totally subjective aesthetic opinions agree or disagree with objective reality is for you to figure out for yourself. I can't do it for you. All I do is to state my own subjective opinion and to explain how it is different from the subjective opinions of others.

If next you disagree with his judgment you fall out of heaven unto hell.

Here again you're fantasizing yourself as a helpless victim.

The truth is that no one has the power to make you fall out of heaven into hell except YOU...

...by your OWN actions.

To cut to the chase, he is preaching his religion and to argue with him is to argue with an irrationalist.

Good. Now just maybe you'll give up trying!

It's nothing but win, win, win for him because his basic reference is perfection with lip service to the fact he might make a mistake and contradict the objective standard which he always snaps back to.

I steer my life using the inerrant compass of objective moral law so that when I see I'm off course I can make the necessary corrections to avoid smashing my boat on the rocks.

Reality as a religion makes reality ersatz for a scientist uses reason to figure out reality and Greg doesn't.

That's your mistake of paraphrasing again.

You left out the most important ingredient. It's not just objective reality, it's objective MORAL reality. You can figure out how close to agreeing you are to objective moral reality simply by observing your own actions and the consequences they set into motion.

Basically he always ends up saying, "I've got mine; good luck with yours...

Yes.

It's up to you to get your own.

I can't get it for you.

I can only get it for me.

Greg

[anthony]

If one doesn't love, one hates? What crap.

I think it is a quite charming, unposed picture of relaxed camaraderie. Nevertheless, it's still based on or copied from a photo - a grab shot - which doesn't have to detract from it... but I personally won't get carried away with human "dignity", and so on.

If anyone insists on rating it by Rand's standards though, I believe it is straight-up Naturalism. Life as it is (not life as it ought to be).