Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Alfa

Regulars
  • Content Count

    676
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    3

Everything posted by Alfa

  1. I don't wish to get involved in this debate; I don't have the time, energy or desire to do so. However, I do like to point a simple factual error. Objectivism does hold sex and romance as an exchange of values.
  2. This is quite possibly the best joke in the world: http://metanet.2.forumer.com/index.php?act=Attach&type=post&id=437342
  3. No, I was not, and nor do I harbor any such desire. Ayn Rand made judgements of his character through his paintings. You had problems with this. I pointed out that according to those quotes he did indeed have a rather twisted character. That does give her some credibility. Now i'm done.
  4. Oh well, i'm done here. I don't waste time arguing with people who psychologize and try to twist your words. edit: This is what i'm reffering to: "Your desire to confirm your biases..." "So, you're saying that you're somehow being virtuous.." "But let me guess: you believe that your interpretation of any artwork is the objective interpretation, and anyone who disagrees with you is merely giving subjective opinions?" I have no tolerance for such things, so we're done.
  5. The quotes suggest he was actually more fundamentally twisted. My point being, Ayn Rand's judgement seems to have been rather accurate, giving credibility to her method. To what end? Generalizations are properly used in situations like this to identify fundamental principles. Let's call it integration of conciousness, by avoiding concrete-bound thinking. That's subjectivism.
  6. I don't know much about Picasso or any cubist, but I found this after a little googling: http://www.goodart.org/picconf.htm Based on those few quotes i'm inclined to think he was in fact rather twisted. Though in fairness that page is not enough to make any final judgement. So, what's your take on it? What's the idea behind cubism? What are the metaphysical value judgements? Personally I regard perspective, light and color theory(among other things) as tools of the trade. I have no problems with deviations when it serves a good purpose. Heck, one of my favorite paintings has a green sky. There's something you don't see every day. Atleast not on planet earth. From what I understand of Ayn Rand's tastes, that she liked some of Dali's and Capuletti's works, i'm not so sure she had problems with such deviations per se. The question then remains, what is it and what does it communicate?
  7. I thought the acting, indeed the whole trailer, seemed incredibly contrived.
  8. I'll admit that off the top of my head I can't come up with an answer that i'm satisfied with. Perhaps I need a little coffee or sleep first. However, honestly, are you saying you can't tell that, say, Picasso's paintings were deliberate while the lock and keys has some unintentional errors(like perspective)?. Actually, i'm pretty darn sure you can, so the question is not really if but how. "Eliminating the unimportant" can also mean eliminating unimportant aspects. Take for example a portrait. An artist may judge the particular details of the background to be unimportant, the focus being on the persons face, but aspects of the background(like light) can help the theme(setting the mood and giving more depth and contrast). I see nothing in Ayn Rand's words that speak against it.
  9. No, it would be an error of knowledge. That's not the same as an unfocused mind. Did she actually say so? The fact that you suspect something does not make it so.
  10. While I don't necessarily disagree with the theme of the keyes, and I do think it's a nice painting, I don't think how it's rendered is a good example of serving it's theme. It just looks like a poor choice of blending techinique, like using the smudge brush in Photoshop, and not correctly observing how reflections in metal work. It actually retracts from the shininess of the metal, as shiny objects have clear reflections, and gives it a satined look. The theme could have been helped by a more accurate, yet stylized, rendering. A couple of examples of what I mean by sharper reflections: http://watercoloursforfun.com/Teapot/18Teapot.jpg http://www.brassproducts.com/images/brass1.jpg
  11. Alfa

    Thought of you

    I'm glad you liked it. I also liked what he said there. He clearly loves what he's doing, and I think it's a necessity to reach this level in anything; be it art or business or whathaveya. It's just so much work that goes into it. His animation made me draw a rather unexpected asociation. Another great piece of animation, but very different in style. Ryan Woodward's animation has alot of motion and he draws with clean straight lines(though the motion is, of course, arcs). Here's Glen Keane from Beauty and the Beast, where large parts of the animation are relatively still and he's drawing with strong curves:
  12. Alfa

    Thought of you

    Just found this and thought i'd share it with you. http://conteanimated.com/the-animation-2/thought-of-you/ I'm simply awestruck by this guys skill. Even more impressive, as I understand it, is that it's not rotoscoped/motion captured.
  13. A noble spirit; fire, pride, grace and dignity.
  14. That wasn't such a bad chop. But this is:
  15. You are psychologizing by implying motive on her part. I suggest focusing on what she actually said instead of why you think she said it.
  16. Consider that what the government offers might be a false security. A few years back I got laid off from a government(not the US though) job because some genius had made a miscalculation in the budget. They came up short with some 20 million dollars, which is an enormous amount here. So, they replaced me with someone who was paid by another part of the government. I actually went back there, at a different section, while I was studying. It was a pretty decent place to work, an interesting and educating job, so I went there over the summers. After finishing my studies it was pretty hard to find another job, so I thought I might as well stay there for a while. My previous job there had made me rather over-qualified for that job, and I was quite frankly the best at what I did there. Both bosses and co-workers thought that naturally I should stay and get promoted. Of course, it did not quite work out that way. You see, the government had some sort of unemployment program where they hand out government jobs to people who have been unemployed for a while. Wherever they are roughly qualified the agencies are obligated to take them in. So, I was replaced by this tiny old lady who moved very slowly and talked in a barely intelligible way(note: part of the job was service and support). Now, my point here is not to sound bitter - i'm certainly not. It's just that the government tends to work in mysterious ways. After all, they don't have to generate any profit so they can make all kinds of irrational decisions. In the private sector you will atleast have the security of your own competence. And in time, as you develop and get better, you'll have something really solid to fall back on. With the government though, it usually means you just have to grow old. As I don't know your situation well enough I can't say what's the best decision for you. I just want to offer a few points to think about. One last thing to consider might be your chances of building up a savings account. If the new job offers a substantial raise and if you're likely to stay there atleast for a while, then maybe you could realistically count on saving enough to survive even if you run into trouble.
  17. The nature of what's being judged is how a person looks - their physical appearance. And you said so yourself that you wanted to look at that aspect in isolation. If you want to judge the whole person, then their character - choices - are important. Since people are both body and mind, character is part of their beauty when judged as a whole(why not call it harmony of mind and body, though it sounds like some mysticist nonense).
  18. Wikipedia has a nice article regarding chivalry. Here's a quote I particularly like: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chivalry Well, obviously the person who wrote this is not an Objectivist, but it's still pretty allright in my book. In dealings with women I would "translate" this into meaning: Treating a woman with respect, acting with courage and integrity; being a leader and protector, and sharing your benevolent nature. Personally I enjoy it tremendously when I can take the role as a chivalrous gentleman. Holding doors, pulling out chairs and sometimes even carrying her over mud puddles in the road. And of course making sure she's safe and i'm always between her and any danger. But, there are certainly different ways one can enjoy the differences between the sexes.
  19. I find it very exact and economical. I think another way to put it would be; the quality of integration between the different elements. I think Ayn Rand's definition is better though. What do you find vague about it? Does it not point exactly to what beauty is as we see it? Is this what you mean? "The way I understand it, most people consider beauty the same way they would other animals. Certain features are beautiful because of how they relate to survival needs. Or something like harmony is the reason such features are considered beautiful. I think that almost entirely drops the nature of people being conceptual thinkers, choosers." The problem here is that you are dropping the context of physical features and making it about character instead. Not matter what a persons choices their physical features will have certain attributes - attributes that can be judged. You can for example judge someone as being, or atleast looking, strong. That's an attribute which is judged by a persons ability to move heavy objects; an ability which does not change depending on if the person chose to train for it or not. Beauty is no different.
  20. What do you find wrong with defining beauty as a sense of harmony? Why should the standards of beauty not include traits that are given by nature?
  21. But it is the final result that is being judged as either having or lacking harmony. How the result was achieved is not relevant to what it is. A face has no more or no less harmony - or beauty - wether it's an accident of birth or achieved by make up or plastic surgery. It still looks what it looks like. It's true that faces are very proportional, and in fact very similar. However, they are also very important for communication and therefore incredibly expressive. Something which most of us are very keen to notice. Therefore the standards of beauty when judging human faces must be very precise. Beauty is not intrinsic. This is from the link I posted earlier: "Now since this is an objective definition of beauty, there of course can be universal standards of beauty—provided you define the terms of what objects you are going to classify as beautiful and what you take as the ideal harmonious relationship of the elements of that particular object" This is akin to saying that for there to be value, there must be something to be valued and someone to value it. The question then, regarding different cultures, is by what standard of harmony do they judge something to be beautiful or ugly.
  22. This is a worthwhile read reagarding the golden ratio: http://www.maa.org/devlin/devlin_05_07.html And regarding the Marquardt mask it's no sursprise that it matches beautiful faces fairly well. What it essentialy does is taking fairly generic proportions and following the facial planes. For example, having the nostrils in line with the inside corners of the eyes, corners of the mouth in line with the pupils, the head about five eye-widths wide... and so on. The reason why those are generic proportions is because they fit most people fairly well. It avarages out discrepancies, and the result is proportionate and symetrical. It's got nothing to do with some mystical number, however. I'd also like to add that breaking such "rules" can sometimes result in a more beautiful face. If you would take a female face and make the eyes and lips larger it may very well become more appealing, for example.
  23. Here's a good quote from Ayn Rand regarding beauty: http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/beauty.html
  24. Absolutley, I think he's one of those guys who make it look like and actual sport and not WWE wrestling. He seems to always be respectful and gracious. It's like... Outside the ring: And inside the ring:
  25. Tim Sylvia, Andrei Arlowski, Minotauro and Cro-cop weren't exactly "burn outs" when he fought them. And with his record i'd say he's more than just decent.
×
×
  • Create New...