Awesome Heroic Sculpture by Living Artist

[Philip Coates]

yes i did. no i didn't yes i did no i didnt sez you sez me

[Roger Bissell]

yes i did. no i didn't yes i did no i didnt sez you sez me

Well said, Phil. But next time, please leave out the extraneous punctuation! :-)

I have driven s..l..o..w..l..y by so many wrecks and pull-overs by cops that I know exactly what you're talking about. These guys really are a bore and a waste of bandwidth.

And you just keep on schoolmarming these yahoos, and don't let the biddies (singular?) discourage you. You're not seriously hoping to reform the food-fighters and mud-slingers, I'm sure. Instead, I'm confident that you are motivated by a belief that the great silent majority out there need to know that ~some~ people in Objectivism-land have a shred of couth, and that we don't all have testosterone-management problems.

REB

[Newberry]

yes i did. no i didn't yes i did no i didnt sez you sez me

Well said, Phil. But next time, please leave out the extraneous punctuation! :-)

I have driven s..l..o..w..l..y by so many wrecks and pull-overs by cops that I know exactly what you're talking about. These guys really are a bore and a waste of bandwidth.

And you just keep on schoolmarming these yahoos, and don't let the biddies (singular?) discourage you. You're not seriously hoping to reform the food-fighters and mud-slingers, I'm sure. Instead, I'm confident that you are motivated by a belief that the great silent majority out there need to know that ~some~ people in Objectivism-land have a shred of couth, and that we don't all have testosterone-management problems.

REB

Roger,

I guess you missed the import of the significant sculpture I posted here. And you pop on here to pop off. Nice priorities. I have contributed something of value to this thread, what about you?

Thanks for the welcome.

Michael

[Ellen Stuttle]

I'm confident that you are motivated by a belief that the great silent majority out there need to know that ~some~ people in Objectivism-land have a shred of couth, and that we don't all have testosterone-management problems.

Just estrogen-management ones?

Ellen

Addendum to be sure my meaning is understood: There are times, Roger, when you're almost as much a nag as Phil is habitually. Do the two of you think you'll scold the world into line? I haven't seen signs during the now more than eight years I've been a participant in listland of the nag method producing much beyond a reception of yawns.

___

Edited November 5, 2007 by Ellen Stuttle

[Brant Gaede]

yes i did. no i didn't yes i did no i didnt sez you sez me

Well said, Phil. But next time, please leave out the extraneous punctuation! :-)

I have driven s..l..o..w..l..y by so many wrecks and pull-overs by cops that I know exactly what you're talking about. These guys really are a bore and a waste of bandwidth.

And you just keep on schoolmarming these yahoos, and don't let the biddies (singular?) discourage you. You're not seriously hoping to reform the food-fighters and mud-slingers, I'm sure. Instead, I'm confident that you are motivated by a belief that the great silent majority out there need to know that ~some~ people in Objectivism-land have a shred of couth, and that we don't all have testosterone-management problems.

REB

Roger,

I guess you missed the import of the significant sculpture I posted here. And you pop on here to pop off. Nice priorities. I have contributed something of value to this thread, what about you?

Thanks for the welcome.

Michael

This is true. I haven't. I've only said I don't like the sculpture. To me it's only significant because it's big and done by someone with obviously huge technical talent. Michael is looking for aesthetic objectification using the statue as a prop. He has a much higher opinion of it than I do, but he didn't come here to say "This is great art" but to ask "What do you think great art is--and why"? He has a serious intellectual purpose on this thread and doesn't deserve to be called a "yahoo" by anyone who doesn't: you and Phil both. Me too, but I haven't called him any names, nor him me, although his remark about my "sorry ass" did make me smile.

Here's what I dislike about Phil: he's inside Objectivism and thinks that's a great place to be. It's a horrible, stultifying, ineffective place to be. I know; I've been there, done that. If there's a way to get Objectivism right it's through the approach of The Atlas Society, but even that's not for me. I know that the movie of Atlas Shrugged will be wrong even though TAS obviously doesn't, for all the reasons Atlas is wrong plus what will be lost and corrupted in the movie-making. Relative to the novel the movie will not be transforming because it will be basically faithful to it in the Objectivist, not the objectivist sense. The movie that they are going to make should have been made 30, 40 or even nearly 50 years ago and then contemporaneously transcended. You see, too much has changed in the last 50 years, and I am willing to suggest that a lot of that change has been because of the novel, albeit not in politics. The inertia carrying us into bigger and bigger government can't be stopped only vitiated in individual lives not beholden psychologically and philosophically to the state. Personally I've not escaped that trap yet, but Doug Casey wrote a book decades ago called The International Man that describes this very libertarian attitude.

--Brant

Edited November 5, 2007 by Brant Gaede

[Roger Bissell]

yes i did. no i didn't yes i did no i didnt sez you sez me

Well said, Phil. But next time, please leave out the extraneous punctuation! :-)

I have driven s..l..o..w..l..y by so many wrecks and pull-overs by cops that I know exactly what you're talking about. These guys really are a bore and a waste of bandwidth.

And you just keep on schoolmarming these yahoos, and don't let the biddies (singular?) discourage you. You're not seriously hoping to reform the food-fighters and mud-slingers, I'm sure. Instead, I'm confident that you are motivated by a belief that the great silent majority out there need to know that ~some~ people in Objectivism-land have a shred of couth, and that we don't all have testosterone-management problems.

REB

Roger,

I guess you missed the import of the significant sculpture I posted here. And you pop on here to pop off. Nice priorities. I have contributed something of value to this thread, what about you?

Thanks for the welcome.

Michael

Significant? If you say so. I'm not big on sculpture, and I miss the significance of the nude male body. I like Rodin's work, and I like "David" by Big Mike, though I'd much rather gaze fondly at a naked ~female~ body. But I'm no expert on sculpture. Nor do I enjoy pissing matches between those who purport to be experts.

BTW, I have contributed a ~great~ deal to OL, and a far, far smaller percentage of it than yours is mired in the kind of over-heated bitch-slapping you seem to get off on. Yes, I used to be addicted to it myself not that many years back, but I realized eventually, gradually, how unproductive/counterproductive it was, and I have ~admitted~ that it was a mistake, rather than trying to rationalize and excuse my bad behavior. And I will NOT apologize for my trying to encourage ~others~ to abandon that behavior.

What welcome? You are not welcome to wallow around in such hot-headed, Type-A, tantrum behavior. Oh, you were being sarcastic? Well, carry on then.

REB

[Roger Bissell]

I'm confident that you are motivated by a belief that the great silent majority out there need to know that ~some~ people in Objectivism-land have a shred of couth, and that we don't all have testosterone-management problems.

Just estrogen-management ones?

Ellen

Addendum to be sure my meaning is understood: There are times, Roger, when you're almost as much a nag as Phil is habitually. Do the two of you think you'll scold the world into line? I haven't seen signs during the now more than eight years I've been a participant in listland of the nag method producing much beyond a reception of yawns.

___

Nagging naggers is not a refutation of nagging. :-)

I'm at least as tired of you nagging me and Phil about our nagging, as you are about our nagging. <yawn>

Also, re-read the sentence you quoted above, and you'll realize -- if you didn't already, but just wanted to mess with me -- that my motive is not to reform the mud-wrestlers, but to provide a counterpoint to the mud-wrestling, so that non-vocal OL members know that the mud-wrestling is not "approved Objectivist behavior." Too often, newbies come away with the impression that such confrontations represent some kind of "heroic struggle," when it is basically just boorish, immature behavior.

REB

[Newberry]

Roger:

"...those who purport to be experts."

Okay. Roger, one way you can start to contribute to this thread, is to give us, in your view, are the qualities and qualifications needed to be an expert. I would enjoy reading your view on that.

Cheers,

Michael

[Roger Bissell]

A few months ago I made friends with the artist of this work, Peter Schipperheyn. http://www.users.bigpond.com/SCHIP/index.htm It's great to connect with colleague and share experiences.

I think art is our greatest medium to crystallize what it is that we live for. I am afraid that most people never connect what they live for to art.

Michael

All right, goddammit -- here is my official commentary on the sculpture.

As noted previously, I am lukewarm at best about the sculpture and what it represents about life and what I live for.

I have a much stronger response (favorable, of course) to the smiling sculptor standing on the ladder. Obviously, he feels great about what he has done, and that's terrific. That's what life is all about to me: to have done something you think is wonderful and to feel wonderful about having done it -- and to want to do more!

But I don't get that from the sculpture.

Again, I'm not an expert, and I have no dog in this fight. (Except Phil: good boy! :-)

REB

[Roger Bissell]

Roger:

"...those who purport to be experts."

Okay. Roger, one way you can start to contribute to this thread, is to give us, in your view, are the qualities and qualifications needed to be an expert. I would enjoy reading your view on that.

Cheers,

Michael

Thanks, but I have chosen another way to start to contribute to this thread. (See my preceding post.)

Those who care to be taken as experts are welcome to offer their qualifications, which I assume are more than just self-certification. I will read them with interest and reflect on the preceding discussion in that light.

Who knows, perhaps I will have to fine-tune my previous complaint to being an objection to "pissing matches between true experts." :-)

REB

[Newberry]

I have figured out a possible reason for my conflict with several of you. I assume to be respected for my body of work. hhahahaha, I guess I could try to ignore that...not sure that will happen though.

Cheers,

Michael

[Philip Coates]

> I have no dog in this fight. (Except Phil: good boy! :-)

arf, arf!

[Newberry]

As noted previously, I am lukewarm at best about the sculpture and what it represents about life and what I live for.

I have a much stronger response (favorable, of course) to the smiling sculptor standing on the ladder.

REB

Turn it around Roger. Let's say you posted on a new Jazz guy, and by what you know as a professional, the guy is brilliant. He may be doing things that his contemporaries simply cannot match. Out of your excitement to show something new and exciting going on you posted the musician's work here.

Think about that.

Let's say I came on thread, not as any expert in music and even less so with Jazz--I sure as hell wouldn't wasting anyone's time discussing, the photo on the cover of the album--anti-conceptual that is. If professional musicians were arguing the pros and cons, I would observe and maybe ask a few sincere questions for my enlightenment and out of respect for their greater knowledge. Imagine me dismissing your post and the musician because he is not Paganini.

I don't think you were fair, regardless of whether or not you like the sculpture or me.

Michael

Edited November 6, 2007 by Newberry

[Roger Bissell]

As noted previously, I am lukewarm at best about the sculpture and what it represents about life and what I live for.

I have a much stronger response (favorable, of course) to the smiling sculptor standing on the ladder.

REB

Turn it around Roger. Let's say you posted on a new Jazz guy, and by what you know as a professional, the guy is brilliant. He may be doing things that his contemporaries simply cannot match. Out of your excitement to show something new and exciting going on you posted the musician's work here.

Think about that.

Let's say I came on thread, not as any expert in music and even less so with Jazz--I sure as hell wouldn't wasting anyone's time discussing, the photo on the cover of the album--anti-conceptual that is. If professional musicians were arguing the pros and cons, I would observe and maybe ask a few sincere questions for my enlightenment and out of respect for their greater knowledge. Imagine me dismissing your post and the musician because he is not Beethoven.

I don't think you were fair, regardless of whether or not you like the sculpture or me.

Michael

I don't know what definition of "fair" you are using.

But sure, let's turn it around. I post an audio clip of some new jazz guy I'm really excited about, along with a photo of the jazz guy grinning triumphantly, and I say "This guy's music says something wonderful about life and man." Now (putting myself in your place), suppose when you listen to the clip, you react (as I did to the statue) with more-or-less indifference. "Yeah, nice job, I guess, but it doesn't really invoke any strong metaphysical value-judgments." But the photo of the jazz guy really appeals to you, giving you the image of someone really in love with life and pumped up by his achievement. You ~really like~ seeing people being happy with what they have accomplished, it gives you ~emotional fuel~ to see that, ~even if~ what they have accomplished doesn't particularly inspire you.

Is this not clear? Am I still being "unfair" somehow? Are my emotional fuel requirements -- even qua Objectivist -- somehow less worthy than yours, simply because I do not have enough art education or sensitivity to see what a monumental tribute to the human spirit the statue you like is? I'm afraid that someone ~is~ being a bit unfair about this, and it ain't me.

Anti-conceptual? Because I get emotional fuel from a photograph of the artist rather than the artwork? Sorry, you have completely lost me with that comment. Or was it simply meant to be a jargony, Objectivist insult?

REB

[Jonathan]

I have figured out a possible reason for my conflict with several of you. I assume to be respected for my body of work. hhahahaha, I guess I could try to ignore that...not sure that will happen though.

Cheers,

Michael

I think you're respected for your art. I simply don't think that your talents as a painter necessarily translate to your being any good at philosophy, aesthetic theory or art criticism (or even intelligent conversation, sometimes). When it comes to those things, you often seem to expect that you can point to your resume instead of making a coherent argument or addressing the substance of others' arguments. And that deserves zero respect.

J

[Roger Bissell]

I have figured out a possible reason for my conflict with several of you. I assume to be respected for my body of work. hhahahaha, I guess I could try to ignore that...not sure that will happen though.

Cheers,

Michael

I think you're respected for your art. I simply don't think that your talents as a painter necessarily translate to your being any good at philosophy, aesthetic theory or art criticism (or even intelligent conversation, sometimes). When it comes to those things, you often seem to expect that you can point to your resume instead of making a coherent argument or addressing the substance of others' arguments. And that deserves zero respect.

J

Couldn't have said it better. Thanks, Jonathan.

REB

[Newberry]

I think you're respected for your art. I simply don't think that your talents as a painter necessarily translate to your being any good at philosophy, aesthetic theory or art criticism (or even intelligent conversation, sometimes). When it comes to those things, you often seem to expect that you can point to your resume instead of making a coherent argument or addressing the substance of others' arguments. And that deserves zero respect.

J

It seems that aesthetics is quite complex. For example if you believe that the artist's ideas, life-style, and time are essential to an aesthetic judgment of an artwork, and I, for example don't--then the issue becomes mute. There is no common basis to communicate from.

If you think that a sense of life is what makes an artwork good or not, and I don't, then we have no common basis.

There are a lot of fundamental areas in which, people cannot come to any agreement if they hold different premises.

Fortunately, there are plenty of people that respect my aesthetics as well as my art. My current project with philosopher Stephen Hicks, Explaining Postmodern Art, is one case in point.

Jonathan, perhaps since you are so adamant at finding faults with my ideas, perhaps you can figure out a common ground we might share and address me accordingly?

Michael

Edited November 7, 2007 by Newberry

[Newberry]

Couldn't have said it better. Thanks, Jonathan.

REB

What happened to Artemis? I like her better.

Edited November 6, 2007 by Newberry

[Jonathan]

I think you're respected for your art. I simply don't think that your talents as a painter necessarily translate to your being any good at philosophy, aesthetic theory or art criticism (or even intelligent conversation, sometimes). When it comes to those things, you often seem to expect that you can point to your resume instead of making a coherent argument or addressing the substance of others' arguments. And that deserves zero respect.

J

It seems that aesthetics is quite complex. For example if you believe that the artist's ideas, life-style, and time are essential to an aesthetic judgment of an artwork, and I, for example don't--then the issue becomes mute. There is no common basis to communicate from.

If you think that a sense of life is what makes an artwork good or not, and I don't, then we have no common basis.

There are a lot of fundamental areas in which, people cannot come to any agreement if they hold different premises.

There are a lot of fundamental areas in which people can't come to agreement even when they hold the same premises. I know that this is going to be a shock to you, but two people can disagree about about a work of art without one of them being Eeeeeevil.

Fortunately, there are plenty of people that respect my aesthetics as well as my art. My current project with philosopher Stephen Hicks, Explaining Postmodern Art, is one case in point.

Holy Shnike! Stephen Hicks! THE Stephen Hicks? Why didn't you say so?! If Stephen Hicks respects your aesthetic theories, I guess I don't need any substantive responses to my specific criticisms of your views. From now on I'll just defer to his general judgment of you!

Jonathan, perhaps since you are so adamant at finding faults with my ideas...

I'm not adamant about finding faults with your ideas. The way I look at it is that you're adamant about having faulty ideas and making them public.

...perhaps you can figure out a common ground we might share and address me accordingly?

Perhaps you should learn to recognize common ground. The first thing that I said about Schipperheyn's sculpture was that it was "really good" even though I don't like it. I said that I wouldn't categorize it as awesome in content or expression, but "maybe in style." Dragonfly immediately admitted that it was "technically masterful," despite also disliking it. Jim Shay thought that it was "technically well done" though overwrought. That should have been "common ground" enough. Instead you decided to label us as dark, cynical and angst-ridden, and to imply that our tastes in art suggest that we are victims of a modern dark age. If you want "common ground," stop behaving like a hyper-judgmental, self-important clown whom everyone owes so much respect that they shouldn't dare to disagree with him.

J

[Roger Bissell]

I think you're respected for your art. I simply don't think that your talents as a painter necessarily translate to your being any good at philosophy, aesthetic theory or art criticism (or even intelligent conversation, sometimes). When it comes to those things, you often seem to expect that you can point to your resume instead of making a coherent argument or addressing the substance of others' arguments. And that deserves zero respect.

J

It seems that aesthetics is quite complex. For example if you believe that the artist's ideas, life-style, and time are essential to an aesthetic judgment of an artwork, and I, for example don't--then the issue becomes mute. There is no common basis to communicate from.

If you think that a sense of life is what makes an artwork good or not, and I don't, then we have no common basis.

There are a lot of fundamental areas in which, people cannot come to any agreement if they hold different premises.

There are a lot of fundamental areas in which people can't come to agreement even when they hold the same premises. I know that this is going to be a shock to you, but two people can disagree about about a work of art without one of them being Eeeeeevil.

Fortunately, there are plenty of people that respect my aesthetics as well as my art. My current project with philosopher Stephen Hicks, Explaining Postmodern Art, is one case in point.

Holy Shnike! Stephen Hicks! THE Stephen Hicks? Why didn't you say so?! If Stephen Hicks respects your aesthetic theories, I guess I don't need any substantive responses to my specific criticisms of your views. From now on I'll just defer to his general judgment of you!

Jonathan, perhaps since you are so adamant at finding faults with my ideas...

I'm not adamant about finding faults with your ideas. The way I look at it is that you're adamant about having faulty ideas and making them public.

...perhaps you can figure out a common ground we might share and address me accordingly?

Perhaps you should learn to recognize common ground. The first thing that I said about Schipperheyn's sculpture was that it was "really good" even though I don't like it. I said that I wouldn't categorize it as awesome in content or expression, but "maybe in style." Dragonfly immediately admitted that it was "technically masterful," despite also disliking it. Jim Shay thought that it was "technically well done" though overwrought. That should have been "common ground" enough. Instead you decided to label us as dark, cynical and angst-ridden, and to imply that our tastes in art suggest that we are victims of a modern dark age. If you want "common ground," stop behaving like a hyper-judgmental, self-important clown whom everyone owes so much respect that they shouldn't dare to disagree with him.

J

Yeah, Jonathan, what's ~with~ this guy, anyway? He wants to disqualify sense of life as a criterion for evaluating art, then when people agree with his evaluation on technical grounds but express a dislike for it, he evaluates ~them~ negatively. Seems like sense of life works just fine as a criterion for evaluating ~people~ in his mind.

One thing, though -- you're going to stop pulling your punches (viz., your last sentence), if you want to get through to him. :-)

REB

[Jonathan]

[Newberry]

Perhaps all the breu ha ha, is because I am not a member of the commercial artists' club?

[Brant Gaede]

Michael is a great artist. This isn't an argument from authority because it isn't an argument. He started a thread here and most of the animadversion generated from it didn't come from him.

--Brant

[Jonathan]

Perhaps all the breu ha ha, is because I am not a member of the commercial artists' club?

I think that each artist has his or her own concepts of "artistic integrity" and "selling out" when it comes to doing what they have to do to earn a living. I can't speak for Roger, but personally, I'd be miserable if I had to teach. I much prefer doing commercial art for clients instead, and my commercial work never involves oil painting or sculpting -- it's pretty much limited to photography, digital image manipulation, 3D rendering and animation.

My concept of artistic integrity involves keeping my commercial and fine art distinctly separate. I strictly allow absolutely nothing to dictate what, when or how I create fine art. For example, I would feel that I was selling out if I were forced to dedicate a couple of months to churning out dozens of quick landscapes in order to have enough paintings to fill space for an upcoming gallery show, which is something that I've seen you do, Michael. I'd feel totally compromised and, well, filthy, if I had to paint fine art according to a gallery's schedule or quantity requirements. But, obviously you have a different view, and if it works for you, more power to you.

As for the brouhaha being about the fact that you're not a commercial artist, I think you're once again grasping at straws to avoid dealing with the substance of the discussion. If you feel that you have a successful career that hasn't involved selling out or doing things that you don't want to do, I'm happy for you. Sincerely. I feel absolutely nothing that even comes close to anything like envy. I wish you success in your career beyond your wildest dreams.

And if it hasn't been clear, personal jealousies or other ulterior motives aren't necessary to explain my criticisms of your views. The fact that you can't answer my arguments, but instead must resort to diversionary tactics -- like citing your resume, dropping names or looking for ulterior motives -- does nothing but reinforce the validity of my questioning your views. The more that you avoid substance, the more obvious it becomes that you have to avoid it.

J

[BaalChatzaf]

A few months ago I made friends with the artist of this work, Peter Schipperheyn. http://www.users.bigpond.com/SCHIP/index.htm It's great to connect with colleague and share experiences.

I think art is our greatest medium to crystallize what it is that we live for. I am afraid that most people never connect what they live for to art.

Michael

We have one (budding) artist in our family, my grandson Eli. He is fifteen, but he is quite talented (he has been artfully arting since the age of two. Very Mozartesque). He has actually produced art for pay, so he is a professional at a young age. He is really too young to have articulated a view on what he lives for, so if I live to when he is eighteen or twenty one, I will ask him the very question you have raised. He is a very articulate kid (and a bit of a smart-ass) and has the gift of the gab.

I hope he is in a state where he can articulate his motives and concerns. Right now he is sprouting hair and thinking about girls when he is not doing art, so I will not bother him with philosophical questions. Eli was begotten by my daughter, who is a leading toy designer (a superstar at Fisher-Price), and my son-in-law who is an industrial designer and inventor, so Eli comes by his talent rightly. I can hardly wait until he is able to discuss such matters with his old grand dad.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Edited November 7, 2007 by BaalChatzaf