Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Alfa

Regulars
  • Content count

    676
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    3

Alfa last won the day on June 25 2016

Alfa had the most liked content!

1 Follower

About Alfa

  • Rank
    Advanced Member
  • Birthday 10/19/82

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male

Previous Fields

  • Country
    Sweden
  • State (US/Canadian)
    Not Specified
  • Relationship status
    No Answer
  • Sexual orientation
    Straight
  • Copyright
    Copyrighted

Recent Profile Visitors

12303 profile views
  1. Why does the Visual Arts Forum seem deserted?

    Why, thank you! I also very much appreciate the civil tone. It's much more fun to discuss things in an open and civil way. I wont be checking in here fot a little while, so I wish you all a happy new year! w
  2. Why does the Visual Arts Forum seem deserted?

    "Visual clarity" can be a bit ambigous. Ayn Rand for example didn't like visible paint strokes, but is smooth blending really clearer or just smoother? Is Leonardo's sfumato technique clearer than Sargent's? (Sargent painted with thick, opaque, brush strokes, making sure to really nail the color and value with every stroke. A technique that demands incredible skill and focus.)
  3. Why does the Visual Arts Forum seem deserted?

    The answer that is missing here is why painting could not reach man's emotions directly, like music. Saying that painting is conceptual because of the relationship between recognisable conretes is not really an answer to that. Could you explain the conceptual relationshop within a piece of music? I could say that I find this: to invoke the feeling of Walking along a quay on a bright sunny day, set against a blue sky and ships sailing in the water, while it's busy with people and things moving about. I could of course point to such things as the warm yellow color, the blue triangle and the different shapes and so on and so forth. My own associations are certainly at play here and I have no idea of Kandinsky's intent, though some things are probably quite universal. I would for example be very suprised if someone found the mood to be dark and depressing. Could you say much more about this? (not suggesting they have quite the same mood, by the way)
  4. Why does the Visual Arts Forum seem deserted?

    You're sneaking in "communacte anything broad". Do you think strong verticals in a composition communicate the same feeling as a horizontal composition? Can you tell the difference in feeling from looking at a piece of brushed metal and a piece of plastic? Do you Think it's all the same to lead the eye through a painting wiht long sweeping arcs or through short abrubpt turns? Is a cool blue all the same as a warm orange? I certainly think they communicate quite different things. Painting is not music is not an argument. Associations drawn from general feelings is not the same as communicating concretes. You haven't made the case why, for instance, Kandinsky's paintings couldn't evoke general feelings, and why you couldn't draw associations from that just like in a piece of music. I like Kandinsky as an example since I think he quite successfully does that, and I would associate Scriabin's etude with one of his paintings. His intention was to capture the sense of the place and the crowd, the sense of being there. That's why he didn't focus on the faces. You wouldn't make out the details of faces in a crowd, but you would notice the atmosphere, shapes and forms, and the movements. The women and men are more easily told apart by their clothing, the latest fashion in Paris at the time.
  5. Why does the Visual Arts Forum seem deserted?

    That is quite true, greater economic freedom meant more opportunities to experiment and be avante garde. The patrons went from the rich to the middle class, and the art changed accordingly.
  6. Why does the Visual Arts Forum seem deserted?

    It's rather well established that modern art began in the Paris art scene in the mid 19th century, breaking with the heavily tradition laden classical academic art. Edouard Manet, for instance, quite successfully critized the academic art and caused outrage among critics with paintings like "Olypmia" and "Luncheon on the Grass". And if you think they were nihilists out to destroy art you'll have to consider many impressionist works shortly after Paris was besieged by the Prussians in 1870, and socialist Communards tried overthrowing the government which ended in the Bloody Week. Yet, the impressionists painted life-affirming pictures of everyday life in Paris while the city most likely still bore scars from the previous events. For example Renoir's "Dance at Le Moulin de la Galette" and "Luncheon of the Boating Party" (depicting both working class and bourgeois together), or the lively and peaceful street scenes from places that were recently ravaged by war.
  7. Why does the Visual Arts Forum seem deserted?

    The most commonly debated art topic on here, I think... Can shapes, colors, textures, arrangements etc. communicate something without representing any concretes? For example, can shape be beautiful, ugly, elegant, jarring, etc? What concretes does Scriabin's Etude #12 Op. 8 represent?
  8. Why does the Visual Arts Forum seem deserted?

    I think one big problem is that many Objectivists are not artists, but they like to be art critics. Not that you really need to be one to be the other, but it's not uncommon for things to get a bit vicious when things don't fit the Objectivist(tm) criteria of good art. Sadly, because I think there are so much more to say about art than Ayn Rand did or the interpretations of what she said. Anyhow, I'm not so active here anymore but if you want to talk art. Like, really getting down and dirty with it, well... I'm game. Just throw a ball and I'll play it right back at you. I'm actually starving for that kind of discussion, because I haven't found it available anywhere. Seriously, about ten years ago there were forums active with artists fighting to improve themselves and sharing their knowledge with others. Today it's a situation of everyone trying to scream the hardest to get the most attention. This has nothing to do with Objectivism or any other branch of philosophy. It is, as I call, the ADHD generation taking over the internet. In case someone thinks I'm too pessimistic I'd like to mention that I was there when the internet was new and amazing. I joined different forums for computer hardware, racecar engineering and later art (or rather, CGI). Back then there were people who really knew their shit. I mean, literally, I got some help from a Formula 1 engineer when I was building my own racecar. No kidding. That was the kind of environment you'd find on the internet back then. Not that Formula 1 engineers where a dime a dozen, but you could find some real experts in just about any field. Like computer hardware. I've learned a thing or two from engineers working at Intel and AMD. And in terms of art, I've learned things from people who spearheaded the industry back then. I haven't found that stuff on the internet today. Sure, there's some valuable stuff on sites like Youtube. But, most of it is focused on getting attention. Just search Youtube on "how to draw [whatever]" and most of your results will be crap to a dramatic soundtrack, without any real information or knowledge. That's the state of affairs today. But hey, if you want to talk art and have something intersting in mind...well, I'm game.
  9. By the way, that might be somewhat of a local thing. I understand that americans are a lot more comfortable with disagreement that us swedes, or europeans, are. Here you better fit into the politically correct mold, or you're going to make enemies (and I have...). My friends are the kind of people who can handle disagreement, intense arguments, and even get pissed off without making a big deal of it. Rather, they enjoy different views and like to argue them. That's pretty rare over here. Most people would just get pissed off, scream obscenities and never talk to you again.
  10. Sorry to say, but they were not as close as you thought. Don't get me wrong. I have a few friends who are fairly negative to Objectivism (not that they understand the philosophy, but anyhow). However, we have enough in common have fun together and discuss philosophy or politics without anyone getting too pissed off. Most importantly, there's a mutual respect. It would be impossible if there wasn't (it would probably have ended in fisticuffs otherwise). I mean, we can all think that the other one has some stupid idea - and say it just like that - but there's at least this mutual respect that we all deal with ideas. Agree or disagree. We can all argue about that, but it's always with a certain respect - like the other person is actually worth listening to and take seriously. It would not work otherwise. Of course, if that doesn't work we just talk about titties and beer.
  11. Aren't those necessary in any close relationship? I mean, sure, in a professional environment I might have to deal with some of that cordially. Bullies though, might find I'm not so nice after all. Either way, people like that I always keep at a good distance. Having someone like that as a partner would be unthinkable. Mutual respect and admiration is a necessity for a romantic relationship. Who the hell would want to be in a relationship where those are not cornerstones? Personally, I think there are lot's of people worth respect, admiration and even love who are not Objectivists. I also think there are Objectivists who are not.
  12. Objectivism doesn't say anything about Bob Ross. Strange question... if you enjoy Bob Ross, then what's the problem? I personally enjoy his videos. He's like a happy bumblebee and seems to love what he's doing. I also think his approach is good for beginners. As for his paintings I find them to be full of empty calories and reminding me of religious kitsch.
  13. I don't know. Unless you've done some real studies and you're and expert on the subject, you don't know either. I think it's easy to see that women and men are different. Different hormones, different brain structures etc. That's fine. I don't think it's even that controversial. But, to answer what exact role biology plays is a field reserved only for the real experts. You and I may have theories based on some research, but to keep it honest and true... we don't really know shit. It's too complicated for laymen. That seems very much in line with the theory of evolution, doesn't it? I mean, somewhere down the line our great ancestor made choices based on certain criteria, and thats how the human race has evolved. One must be very carfeull though to not look at it the wrong way around. What we must first ask is; "how are people today?". Once we've cleared that, we can start looking at why. I'm sure the answer can be found in the theory of evolution. However, saying that our great ancestor were a certain way and that, therefore, we are a certain way, is rationalistic. So, if we want to find what women find attractive we need to conduct realiable studies as to what women actually find attractive. Then we can ask ourselves why. That answer is most likely found in evolution, considering it's the mating behaviours of our great anscestors that have made up our biology. No, I think the most attractive trait for men is strength and for women beauty. This is not to say that neither trait will work for both genders, only that they are primary for sexual attraction. To give you a concrete example of what I mean. One of my coworkers is a cocksure lesiban. I like her, we get along well, and she has a very nice body with a very beautiful face - big eyes, high cheekbones etc. For a man though, there's nothing attractive about her at all. I mean, if we were to partake in a cock swinging contest i'm sure she'd win. Everything about her - body language, speech, clothing, hair cut etc - screams "male". She's a damn strong woman though. Tough as nails. A real trucker. In contrast, i'm seeing this woman who's incredibly beautiful and feminine. Everything about her sreams "woman". She just also happens to be tough as nails, but in a completely different way. She's not the kind you would ever dream to run over - she'll give you fucking hell. But, if you know how to conquer her she'll purr like a little kitten. As far as men looking good... well, i've been on both sides of that fence. It's never really made a difference. What's made a difference are my actions. As long as you're confident about your body you'll be fine. It will certainly help to look good naked, but it's secondary. Yes, it's different. The good looking gal with an ugly guy is most likely with an alpha male. The good looking guy doesn't know his value.
  14. I don't really give a rats ass what the Objectivist answer is, but yes... if you don't like the results you've been getting you need to make some improvements. A friend of mine used to have the saying "be that guy...". Meaning basically that if you want to be someone who attracts people around you, then "be that guy...". Be that guy who takes initiative for parties or other events (depending on what you want, of course). Be that guy who has a lot going on in his life. Be that guy who's so excited by his own life that others want to partake. I think you get the idea. Of course, if you prefer cozy little Ayn Rand bookclubs instead of sex, drugs and rock 'n roll... well, then that's what you should aim for. This is not meant to push you to be a certain way, but to take control and form the life you want around you. Now, that last bit is very important. You won't get anywhere by reading books and being stuck in your own head. I agree that Nathaniel Brandens book is good, but it's better pushed to the back of your head for now. What you need to do first is take action. Start by identifying little things you could do better and go from there. Get some skin in the game and learn from real life. By the way, for you or anyone else reading this. Don't make the mistake of thinking that there's something wrong with you because you might find this difficult. I don't know where you're at, but I know a lot of guys base their self esteem on their success with women. Well, that's bullshit. Don't ever think that. I don't care if you're an introverted computer geek who prefers books before socializing with other people. That's me in a nutshell, although i've somehow become much more social over the years. That shit doesn't matter. What matters is connecting with people that are right for YOU. If you find that difficult you are probably doing something wrong, but that just means you haven't figured everything out yet. Don't let that get to your self esteem. It actually reminds me of an old friend of mine. The sterotypical computer programmer. Fiercly intelligent, but very little social skills. UNIX-beard, ugly glasses, and he probably buys new clothes once every decade. The thing is, despite those flaws i've seen him attract many women. At first. He's different, he doesn't hide it and he's quite clear about who he is. That even means being quite abrasive with women whe find stupid (not really rude, but abrasive). I've seen many women drawn to him just because of that. I've even tried to point that out for him, but he doesn't believe it. He stubbornly thinks it's his intelligence that puts them off, while it's actually what attract them. Problem is, you cannot just only talk about your interests. That girl may find your stories of World of Warcraft exciting, but it's a good idea to find out what stuff gets her excited as well. Then you should not assume that because you've found some common ground, things you both like, that it means attraction. It could just as well mean friendship. And please, don't get angry and bitter because of it. In such cases it really helps to see when a woman is attractaded, as opposed to friendly. But please avoid taking that as a kick to your ego. --- Personally, many years ago I realized that I was stuck in a dead end. I was basically only working for tomorrow while all my friends had moved and gone on with their lives. Pretty miserable situation, really. So I quit my job and went looking for better things to do. Tried, failed, tried some more and after a lot of hard work and failures things started to go well... At first I consumed pretty much every material I could get on seduction and self improvement. But, there's nothing like just putting yourself out there. One of the things I did was go out to bars and clubs. That's pretty awkward when you're alone, but that's also where you meet new people. And after a while I did. Some of them old friends and aquaintances, others complete strangers. I actually started to have some real fun. One of the craziest nights started when I was just being nice and friendly. This guy came up to me and asked for help finding his friend. It ended with tons of booze, naked girls and... well, I decided to leave discreetly when the guys started sniffing cocaine off the girls tits. Not really my cup of tea. I don't like heavy drugs and I certainly would not have liked being there if the cops showed up. Through work I met a lot of women. Some friends, and others more than friends. Having female friends is a great help if you want to meet more women, and become more than friendly. I also find women to be a refreshing contrast to men. After having worked in a male dominated environment, especially with the kind of men who can barely read or write, you truly start to appreciate the company of women more (yeah, like any man doesn't appreciate the company of women...). Somehow this has led to a reputation of being a ladies man. I've never bothered to deny it. I haven't confirmed it either. Truth is i've been around, and I don't take responsibility for what others think, but I don't sleep with everything with a pair of tits. I'm too lazy for that. It's too much work for something that will probably turn out to be a disappointment. That may work for a 20-something guy full of hormones, and I would even encourage to get some experience, but once you get older and you've done it a few times you start to appreciate quality. Some of the new friends i've made encouraged me to start travel more. I used to be too caught up in other things before, so I hadn't traveled much. Now i've driven through large parts of western europe, and some of eastern europe. That's among the very best experiences i've had. I don't mean taking a flight and living on a sunny beach somwhere. I mean taking a car, just driving away, and seeing what's around the next corner. I've been lost in east Berlin, and communist ghettos in Poland. I've driven through the Alps and visited small italian villages in the Appenines. Seeing the world, when you're far from home and a completely foreign country, really gives some perspective. It's also intersting to meet women from other countries. I've hooked up with women in every country i've been to, and some women from countries i've never visited. That's also something that might give you pause for thought. For example, eastern european women tend to have som real macho ideals about men. Meeting that, when you come from the most feminist country in the world - Sweden - is quite interesting. Sadly many of them also seem to have trouble finding men who are not drunks and beat them. German women tend to be quite forward. And friggin kinky. Granted, I haven't been to the US yet, but I bet if you come from there you'd be shocked. This is the country where they openly advertise brothels and you can buy sex toys at every gas station. Italian women... they are just classy, charming and completely wonderful. There's still some macho bullshit going on there, but still... I love italian women. And Polish women. Anyhow, that's not really the point here. I can make generalizations of women from different countries all day, but the point is when you travel around you see these differences more clearly. Now, these are just some changes i've made to my life. I've gone from a dead end to making real progress, getting a successful carrer, making new friends, meeting women and so on and so forth. When it comes to women, i've also learned to "flirt". I put that in scare quotes because flirting is not really what I do. Well, I do it a lot, but when it comes to laying down a prey it's killer instinct that matters. It's like a gut feeling you develop, and when you get it you just go for it. That's also why it's difficult to teach. If I were to say "just grap her and kiss her" you'd probably get slapped and kicked in the nuts. Granted, sometimes you have to gamble, but... it's better to have some feel for these things. Okay, so a very long winded post. What i'm basically trying to say with all this verbiage is that you have to get out there, learn the ropes, fail and try again. Having all these great ideas of self esteem in your head is great. They will help you. Ultimately though, you must get out there and try your wings. By the way, this is irregardless of any wise shit you might get from some pick-up artist. I'm all for looking into the stuff that's out there. If you're critical and don't swallow all of the bullshit there are actually some good things you can learn. Just keep in mind that many of the guys doing this are not quite right in the head. I think Neil Strauss 'The Game' exposes that side quite well (he is very charismatic and has some good tips though).
×