Newberry Posted November 2, 2007 Author Share Posted November 2, 2007 I'm surprised no one has commented on his gestures - Can anyone explain what he is doing with his hands? I'm not familiar with what it's supposed to symbolize. Also, the ribcage makes the man look starved and a bit emaciated. I can't get over the uncomfortable sense that this statue's somehow depicting the weakness of man. Otherwise, I do appreciate the size of the statue - large enough to show 'grandness' but small enough for the human eye to take in its entirety while standing at a close range.Hey Jen,Welcome from a relatively new member. I am also in NY, so when you come back lets have coffee. I think you came a little late on the thread, we were all thrashed by the time you arrived.Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Newberry Posted November 2, 2007 Author Share Posted November 2, 2007 There is great talent in that statue. But I DON'T LIKE IT! If I owned it I'd probably use it for target practice.--BrantDon't worry Brant, no one is going to force you to like anything or to eat your broccoli. But, I would examine why you would psychologically need to use it for target practice. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brant Gaede Posted November 3, 2007 Share Posted November 3, 2007 There is great talent in that statue. But I DON'T LIKE IT! If I owned it I'd probably use it for target practice.--BrantDon't worry Brant, no one is going to force you to like anything or to eat your broccoli. But, I would examine why you would psychologically need to use it for target practice. MichaelOf course I wouldn't literally shoot at it--that wouldn't be fair to the artist--but I wouldn't own it either. But it would be fun! Especially if I could use an RPG!--Brant Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Newberry Posted November 3, 2007 Author Share Posted November 3, 2007 Of course I wouldn't literally shoot at it--that wouldn't be fair to the artist--but I wouldn't own it either. But it would be fun! Especially if I could use an RPG!--BrantPerhaps, I am missing something. You are an adult, right? Emotions are really cool things to play with. Like, if you have the desire to throw rocks at windows, its neat to think about where the hell that comes from. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brant Gaede Posted November 3, 2007 Share Posted November 3, 2007 Of course I wouldn't literally shoot at it--that wouldn't be fair to the artist--but I wouldn't own it either. But it would be fun! Especially if I could use an RPG!--BrantPerhaps, I am missing something. You are an adult, right? Emotions are really cool things to play with. Like, if you have the desire to throw rocks at windows, its neat to think about where the hell that comes from. MichaelIt's a God-awful piece of work. That's where it comes from. I have no desire to become an esthetician to explain that objectively to you or anyone else. Instead I'll only give you my subjective reaction/valuation.--Brant Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted November 3, 2007 Share Posted November 3, 2007 It's a God-awful piece of work. That's where it comes from. I have no desire to become an esthetician to explain that objectively to you or anyone else. Instead I'll only give you my subjective reaction/valuation.Brant,Maybe the reason is here? :devil: Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Newberry Posted November 3, 2007 Author Share Posted November 3, 2007 It's a God-awful piece of work. --BrantI think you enjoy the insult. And where does that get you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Grieb Posted November 3, 2007 Share Posted November 3, 2007 Michael Newberry; I like the sculpture because it is larger than life. It also doesn't look like some two-year-old's playing in clay or something worse. Somebody created this art. Thank you! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brant Gaede Posted November 3, 2007 Share Posted November 3, 2007 It's a God-awful piece of work. --BrantI think you enjoy the insult. And where does that get you?The insult comes from you trying to play psychological games with me. It puts the train back on the track. If you don't want to get back on board, that's your business.--Brant Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Philip Coates Posted November 3, 2007 Share Posted November 3, 2007 >I think you enjoy the insult. And where does that get you?> The insult comes from you trying to play psychological games with me.A reason I (and others) begin to check in with a list less often is when the heat to light ratio rises or the intellectual level declines: One liners / grudges / put downs /vindictiveness / personal animosities / an "I'll show him" attitude. Or just general "snarkiness".I'm not quite sure why posters think that other people on a list are interested in or enlightened by these exchanges. In a barroom or a social gathering, the advice would be "take it outside". This is even more sound advice on lists dedicated to Objectivism, to ideas, thinking, and a philosophy which could change the world.(And please don't try to come up with an excuse like "he started it" or "honor requires me to respond, have the last word, not let X go unchallenged"). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Newberry Posted November 3, 2007 Author Share Posted November 3, 2007 Michael Newberry; I like the sculpture because it is larger than life. It also doesn't look like some two-year-old's playing in clay or something worse. Somebody created this art. Thank you!Chris, Well said.Cheers,Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Grieb Posted November 3, 2007 Share Posted November 3, 2007 Michael; Who created Ex Nilho that is at the National Cathedral here in Washington DC. Is it Hart. I can't remember the first name. He also did The Three Soldiers that is at the VietNam Memorial. He is my favorite sculpturer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Newberry Posted November 3, 2007 Author Share Posted November 3, 2007 A reason I (and others) begin to check in with a list less often is when the heat to light ratio rises or the intellectual level declines: One liners / grudges / put downs /vindictiveness / personal animosities / an "I'll show him" attitude. Or just general "snarkiness".I'm not quite sure why posters think that other people on a list are interested in or enlightened by these exchanges. In a barroom or a social gathering, the advice would be "take it outside". This is even more sound advice on lists dedicated to Objectivism, to ideas, thinking, and a philosophy which could change the world.Hey Phil,There are people who seek intellectual enlightenment on internet forums. And there are others that simply like to socialize on them. Me? I like to sift. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Newberry Posted November 3, 2007 Author Share Posted November 3, 2007 Michael; Who created Ex Nilho that is at the National Cathedral here in Washington DC. Is it Hart. I can't remember the first name. He also did The Three Soldiers that is at the VietNam Memorial. He is my favorite sculpturer.Yes, the Cathedral piece is an impressive work. Tom Wolfe wrote a review of the late Hart. http://www.jeanstephengalleries.com/hart-wolfe.html I don't know if "better late than never" applies here. ;)Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ellen Stuttle Posted November 3, 2007 Share Posted November 3, 2007 [....] One liners / grudges / put downs /vindictiveness / personal animosities / an "I'll show him" attitude. Or just general "snarkiness".I'm not quite sure why posters think that other people on a list are interested in or enlightened by these exchanges.Maybe because so many people ARE interested by such exchanges ("enlightened" is another issue) -- as can often be noticed by reading #-of-read statistics.Ellen___ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Newberry Posted November 3, 2007 Author Share Posted November 3, 2007 Maybe because so many people ARE interested by such exchanges ("enlightened" is another issue) -- as can often be noticed by reading #-of-read statistics.Ellen___hahahahah, a well placed polemical punch is worth at least 10 well reasoned posts--at least as far as human traffic is concerned. ;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Philip Coates Posted November 4, 2007 Share Posted November 4, 2007 Logical fallacy by Michael: 1) twisting the word 'socializing' to include kicking someone in the teeth or a barroom brawl with broken beer bottles.Logical fallacy by Ellen: 2) confusing number of reads or traffic with appreciation or enjoyment (think train wreck or auto accident spectators). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Newberry Posted November 4, 2007 Author Share Posted November 4, 2007 (edited) Logical fallacy by Michael: 1) twisting the word 'socializing' to include kicking someone in the teeth or a barroom brawl with broken beer bottles.I think Brant will agree with me, that we were just "socializing", until, of course, I slam dunked him...now he will probably bring is sorry ass here, and act like I didn't. M Edited November 4, 2007 by Newberry Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brant Gaede Posted November 4, 2007 Share Posted November 4, 2007 Logical fallacy by Michael: 1) twisting the word 'socializing' to include kicking someone in the teeth or a barroom brawl with broken beer bottles.I think Brant will agree with me, that we were just "socializing", until, of course, I slam dunked him...now he will probably bring is sorry ass here, and act like I didn't. MActually Michael, I'm on your side. You are one of only a few artists that might be described as "Objectivist" who I think are worth a damn. I like some of your stuff and dislike some of it, but there are one or two or three I've seen on your Web site that I think are just outstanding. I wished I owned them. So what if we cut each other up now and again? We aren't in a schoolroom with the teacher disciplining us though he's trying. And if you think you've slammed dunked me, well, kudos, I'll go back on this thread tomorrow when I'm clear sober and let you know if you did IMHO. Right now I'm watching "Jaguar Lives"! I have to envy Joe Lewis and his great head of hair!--Brant Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Philip Coates Posted November 4, 2007 Share Posted November 4, 2007 Great, I hope the two drunken, abusive good ole boys will be happy with each other, once they've managed to clear the barroom of the more civilized people.:-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ellen Stuttle Posted November 4, 2007 Share Posted November 4, 2007 Great, I hope the two drunken, abusive good ole boys will be happy with each other, once they've managed to clear the barroom of the more civilized people.:-)I think what clears the barroom fastest -- I mean what really soon bores people -- is the nursemaiding, Phil.And, no, my point wasn't a fallacy, as your own example illustrated. People do show interest in accidents.Ellen___ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Grieb Posted November 4, 2007 Share Posted November 4, 2007 Can't we all get along! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brant Gaede Posted November 4, 2007 Share Posted November 4, 2007 Can't we all get along!Tomorrow. Michael, you didn't "slam dunk" me, just your idea of me. Sorry. --Brant Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Newberry Posted November 4, 2007 Author Share Posted November 4, 2007 (edited) Michael, you didn't "slam dunk" me, just your idea of me. Sorry. --BrantOf course I did, and now twice. The first is you dunked yourself in your gibberish statement in response to me, about not making aesthetic judgments while making aesthetic judgments. And, now, I got you to agree with me. Can't we all get along!Chris, Chris, Chris. [shaking my head] Edited November 4, 2007 by Newberry Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brant Gaede Posted November 4, 2007 Share Posted November 4, 2007 (edited) Michael, you didn't "slam dunk" me, just your idea of me. Sorry. --BrantOf course I did, and now twice. The first is you dunked yourself in your gibberish statement in response to me, about not making aesthetic judgments while making aesthetic judgments. And, now, I got you to agree with me. Can't find that statement. I think you are referring to my post 156. I never said anything about not making aesthetic judgments, only my not making objective aesthetic judgements. --Brant Edited November 5, 2007 by Brant Gaede 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