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

[Jonathan]

Can you confirm any of that stuff by a link, website, or reference? Or do you only want us to take your word?

I've posted images of some of my works here, in OL's "Art Gallery" section.

If that's not enough for you, then I'd prefer that you go first. Do you only want us to take your word? If not, then submit proof of your art sales. Let's see documentation. Contracts/written agreements, check stubs, shipping receipts, tax filings, etc.

It's quite amazing how much effort you put into distractions and evasions of substance! You're just working your ass off in order to avoid addressing my proof of your falsehoods! Just think how much farther along you'd be intellectually, and how much better off you'd be, if you put just half of the passion and effort into reality that you put into denying it!

J

[Brant Gaede]

J: "...would be to address the proof..."

You know there is no proof in the realm of ideas?

Is that a joke, or what?

It's a worthless statement. Proof in ideas is a metaphor for a mathematical proof but is only evidence of something logically rendered.

I guess we're pretty far apart in theory of knowledge with natural language (not a metaphor for math or set theory).

Say, for instance, that you are at a birthday party with a number of others. You decide to count the number attending the party: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8. But eight units of what? – of men and women, boys and girls. You could have also said that there were eight "people" at the party, but children aren't quite the same as adults, and therefore we habitually count them as members of a different class. Likewise, it is customary and useful to distinguish between male people and female people, referring to them respectively as "men" and "women" on the doors of segregated rest rooms. Not so many years ago, it was customary to distinguish between caucasians and negroes, referring to them respectively as Whites and Colored on the doors of segregated rest rooms.

Whether we prefer to call someone a "woman", a "female", a "negro", an "American", or a "person" is not the point. Rather, the point is that predicates are inescapable, when you count persons, things, or values. To predicate something (P) of something else (Q) is to identify an attribute or quality that makes unit Q a member of class P:

Wolf is a person.

Socrates is musical.

All deer are ruminants.

Some birds cannot fly.

In discussing my theory of value, we will need to accept as axiomatic that a class subsumes and refers to all of the units or members of that class, and that it is impossible for a predicate to be both true and false at the same time. This impossibility is known as a contradiction. [COGGIG, p.25]

My understanding is you are describing a closed system in which proof is possible. In that sense science can prove something--call it a "proof"--until arrives, or is obtained, a better proof by using the same data--a mistake was made--or more data makes for the better proof. The problem is semantical in that "proof" sounds so absolute and final and sometimes it really is for the technology or basic chemical reactions work. But the subject is ideas. There is proof in ideas, at least deductive, logical ones. It's a proof unto itself, however. It's like a hundred experiments proving a proposition (theory) until one repeatable experiment shows it to be wrong requiring a completely new proposition or that the theory be at least modified.

--Brant

that's about all my poor brain can get itself around--if it did ("How about a nice game of chess?")

[Wolf DeVoon]

My understanding is you are describing a closed system in which proof is possible... "proof" sounds so absolute and final and sometimes it really is for the technology or basic chemical reactions work. But the subject is ideas. There is proof in ideas, at least deductive, logical ones.

--Brant

Good old Square of Opposition, never fails.

All A is B | No A is B

-----------------------------------------------

Some A is B | Not every A is B

(contradiction in the diagonals)

[Brant Gaede]

I have to leave you to the elements on this one, Wolf.

--Brant

I tried to drag you inside, but you're too big for my door

[Jonathan]

The bloviating blowhard in this classic clip is the essence of Newberry:

Brant, would you call the above fictional situation one in which proof is given? The bloviating blowhard took a position on the meaning of Marshall Mcluhan's work. The character "Alvy" disagrees with the blowhard, saying that he doesn't know what he's talking about. The blowhard then lists his own credentials and qualifications, after which Alvy goes directly to Mcluhan who tells the blowhard that he's wrong and shouldn't be teaching. In the dispute between Alvy and the blowhard, would you not call Mcluhan's statement "proof" of which of the two was right about Mcluhan's position?

J

[Jonathan]

Newbsie also reminds me of another film: As Good as It Gets.

The character Melvin is ask how he writes women so well, and he replies,"I think of a man, and I take away reason and accountability."

That's Newbsie: A man minus reason and accountability. "But I'm just giving my opinions and feelings as an artist! No one is supposed to disagree! Don't you have any feelings about what you're for?"

J

[Wolf DeVoon]

This post is hidden because you have chosen to ignore posts by Jonathan.

Volume down at zero. Mmmnf ffff ccccchhh smmmf. Sounds good.

[Jonathan]

"Wolf"/Alan, you should review the logic of how blocking works here, and how you've therefore revealed that you're actually reading my posts while pretending not to.

Think about it, dopey.

J

[Brant Gaede]

The bloviating blowhard in this classic clip is the essence of Newberry:

Brant, would you call the above fictional situation one in which proof is given? The bloviating blowhard took a position on the meaning of Marshall Mcluhan's work. The character "Alvy" disagrees with the blowhard, saying that he doesn't know what he's talking about. The blowhard then lists his own credentials and qualifications, after which Alvy goes directly to Mcluhan who tells the blowhard that he's wrong and shouldn't be teaching. In the dispute between Alvy and the blowhard, would you not call Mcluhan's statement "proof" of which of the two was right about Mcluhan's position?

J

All way over my head.

How about General Thermonuclear War (GTW)? I've been into that since I was 14 or 15.

--Brant

a 30 meagaton device--I forget the actual bomb size the Air Force guy lecturing at the Univerfsity of Arizona stated--exploded at 30,000 feet over NYC would incinerate everything in a circle encompassing Boston and Washington D.C.

[Selene]

Excellent use of a nuclear weapon...it would have to be when both the UN and Congress was in session for maximum benefit.

--Brant

a 30 meagaton device--I forget the actual bomb size the Air Force guy lecturing at the Univerfsity of Arizona stated--exploded at 30,000 feet over NYC would incinerate everything in a circle encompassing Boston and Washington D.C.

[9thdoctor]

Here's an essay by Eco that references Kantian Sublime:

https://books.google.com/books?id=mFbYcy8uhCUC&pg=PA97&lpg=PA97&dq=umberto+eco+hugo+helas&source=bl&ots=0PPXBGH5lO&sig=HpNXNnFcay0ijeluMMpxQMJO1WM&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CDIQ6AEwA2oVChMIm4yA7_jTyAIVA8FjCh1UXQ21#v=onepage&q=umberto%20eco%20hugo%20helas&f=false

Unfortunately Google books doesn't let you read it all...later he ties it into the climax of Hugo's Ninety Three. Oh well. At least there's enough so you can see how an informed non-Objectivist talks about it. The title essay of the book is relevant to the behavior I've been seeing. It's called Inventing the Enemy. Orwell figures in it, particularly the 2 minute hate scene in 1984.

Notice the name Kant is way better for screaming than Goldstein. Just one syllable. Take it away, Kirk:

Yeah yeah, you gotta add a "T" to the end. Use your imagination.

[Brant Gaede]

The powerful climax of Ninety Three is like none other I've ever read in fiction. If you want to plot a novel, diagram this one first. It's not all that long.

--Brant

not that I've read much fiction

[Newberry]

I was just musing do prisoners get internet? It seems that half of the posters here are criminals.

[Brant Gaede]

I was just musing do prisoners get internet? It seems that half of the posters here are criminals.

Which is your half? The top or the bottom? The left or the right?

--Brant

I'm not a bad guy, but I play one with the TV remote

[Jonathan]

I was just musing do prisoners get internet? It seems that half of the posters here are criminals.

Criminals?! Wow, that's quite an accusation! Which crimes are you accusing half of the posters here of having committed? You're really upping the ante, and all because you want to maintain your hatred of Kant!

Newbsie, earlier you declared that I'm not a fine artist or musician. When I corrected that false opinion, you asked for some sort of outside confirmation or proof, since my word wasn't good enough. I asked the same of you.

But allow me to clarify. In several places online over the years, I've seen you state that you are in your whatever year or decade as a full-time artist. You've said that you haven't had to work as anything but an artist.

Have you received on any sort of allowance, stipend, inheritance, etc., outside of your income as a fine artist?

J

[anthony]

Aesthetic experience is "subjective"?

Not by me. Beauty is not a subjective value - or "universal" - distinct from Kant. An emotion isn't subjective. "An emotion is a response to a fact of reality, an estimate dictated by your standards".AR

Subjective, is when emotion dictates to reality, or to one's standards, I'd say.

I've argued that a rational man selecting a car or a wife, is making a 'personal' judgment, based on objective facts and his values, not a 'subjective' one. (Your conceptual knowledge and rationality when a child, and as an adult, is miles apart).

I can't follow what you mean when you use the word "subjective". Please concretize. First you say "an emotion isn't subjective", then subjective is "when emotion dictates to reality"; you see the problem there, I hope.

Yes, emotion is an automated response, varying according to various individual's conscious premises ("dictated by your standards"). When integrated with his mind, Rand says, "He has no inner conflicts". "His consciousness is in perfect harmony".**

The causality is: "fact of realty" -> mind -> emotion, a one-way street. But reverse that causality, make your emotion your standard of judgment, and your mind as "the passive effect" - and then sure, you allow emotions to become "subjective".

**(Simply I'd put it that an emotion is always faithful to one's values and convictions: for a rational man, to see or hear something inimical to his values, mind and life, his emotional reaction would be along the pain end of the spectrum. He'd also feel similar pain if he acted, spoke, thought, without integrity -in contradiction to his values).

[Jonathan]

This post is hidden because you have chosen to ignore posts by Jonathan.

Volume down at zero. Mmmnf ffff ccccchhh smmmf. Sounds good.

Last night's new episode of South Park reminded me very much of online O-land.

The show's characters protect themselves from reality by blocking or editing out others' critical comments. Any disagreement or criticism of anyone is met with lots of tears, gasp-punctuated crying, and accusations of bullying, trolling or shaming.

The episode has a fun little Broadway-style song called "My Safe Space." Reality makes an appearance during the song dressed as a classic cartoon villain, with black cape and top hat, and he's out to tear down people's safe spaces. Nasty Reality!

"Bully-proof windows, troll-safe doors, in my safe space, in my safe space..."

"People that support me, mixed in with, more people that support me and say nice things. Rainbows all around me..."

"You might call me a pussy, but I won't hear you in my safe space..."

J

Bonus new season South Park clip for elite, self-credentialed critics:

[Brant Gaede]

Hey, delusional can be fun! (Like jumping out of an airplane without a parachute--what a rush!)

--Brant

speaking from experience (except the parachute business)

[Newberry]

--Brant

I'm not a bad guy, but I play one with the TV remote

I don’t know about that. You have 20,000 thousand posts here and the few I have read give the impression that you are stuck between wanting to offer some insight and the irony of a self-deprecating humor. After all these years and all these posts what have you discovered, in what way have your grown as a human being, what new things excite you to enjoy today and the next?

You make no distinction between a con and people of substance; it is as if you enjoy good people being leveled by peanut gallery unworthies. A young solider having their life destroyed by manipulative players is horrible. A mature adult that allows himself to be played is disgusting. If you can’t be authentically good what is the point of being here?

[Wolf DeVoon]

If you can’t be authentically good what is the point of being here?

I trust Brant. I distrust people who claim to be "authentically good."

[Brant Gaede]

I don’t know about that. You have 20,000 thousand posts here and the few I have read give the impression that you are stuck between wanting to offer some insight and the irony of a self-deprecating humor. After all these years and all these posts what have you discovered, in what way have your grown as a human being, what new things excite you to enjoy today and the next?

You make no distinction between a con and people of substance; it is as if you enjoy good people being leveled by peanut gallery unworthies. A young solider having their life destroyed by manipulative players is horrible. A mature adult that allows himself to be played is disgusting. If you can’t be authentically good what is the point of being here?

The "rusty claw in a marshmallow glove" has revealed itself, but not to itself.

--Brant

please be careful around me; you're like the dog that caught the car and thought he knew what to do with it

[Newberry]

But allow me to clarify. In several places online over the years, I've seen you state that you are in your whatever year or decade as a full-time artist. You've said that you haven't had to work as anything but an artist.

J

Glad you asked. I've downplayed my tennis stuff, and doing it part time funded my art studies, I've pretty much painted everyday since I was a kid. After 3 years as a fine art major at U.S.C. on a full-tennis scholarship and we were NCAA Champions (1976, you see a team pic there, I didn't remember playing as high as #2). After College I have had only 3 part-time jobs. Tennis coach 2 days a week for about 4 years at the Jack Kramer Club in Palos Verdes, where I gave about 20 playing lessons to the young Pete Sampras, lol without losing, but he was only 12. And there I coached the teenager Melissa Guerney to rise to #17 in World, just saw this little news item from that time. And young Nicole London to become the National Clay Court Champion in 12 and under. Two of the paintings I did in that period were Denouement and life size Puccini. Funny I never saw those any of those tennis articles before.

Then I played pro tennis for only six weeks out of the year for about six years for the Metselaars Club in Holland, short session and it paid for the next 10 months of art education there. I beat about 6 guys that were top 100 in world then.

While I was playing there these are some of the paintings I did. Woman in Blue, and Women wearing a Hat, they each sold for around $5,000 in the 80's, quite decent prices then.

My last part-time job was at Otis College of Art and Design, Foundation classes, one day a week. For four years in the early 90's. The Otis policy was to have professional artists in the real world come in and teach part-time, to make it real and fresh. The big paintings increased to about $30,000 then.

Have you received on any sort of allowance, stipend, inheritance, etc., outside of your income as a fine artist?

No, I don't have and haven't had any outside income.The art career goes in waves, if I sell a big painting, I don't think much about money for a few years. I have had collectors invest in major works when things have been slow for me.

Kind cool now though one of my pieces is insured for $250,000. And two other collectors just insured their Newberrys, for around $150,000. each. Those estimates came about by what like works more recently sold for and adjusting for the sizes.

[Brant Gaede]

I don’t know about that. You have 20,000 thousand posts here and the few I have read give the impression that you are stuck between wanting to offer some insight and the irony of a self-deprecating humor. After all these years and all these posts what have you discovered, in what way have your grown as a human being, what new things excite you to enjoy today and the next?

You make no distinction between a con and people of substance; it is as if you enjoy good people being leveled by peanut gallery unworthies. A young solider having their life destroyed by manipulative players is horrible. A mature adult that allows himself to be played is disgusting. If you can’t be authentically good what is the point of being here?

The "rusty claw in a marshmallow glove" has revealed itself, but not to itself.

--Brant

please be careful around me; you're like the dog that caught the car and thought he knew what to do with it

[Newberry]

I was just musing do prisoners get internet? It seems that half of the posters here are criminals.

Criminals?!

J

Yeah, and this brings me to you again. Generic name, no portrait photos (though plenty of mug shots), a troller, no website, no public sightings, queer epistemology, unpublished, only a couple of photo realistic works that may or may not be yours to rest your laurels on, and I couldn’t make out signatures, no copyrights, and etc. Any reasonable person with that kind of resume would not expect anyone to take their word on anything. But you act the opposite; hence you are most definitely doing a con job.

[Brant Gaede]

I like the three paintings but don't understand the apparent regression of skill or its lack of advancement. My untrained eye only thinks there should have been a little more definition in the right wrist in the first painting. Not much, just a little. It creates too much of a focal point or distraction as it is--or so I think. Actually seeing the work might create a different impression.

It's possible Jonathan is a con and a troll--but to what? You've replaced, "I'll show you mine if you'll show me yours" with "I've shown you mine and you don't have one." This is pin the tail on the donkey with ignorance as the blindfold.

There is a place for esthetics in Objectivism, but it's all cultural. There is no logical integration into the philosophical construct. If that's where you're coming from esthetically and otherewise both Jonathan and myself are on the outside looking in. That would make us both trolls to that. Essentially, however, that's the nature of Objectivist Living which, if true, could make you the troll.

--Brant

if you are I don't care; I think trolls can be valuable here although most blow up or implode or simply leave