Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by Alfa

  1. 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. "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. 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 a
  4. 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 sa
  5. 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. 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,
  7. 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. 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 starv
  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 respe
  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
  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
  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, i
  15. For what? I'd personally be happy with just my future wife, but in the meantime... I think a couple of thousand would do.
  16. 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. 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'
  17. 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. I think something better to look at would be people who have very inspiring and successful relationships. I would agree except for the "out of your league" part. You will get much farther with some irreverence.
  18. 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?
  19. 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.
  20. I agree, and that's the point i'm trying to make. 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 misunderstand me. I'm actually in ag
  21. 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 y
  22. 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:' And which one of these greys has the more visual interest? Both of them are mid-value, neutral greys. 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.
  23. 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.
  24. 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...