Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Alfa

Regulars
  • Content Count

    676
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    3

Posts posted by Alfa


  1. 47 minutes ago, DonAthos said:

    As an observer with too little artistic knowledge to weigh in meaningfully, I just want to express my appreciation for all parties in this conversation -- and especially New Buddha, RomanticRealism and Alfa -- for a civil and very engaging and informative conversation.

    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. 4 hours ago, RomanticRealism said:

    Clarity to me is simply visual clarity. I do not mean photo realism which I recoil from - I mean stylised realism. To give you a small but important example say: if you observe that when you have sunlight next to shadow the light area directly next to the shadow appears brighter and the shadow next to the bright area appears darker. When an artist observes reality and recognises this, the artist can then show this and exaggerate it to achieve added clarity. Clarity in painting is important because it is a artist's choice of style - "style expresses a view of man's consciousness." Ayn Rand (she put it better than I can). Clarity in style is equivalent to clarity in thought. 

    "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. 9 hours ago, RomanticRealism said:

    "Painting is not music" is an argument because understanding the visual arts as I had explained in my previous posts is clear-cut - that painting is conceptual because of the relationship between recognisable concretes, but the problem with music is no one has the knowledge so far to explain the exact cognitive process. I have only attempted to explain it earlier in the sense of it being like a movie, or being placed within a movie - by introspection only.

    In a Kandinsky painting there are no recognisable concretes, only attributes to concretes. If you could explain the conceptual relationships within a Kandinsky painting (similar to my explanation of the Sargent painting) I will call you a genius. Now if a Kandinsky painting makes you feel good while viewing it, that's great - it is a very good form of decoration. 

    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:Wassily-font-b-Kandinsky-b-font-font-b-p

    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?
    Quissettdaysail20x36.jpg

    (not suggesting they have quite the same mood, by the way)


  4. 6 hours ago, RomanticRealism said:

    I don't believe they can, because they are attributes of concretes. On their own they can't communicate anything broad. Texture would be at the perceptual level and no more than that. You simply recognise it as texture. And I'll take it a step further, a single concrete that is representational can't communicate anything broad (theme). You need 2 or more concretes - concretes that relate to each other.

    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.

     

    5 hours ago, RomanticRealism said:

    Very nice piece of music! What music evokes is a very broad sense, a general feeling. The concretes that you associate with those feelings will differ for each person. So you will have to answer that question yourself. An example is how a director chooses music to enhance a movie because of how the general sense of the music relates to the specifics he believes are being shown and in most cases the viewer will relate as well. What makes music special is that it seems to take you from the general to the specific, where as painting starts with concretes. People who try to justify non-representational painting believe the process is the same as it is in music ie start with some general feelings and then relate it back somehow to concretes. Painting is not music.

    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.

    4 hours ago, RomanticRealism said:

    Do you think it was Renoir's intention to make all the females and males identical (or very similar) to each other? - especially the woman in "Dance at Le Moulin de la Galette". Just an observation.

    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. On ‎2016‎-‎12‎-‎28 at 2:12 AM, RomanticRealism said:

    I could not agree that the modern movement was born out of "a "reaction" by Modernists to the Beau Art's insistence on the  portrayal of overtly literary themes and subjects, such as biblical scenes". Modernists are out to destroy art. They are nihilists - to take fine art that conveys meaning and replace it with the intelligible. For me, in the visual arts it is the most obvious - unless you take literature and jumble the words randomly, it would achieve the same thing.

    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.


  6.  

    On ‎2016‎-‎12‎-‎26 at 2:16 AM, RomanticRealism said:

    Can non-representational art be art?

    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?

    On ‎2016‎-‎12‎-‎28 at 0:52 AM, RomanticRealism said:

    I do believe visual art does rely on the representation of concretes to convey something - that is the nature of sight. And the sum of the concretes add up to a visual theme. Just image for a moment that an artist created a modern non-representational "painting" prior to the 20th century, it would be regarded as a joke - at best regarded as decoration. That this decoration is now regarded as fine art they have suddenly become advanced? - what has changed, have they suddenly become visually aware? I have nothing against decoration and it has it's place, but to call it fine art is to negate the basic nature of fine art.

    I don't think using music, a totally different form of art, as a comparison to the visual arts. Even with my limited knowledge on music I would not dismiss it as non-representational.

    What concretes does Scriabin's Etude #12 Op. 8 represent?

     


  7. On ‎2016‎-‎12‎-‎10 at 11:33 PM, Tenderlysharp said:

    Many more threads would be a good start.  I would like to present the argument that if Objectivism is going to thrive individuals interested ought to take the visual world seriously, more seriously than I see evidence of in this visual arts forum. 

    With the advent of the Internet, the world is becoming increasingly visual.  I believe the mental real estate in my brain is filled up with a great deal more visual information than most of the people I know.  It is historically unprecedented how many images I can recognize. 

    Tumblr for instance is thriving with visual activity of every echelon of quality.  I've been cultivating my tumblr account for five years, and re-posted over 10,000 images.  I've sifted through and rejected hundreds of images for each image I post.  You get better at sifting, better at finding those who have the kind of eye you are seeking. 

    My tumblr: http://tenderlysharp.tumblr.com/

    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.

     

     

     

     

     


  8. 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.


  9. 17 minutes ago, bluecherry said:

    Actually, I made the specification because I have had a number of close friends with pretty strongly negative assessments of Objectivism.

    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. ;)


  10. On ‎2016‎-‎09‎-‎20 at 1:37 AM, bluecherry said:

    I'd characterize it as a huge bonus, but not a necessity. What is necessary is that they not be strongly antagonistic to and condescending about Objectivism. I don't find it attractive when somebody won't take seriously something this important to me that I've put a lot of thought into. I think I may also, for romance, require that somebody not be big on initiating force to compel others to live according to their point of view. That's just something that I find too downright infuriating to get past enough to really love somebody like that if they will actively try to make me and others live their way no matter what we want and believe to the contrary. That makes them come across as an active threat and an enemy to me, even if it is pretty small scale how much power they have to actually make much of anything happen. In a friend I could tolerate easily something like enthusiastically and consistently voting for controlling politicians, but not a romantic partner.

    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.


  11. 8 hours ago, dadmonson said:

    I have a few more questions:

    1. What role does biology and evolution play in masculinity and femininity?[/quote]

    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.

    8 hours ago, dadmonson said:

    2. Do you think biology and evolution have an influence on what women generally find attractive? [/quote]

    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.

    8 hours ago, dadmonson said:

    4. ...  I don't think good looks are as helpful to men as it is to women when it comes to attracting the opposite sex. For instance, I think good looks would get a woman farther sexually (or even relationship-wise) with a man than vice versa. Do you think so too?  If so, why do you think that is?  If you think biology and/or evolution influences this... do you think that is some variant of determinism?

    This is a generalization, I know, and has it's limits.  I , for one, wouldn't have sex with a girl without knowing much about her... even if she looked like the girl of my dreams... my hottest celebrity crush.[/quote]

    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.

    8 hours ago, dadmonson said:

    6. I've seen attractive woman with less attractive males and vice versa.  Do you think it is different when a beautiful woman likes an ugly man than when a good looking man likes an ugly woman?  Why or why not?

     

    I know you guys aren't mind readers (people are attracted to different things for various reasons) so some of these questions might seem impossible, but, if you can try to generalize a little then maybe you could answer. 

    I think an Objectivist psychologist really should write a book on this because many people seem to disagree with Ayn on masculinity and femininity for some reason. 

     

    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.


  12. On 2016-06-25 at 7:22 AM, dadmonson said:

    So the o'ist answer to how to attract an attractive woman is basically self improvement?

    Well, I've just finished reading the 6 pillars of self esteem and I must say it's a damn good book...  I will reread it again and again and practice the 6 pillars of self esteem until I've internalized everything.  I'm very serious about this because I love my life.

    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).


  13. On 2016-06-05 at 2:49 AM, dadmonson said:

    I don't agree that all women are the same but I do believe that there are certain ways you can act that will increase or decrease your chances with a girl.  For instance, I think we can all agree that being nice will increase your chances and being mean or boring will decrease your chances for most women.[/quote]

    No, I don't agree with that. You will get a lot more women by being a douchebag and treating them like dirt. Especially the really good looking ones.

    That doesn't mean you should be a douchebag. It just means you should never think that being nice is a good way to get a woman to like you, more than as a friend.

    Everyone can be nice. It's easy. Even cows are nice. It doesn't really mean anything, until you put in context of a strong and confident person.

    On 2016-06-05 at 2:49 AM, dadmonson said:

    If your answer is be a man of self esteem and be masculine...  I would ask you to try to describe how a masculine man of self esteem would be around a woman he was attracted to and what kinds of things would he say?  Also would he approach any random girl he finds in the street that he thinks is physically attractive?  If so, then how would he approach the girl?  What would he say?  Does what he say not even matter? 

    Also, how can a man be sexy?

    First off, be proud of who you are. Learn to not give a shit what others think. As long as you're happy with yourself, that's all that matters.

    Don't ever lie, cheat, hide or apologize for who you are. Be open and honest - let them take it or leave it.

    Should you approach every random girl you find attractive? Well, would you want to? Personally, I wouldn't have time for much else than chasing girls I find attractive. However, it's good to have the balls to do it when you really want to approach someone.

    What to say? See, this is really difficult to teach. You need to find things that are true to who you are. Look around for tips and pick out a few that you like, just outside your comfort zone, and go for it. With time you'll learn to wing it.

    Personally I just say any stupid thing that comes to mind, try to crash and burn and then somehow make it work. While someone else might get slapped I get them to laugh.


  14. On 2016-06-05 at 9:58 AM, Nicky said:

    I think "pickup artists" are just guys who are naturally charming and have a lot of experience with women, trying to sell snake oil to guys who aren't. But, the fact is, 99% of people aren't supremely charming and experienced...and yet, most of them manage to find partners. Just look at your friends and acquaintances, who have partners: what percentage of them would you say are "pickup artists", who can pick up a girl pretty much at will? I doubt you know more than one guy like that. Everyone else does it without any special skills.

    That's false. Most of the so called pick-up artists are former socially awkward geeks. Now that it's become a business, it's a hodgepodge of sound advice, snake oil and bullshit.

     

    On 2016-06-05 at 9:58 AM, Nicky said:

     

    Quote

    So I think what you should worry about isn't how the pickup artists do it, it's how these other people do it. There are only a couple of things that ACTUALLY WORK, in my experience:

    I think something better to look at would be people who have very inspiring and successful relationships. 

     

    On 2016-06-05 at 9:58 AM, Nicky said:
    Quote

    1. Choose who you like: like women you know, and who have similar interests and values to yours...and are therefor more likely to like you back. Don't bother chasing after someone who isn't interested, or is out of your league (for whatever reason).

    I would agree except for the "out of your league" part. You will get much farther with some irreverence.

     

     


  15. On ‎2016‎-‎04‎-‎30 at 9:48 PM, Harrison Danneskjold said:

    ... What???

     

    While I might feel something for the people in your other example, suicide is different. By definition, whoever commits suicide is choosing it and deserves it.

    If someone can't go on living anymore then that's their choice (and their right) but I feel no sympathy for them, full stop.

     

    You're not even angered by the taunting and cheering? Is it more like "whatevs, wonder what i'm gonna cook for dinner...", or do you get some emotional response?


  16. Alfa,

    By introducing texture to the spheres, you have drawn into their evaluation another sense modality in addition to vision - touch.  Smooth and rough textures have a different feels.  This ties into a post that Dream_Weaver made awhile back on metaphor.  Metaphor, too, is a blending of domains or modes.  This uniquely human ability to cross domains and blend sense modalities lies at the root of aesthetics.

    That's another important aspect, altough not the only one. One truly masterful example is Vermeer's milkmaid, which is so well executed you can really feel the different materials by just looking at them.

    Compositionally it's important as well. Texture and detail attracts the eye. Subtle differences in the brushwork can also lead the eye. You may notice in the milk maid that there are both blurred and sharp edges that, with other compositional elements of course, guide the eye.

    Brushwork can also depict movement, energy, rhytm and flow.


  17. To me, they don't have the same impact. They each have their own aesthetic feel. They each evoke a different vibe.

    I agree, and that's the point i'm trying to make.

     

    I think that a typical visual artist would say that the one on the left is more visually interesting. Artists tend to like texture, variation, modeling, stumbling, etc.

    I think that Rand, on the other hand, would have preferred the one on the right. She personally, subjectively preferred the absence of the effects that visual artists like. She liked smooth, clean, pure surfaces, etc. She didn't like "painterly" effects. She didn't want to see brushwork.

    I think Ayn Rand was unusual in that. My understanding is that she saw smooth renderings as somehow connected with clarity of thought. Whatever her reasons, I don't share her preference. I see them as different styles, both valid, but tend to prefer more impressionistic work (in terms of style, I tend to hold Sargent and Zorn in the highest esteem).

    Now, i've never been able to figure out exactly what she liked or disliked, and I often find myself disagreeing with her comments on specific artists.

     

    You seem to be assuming that whichever of the samples that you like best IS the best, and that its being better is so self-evident that you don't even need to identify which you prefer! Which do you think is better?

    Personally, my view is that none are universally "better," but each is contextually better at evoking different aesthetic responses in each viewer. The same would be true of a musical chord played on saxophones versus violins -- one has more "texture" and the other is "smoother," and the textured one is better at evoking certain feigns, while the smoother one is better at evoking other feelings.

    J

    You misunderstand me. I'm actually in agreement with you here.

    By "visual interest" I mean that there's more for the eye to process in the left samples. In certain contexts that may be better, while in others it's a bad idea. For example, you may not want the same amount of texture in foreground and background elements. Nor would you want to capture something calm and seren with a bunch of busy brushtrokes. Then, there's the matter of personal preference and style - while I find the completely flat gray painfully boring, perhaps you'll find it nice and clean.

    Anyhow, my point wasn't to say that one is better than the other. It was rather to show the differences. Like Zorn's portrait of Isabella Stewart Gardner is full of energy and movement, while Sargent's is the opposite.

    (As a footnote, completely beside the point I was trying to make, I must say that I really don't agree with Sargent's portrait. I can't look at it without feeling slightly ill. Maybe it's just me, really not agreeing with the choice of colors... I don't know.)


  18. I like the analogy to music, not that i'm particularly educated regarding music but... well, when i'm really "in the zone" while painting or scultping I find myself thinking in musical terms.

     

    That parellell also illustrates what I find wrong with the video:

     

    What's wrong with modern music? Back in the good ol' days we had Mozart, Bach and Tchaikovsky. Today we have japanese noise-core and niggas rapping about bitches and money. This all started with rock music. The early adopters certainly had some merit (Led Zeppelin rocks!) but from there it's just downhill...

     

    Regardless of what you think about todays music, I expect your reaction to an argument like that to be; "wait... what!?". It doesn't answer the question that's posed,, it's inaccurate and it misses the wide diversity of music today.


  19. Regarding brushwork, I made a couple of doodles to illustrate.

     

    Do these speheres have the same visual impact? Nevermind that they are quick and sloppy, they are close enough that the brushwork is the one major difference:'

    55ezrs.jpg

     

     

    And which one of these greys has the more visual interest? Both of them are mid-value, neutral greys.

    ao4b9i.jpg

     

    I'd say theres quite a difference even in these very simple and crude examples. The difference then, when a master artist makes good use of his brushwork... A comparison that springs to mind is Zorn's and Sargent's portraits of Isabella Stewart Gardner.


  20. There is a lot of art that you have to sit down and think about for a while to understand its meaning, as you will probably recall from things you have read about art history or a tour you may have taken through an art museum. I would be surprised if Rand regarded this as a serious shortcoming, since that would imply a negative judgment of a lot of art. (On the other hand, she was independent enough that she would not necessarily have shied away from a conclusion like that.)

    I have strongly disagreed with Jonathan many times, but... He is a very accomplished artist, in no need of art history lessons. If you search the forum i'm sure you'll find some of his work, and i'm sure you'll find that your comment was very misplaced.

     

    I don't mean to sound harsh, you've probably just missed a lot of old threads on art here at OO. However, wether you agree or disagree with him you can't deny that the guy knows his stuff when it comes to art.


  21. What standards? Académie des Beaux-Arts standards? Neo-classicism and religious art? What are the universal standards he's referring to?

     

    The impressionists that he holds responsible for the decline rebeled against the conservative standards of academic art, but they very much held standards of their own.

×
×
  • Create New...