volco

I do, I have the vision and the philosophy since I was a toddler it never changed, meeting Ayn Rand's work and loves were a natural consequence. I can perfectly understand that erecting an opera renders genetic reproduction precisely superfluous. I rejoice in the families of others but I could never imagine another life taking the place of my work, my only chance to make the real best of this ONE opportunity to experience and experiment the universe.

No... not the appreciation of her efforts at all, but the expression of her thinking (which constitutes the most important part of her identity in her case) even at the expense of misinterpretation and hatred during the time she was alive), and yes its diffussion or 'popularity' in the distant future, which is very different from popularity (which is consumed alive), it is in Steve Jobs words 'denting the universe'. all mammals and most humans dent the unvierse by passing on their own genes, Ayn Rand, Da Vinci, even Andy Warhol or Van Gogh, achieve the same by denting the universe though comprehensive mind childrend, or cultural work.(altough I don't know about V.Gogh's potential natural children). Bach was prolific in all the senses of the word, I don't now which suprises me more that one man can create so many dozens of excellent (some perfect!) works or that one man can father 18 or 22 children. Bach dented the universe in the best way achieved so far. yes. Ayn Rand however enunciated a philosophy that puts individual life (as in one lifespam) before the life of the people, much less the species. By doing that she rejected half the most basic tenents of Judaism (while embracing the search for an ultimate truth) while staying a friend of Israel and Jews. That's my posture as well. She gave space for mothers who would want to reproduced, as described in Atlas Shrugged in chapter first visit to Mulligan Valley. But she was also very interested in cognitive studies and computers, and she was able to describe a philosophy for a humanity that is giving birth to its evolutionary descendant, A.I.. In any form it takes, the independence of the mind (and body) from its genetic masters is a prerequisite. That is reason, that's the man, mounting and controlling the horse. the man is the mind, the horse are the genes (instinct). After all Objectivism only works in a technology advanced scenario as it depends on men following and exploiting the laws of nature instead of exploiting the fuzzy behaviours of men in groups.

Admiration could be a perk or an irrelevance, but is definitely besides the point. Procreation or self replication's purpose is perpetuation of the self's identity. As Aristotle pointed out and Ayn Rand 'completed' Identity IS existence. The ability to express one's identity with high fidelity and then make it 'popular' enough for it to survive, is no different from achieving 'inmortality' through the passing of one's genes and inheritance. What I earlier called diffusion, popularity, is different from admiration. Therefore I could enunciate: Life is the ultimate value, and as established, it requires compliance with reality. There is strong anecdotal evidence that human beings, being conscious of both past and future, are preoccupied with their own mortality and have to solve this preoccupation one way or another. One way would be reproduction. So there is no contradiction in saying that Life (which includes reproduction or some substitute for it) is the ultimate value.

Hello Cory, I was really glad when you opened this thread and I now believe it's appropriate to share some of my thought on the matter. First of all I should say that this topic strikes me as surprising only because it doesn't seem to have been thoroughly discussed before, when it should be one of the first questions for anyone studying Objectivism. Maybe that's a little self centered because it was my personal experience that I found that the enunciation of Objectivism, and the childlessness of Ayn Rand, obviously go hand in hand. There is little to no doubt that Ayn Rand was absolutely heterosexual. There could be more doubt regarding her fertility but then I can point out 'We the Living', her only semi auto-biographical novel, in which Kyra reacts with an admixture of astonishment, pity and indignation at Sonia's ignorance of birth control (Sonia, after having another abortion, asks Kira something like 'How do you keep from getting pregnant?', and Kira simply doesn't lower herself to respond. So why would a heterosexual, probably fertile, sexually active woman didn't have children? No one can really know, or intrude her privacy that way, but one could think it was because she had her novels to write and she valued her quest and her work above the possibility of maternity. In fact, she considered maternity a choice. For Western Civ the early 20th century (from WWI to the 60s) proved to be the time of inflection between maternity as a given and maternity as a choice. According to a passage in Atlas (during Dagny's first stay in the valley) a mother moved to the free society to raise her children in a good place. Evolution (or rather, Human Nature) is, in the matter you refer to, compatible with Objectivism because unlike tigers, lizards or chimpanzees, humans disproportionately use our mind instead of our body as a means of survival. This allows some individuals to 'sublimate' the very real need for offspring by having mindchildren which can sublimate biological children even better than adopted children. For it is not cuddling and raising a small creature the point of parenthood (pets work well for that) but transmitting one's own identity. The traditional and basest way of accomplishing this, we also share with animals: biological replication through sexual reproduction. It is the equivalent of physical force, another attribute we share with animals. The novel, daring, either ersatz or heroic way of doing it would be the way exclusively humans (and human creations like A.I.) can: by replicating not one's genes but one's identity. This can be done through memes, creation, indoctrination, diffusion: basically art (and art more than science, but also religion and technology). Computers and software allow for a syncretic way to pass on one's identity, and that's what people are trying to do by building pyramids and sarcophagi of personal information through Facebook, Picassa, personal websites, the internet in general. But even the holy grial of ID preservation: uploading of a mind, would only constitute a good pyramid, but not necessarily a successful transmission of one's identity. Writing a novel(s) or creating other types of artifices have proven to work independent of technological progress. The tricky part is that our genetic composition is, to a point, a good part of our identity; still one can still identify Plato's and Aristotle's ideas in many people and books, but would anyone recognize any of the many direct genetic descendants of either philosopher?) ref: no kids please we're Selfish ref broken link http://patrifriedman.com/writing/prose/whydrugsmatter.html in which Patri Friedman argues that there is an open struggle between what our genes command us to do and our free will, and that society's controlling institutions such as family, church and state have uncannily similar ultimate goals that mirror our genes'. Some students of the mind such as S Freud argue that the will to live, construct, create, are derivative of a tendency towards Eros (life expressed in the act of celebrating one's own and creating new) while Tanatos, the tendency to destroy and ultimately die, prevails (for the sake of sanity, since death is inevitable). This speaks poorly of Sanity and that is what Celia Green calls the Human Evasion (please donate 13USD or more to Celia Green and the Oxford Forum after reading that last link). Freud however leaves room for sublimation and he would likely interpret Ayn Rand's writing in place of birthing, as sublimation.

the We're copacetic on that!

that's indeed a very funny and deserved parody, thanks embedding utube has never been easier

Tad you're picking on Oso's bad choice of the word draft. I understand his post as national responsibility much like individual responsibility (the moochers could pay taxes to raise a voluntary mercenary defensive army and systems)

But that's just the problem (mine at least), not being conscious that not deciding is a decision; that I often don't decide in order to protect the potentially better options (which by non deciding, only exist in imagination). Or don't specialize in something because it would be destroying other options. I suspect it is a manifestation of some obsessive compulsive disorder, also linked to symmetry; it can't be rationalized, or downplayed as simple procrastination.

Delightful piece of Americana in the twilight of its apex decade (prove me wrong!) And some of the first signs of American cultural influence in Britain

It should not be treated as speech. Repetition is noise. It should be treated as noise pollution. And it would be illegal and enforced, much like it's not legal to hook a megaphone to a car and advertise a brand of hair conditioner throughout town.

If differences between human groups, that might or might not coincide with slight genetic distances, that is the concept of ethnicity, or nationality, was not such a well established taboo; someone might have suggested that, even if disagreeing with the Racist guy who wrote that linked and translated entry, he still has a point that might resonate with the Objectivist concept of Self Interest: that Finnish citizens are not gaining anything by inviting Somalis to live in Finland, but scarifying the only aspect of their society that makes them more valuable, homogeneity, for the sake of altruism and for avoiding conflict with the world's major player and their agendas, in the case of Finalnd the EU (a process of pure crystallized compromise also known as Finlandization) But genetic differences amongst men are too much a taboo to even begin to suggest that. Instead we should lynch the Suomi guy a bit more for using the N word in every paragraph (did he not receive the official memo?!?!) and citing crime statistics.

I doubt such a scenario could take place at all, particularly in a community where all land is privately managed. Most of these bizarre urban glitches are caused by government over legislation or eminent domain. In fact I suspect, if the timing is right, that the OP was inspired by this real life story, reminiscent of Hitchhiker's guide, which obviously takes place in the mixed, directed economy of the People's Republic. This duck farmer got lucky that the developers allowed him to lose a legal battle and get 40K US in comp instead of wielding the stick as they used to do. Disney World, Fl, or Celebration, Fl, have come to existence thanks to the free market through shrewd purchases. Walt Disney's story is particularly inspiring and establishes a perfect precedent for private cities (and their roads). As I hinted on post 340 and you explained on post 351 / step 1, the hypothetical situation we're discussing begins with the introduction of one element, loosely defined: private roads. It mentions a normal subdivision and someone buying all adjacent parcels to a house. At this point, save for the private road, this situation already exists and the outcome (in law abiding countries where private property is sacrosanct) is usually that the remaining house is sold for an above market price. With the introduction of the concept of private roads the situation changes. But there are several meanings and interpretations: Was an existing road privatized, then jacked up the prices or transformed it into a wall? Then this would constitute outright FRAUD under a legal system that favors Capitalism. In contrast, in the current system, all the OP would need to do just that is hire an army of lawyers and lobbyists and snatch the property away from Jim legally through eminent domain. Because the only plausible explanation for building upon a road, under the OP's scenario of encircling, is to 'try to convince' an unwilling owner to sell. Was an existing road privatized with the unanimous consent and compensation of every single last owner of the land adjacent to it? Then no problem as long as the homeowners are informed about the obvious: that their house is worth more only because of the utilities it enjoys - that's why you make a profit when you buy a tract of land and subdivide it, even if you pay for opening and paving the roads yourself. Is this normal subdivision on a gated community with already existing private roads? Then it continues to be contractual and could not be violated under a 'Capitalist Government'. Am I twisting the OP's imaginary facts too? Do you see other alternatives as to how poor Jim came to that situation'? Maybe he forgot his towel..... The entire situation IS hypothetical and we have limited, generic descriptive information from the OP. (although the theme itself is trite and discussed over and over). Your colored balls situation would be unexpected, or specific information that the OP should have given us (if we are to solve the puzzle). As far as we know he only mentions balls, not the color of it (he mentions private roads, not the specific nature of how the roads became private and its relationship with parcels that justifies its construction or purchase: because the OP said a normal subdivision not a highway and a ranch) I suggest you complete the details the OP left out of the puzzle, and we'll reconsider the case from there. All this cockamamie reminds me of the subject of enclaves and exclaves (political boundaries) and landlocked countries with only one neighbor (like Lesotho or The Vatican). You can see that in every case common sense-induced cooperation ensues, and enriches the area (UAE/Oman), and that where it doesn't (Armenia/Azerbaijan) it follow a previously existing conflict that would continue anyway were it a continuous border instead of splattered islands.

that average house in a subdivision was bought knowing that the roads were managed privately. The house has been paying the road company, directly or indirectly, for maintenance which stipulates the continued constitution of a road network. It would be different if the road needed to access the house would be your neighbors driveway, but land configuration as such does not exists (but in legally defined condominiums). If the buyer builds a wall in the residential parcels surrounding the house, it might be violating the charter of that particular subdivision (Which if it has private roads, it's only obvious to assume it would be some sort of gated or HOA based community). But even if it's not, then tough luck. less sunshine. What the owner of the road company probably wouldn't be able to do is to build a wall in a section of the 'public' road system. Even if that road system lies on private land, it services contractually the houses it communicates. He would have to buy every, even the single last house of the subdivision it connects in order to maybe turn it into something else. Or force them out with intimidation as it's so often done, which would still be illegal but perhaps more enforceable. I still see no case here, it's simply bizarre. No matter how the private road system is organized and legislated, there would be a lot of grounds for lawsuits in these types of scenarios. There's a legitimate worry of course that the more contractual the society, the more law suits follow. Therefore some of the costs lost by eliminating certain goverment agencies or lowering taxes might compensate by an increase in lawyer expenses. The more disciplined and cohesive (genetically or ideologically) the community, the better spontaneous organization works. It would seem that genetic closeness plays an immensely more important factor than ideological or value affinity. Although the former has more experience than the latter. I would contrast Sweden/Japan with Utah. A third, tangential example, would be the mutual respect and common sense present in the boating community. Sometimes even small marinas are less organized than secluded natural harbors. The social application of this is hinted in the Seasteading idea.

achhh!! the current land configuration is based on private and semi private (condominium) areas interconnected by public corridors locally managed and maintained by owners. In an all private world, land would be organized accordingly, and rights of pass would be a product or service (albeit for emergencies, much like pubic toll phones used to have a free emergency number). Fluid, a lot more than now, just look at private communities vs city centers. All of the problems that come up in this thread refer to a fictitious transitional period between the two systems, which itself qualifies as an 'emergency' or rather temporary scenario. Anything else?

So the Church/State debate is not a reason vs mysticism debate but a power contest (or power grab at this point) between would-be-theocrats and would-be-Marxists. It is illegal to pray in school but quasi mandatory to pledge allegiance to the Flag and the Republic for which it used to stand. In a Theocracy, say independent Deseret, it would be quasi mandatory to pray in school but it would be sinful idolatry to recite to a flag as you would do to a saint, virgin, moron angel, or bible. I must note at this point that I rather like flags, and although I'm not a citizen or resident of either country I've always had the Stars and Stripes and the Union Jack in my room - since childhood, instinctively. The children feeling uncomfortable because some others pray, or the Muslim horror thing are red herrings, or rather extreme or meaningless examples that fail to seem a worse evil than that perpetrated by State Schools and their Social Studies (which in my age, the 90s, where still called history and geography, but then they suddenly merged and changed not just in name!) Yes it would certainly be better but do you really think enforcing those strict rules would be moral, justifiable, or effective? The more sovereign the school is the better it teaches math and language, and application (science and art) which is all that matters considering that all other subjects are prone to being vehicles of indoctrination. In science a religious school can teach genetics in practice growing peppers or flowers like Mendel the Catholic did. Forcing them to teach evolution would be forcing them to touch the issue of the origin in a scientific manner, where if left unmolested, they would teach it in a class easily identifiable as either fable or cultural studies (like Atheists Jews do when in 'Religion' class, which we treat as nothing but cultural history, or Cathequesis for Catholics, Bible Study for the Reformed... would it be so hurtful for children to study the Bible as literature instead of Catcher in the Rye or A Million Little Pixels?). John Stossel specifically argues for charter schools, and Celia Green basically argues for almost anything but State Education. Because the third semi private option, a charter school, is what validates the other two options (too exclusive private schools, and way too pervasive state schools) and suck the market dry for truly inexpensive private institutes. Educating doesn't take too many resources... look at the Greek Philosophers, the etymological root for Peripathetic or the concept of a forum. You don't need a swimming pool or an up to standard building that doubles as refugee bunker to educate children. You can just do it in rotating living rooms turned class-roms. It would seem that charter schools, unlike a voucher system, prevents private schools from growing less exclusive (or rather, it prevents more flexible, cheaper, private schools from being created). Education should be an entrepreneurial pursuit, but instead is the last resource of an average witted second earner with a hubris complex. Yes unions (why interest groups?) can exact force to keep their jobs and keep hiring regardless of results, that's what they've been fighting for for decades, it's their batch of honor. How could anyone take that away from yet another of the many fleshless backbones of America? (while the muscles are left without support) I understand that at this point (much like in Latin American countries) the Department of Education's task is not only to provide education to young citizens, but also, independently from that task, to provide a facade of employment to otherwise unemployable adults. Sure this might be true of any Government agency, but it is compromising a very private and literally generic part of the citizenship: could you imagine a Department of Health that employed malpracticing doctors and kept them in Rubber rooms instead of firing them in a context of limited resources, aka reality? Could any American, left or right, stomach such a thing? Amen! That's after all how it's done in the rest of the World (at least in Europe, Latin America, Japan, and most of the Commonwealth). I can't wrap my head around the geographic-based system in the U.S. I've met people (Americans) whose parents moved at great expense and inconvenience to the fringes of better counties or school districts just to ensure a better education for them. I understand this is also standard practice, not wild exceptions. Only in America real estate is advertised so tightly tied to school districts, whereas in the rest of the world the question of a house being walking or commute distance to a variety of surrounding schools is infinitely more flexible. It's not uncommon to see poor and rich children commuting every day to their schools of preference just as their parents do with their jobs! Sure it's less 'cozy'. I could wildly speculate, that this has to do with the positive American aspects of very local government and 'neighborhood sovereignty', but would I be correct? What's the origin of this bizarre system (I can find that myself) but do any of YOU who experienced it firsthand see anything positive in it? Another wild, negative, speculation is that a school district is the government's 'scientific' version of the Parish, and the school itself of the chapel, where in the Reformed Christian tradition it involves local tight communities, not universal cathedrals and pilgrimage. This would suggest that (any country's) State Schools are little more than industrial era replacements for church. In that pessimistic light, I would view religious schools being ambivalent about Darwin as a very easily overlookable downside compared to the States insidious indoctrination. The rational would that if the children will be brainwashed either way, it would be wiser to allow the weaker agent to try it, as it is likely to be less effective in their destructive pursuit. But naturally I'm, from Geographical distance, grossly underestimating the obliterating power that true religious freedom allows to emerge in America. Or is Mormon Deseret-secession-like Theocracy a boogeyman for more State expansion? Oh yes, thank goodness the Federal Government fought a war to outlaw polygamy. Now, as decreed by law, citizens always have in practice only exclusive partners, right? derailed... I think Education is one of those few things that were plain better in the past, I have my grandparent's elementary school books to prove it. Not in whole, I'm just talking about the institutions. Probably the internet, video games and self education is doing a compensatory and even better jobs than institutions. And I'm not being ironic, I embrace that. It's time for de-centralization. The education system as it is, I don't think it can be saved.

Thanks for that J. Rockwell only later in life was recognized as an artist an not an illustrator (while Warhol and Liechtenstein were making art WITH illustrations). From an objectivist point of view, the interesting thing about The Connoisseur is that it features an artist's recreation of an artist's recreation of, in this case, Pollock's value judgements.... Pretty Forbidden Zone, no?

Further, If Art is the successful transference of the artist's value judgements to the public, then (the then emerging medium of) film is objectively more effective than classic art media. As a downside of this package deal of technology-aided media blend, the public (or at least the mainstream public feedback, so far) has become desensitized to subtler expressions of art. It seems which medium we're talking about when we refer to art matters more than we're giving proper consideration. But the harsh bottom line is that if I define art just as Ayn Rad did, but complete it with, the successful transference, then I am inserting both the issue of medium/technique and of the individual experience. The latter implies that 'art occurs' when the public (or more likely a portion of it starting with one) experiments, thinks, delights in certain concepts and sensations similar enough to the ones the artist intended (understands it, puts it together, feels it). If a piece of art is given or produced with the intention of giving too much, as in total, leeway of interpretation, then everything and nothing is art. Something like the worse of Conceptual Art or Pollock's paintings (not his, but the concept of abstract as depicted by Rockwell in The Connoisseur) is just as much art as a the beautiful cloud shapes of cumulus nimbus: that is, just playing with or profiting from human Apophenia in the same manner religions do. Which is what Ayn Rand calls fraud - and with reason. Even 'desensitized' by two many good and bad movies, and rock bands, I, and youtube has proven that many people as well, still appreciate Baroque music. Quent Cordair, the galllery and its patrons, have proven that fine painting like admirable Bryan Larsen's and sculptures like Anjou's are still appreciated. (The millionaire auctions of Classic paintings don't prove the same, since it's impossible to separate the status symbol and antiquity/rareness value, from honest appreciation - and in less than heroic cases it would be hard to believe too). If a work of art 'reaches' one or more individuals of the intended audience, in real honesty (as when the individual doesn't feel the need to share his or her appreciation to gain social status, but rather enjoys it in private, or feels the need to communicate it because it's affected one's life for the better or with great intensity that one needs to communicate it. Instead of remarking the beautiful nonexistent Emperor's new clothes, shining a light on a beggar's unnoticed but real and uniquely beautiful 'scarf'; so to speak)

You're probably not limited, you seem to have either higher or updated standards, or rightfully demand to touch the Emperor's Clothes before praising them; and your insistence on this particular issue proves you're 'open' to new understandings. Not that I love Andy Warhol that much... but enough to merit a defense. When I first finished reading The Romantic Manifesto, I became very emotional about the subject as Ayn's explanation also 'clicked' very well. But by gaining understanding of some things, I temporarily lost appreciation of many thing I had once, at least moderately, admired. Bear with me: The image of a delicious orange painted in exquisite oil by a Flemish master like van Eycke, Rembrandt or Vermeer; maybe even accompanied by a candle and a sand clock, would constitute one or even two classical revered themes: 1) Definitely a Natura Morta (lit. dead nature, in English: still nature) in which we appreciate the orange. 2) or even a Memento Mori (Remember your mortality, your vain mortal flesh!) if the erotic sumptuousness of the orange is provocatively contrasted with the decaying flowers, the burning candle, or the inexorable pass of the sand through the timer. And yet from the distance of time we only see a collection of inert meaningless objects painted in a gloomy light? The orange* specifically was an international symbol of wealth, and fruit in general of eroticism and fertility. The technique was innovative for its time, particularly in its 'special effects' treatment of light. The Matrimonio Arnolfini is neither a Memento Mori, or a Natura Morta, but incorporates elements of both, and every single detail on that already small canvas is deeply meaningful and symbolic of something else than the realistic newlywed couple posing in their new upper class home. It currently hangs at the National Gallery on Trafalgar Sq and in my opinion that small painting alone merits the entire palace. A Campbell Canned Soup was never a luxury item, but the XX century, and current era, was/is not defined by elitism and exclusivity, but by the massive (people, markets, products, ways of production) and the 'inclusive' (for everyone)... Notice that Warhol picked the iconic Campbell Soup, not another product, because Campbell used to be the Marilyn Monroe of Canned Soup. Further notice the technique employed. Not a photograph, but a photocopy of a photocopy of an illustration. (I don't know the exact method, or care to explore it, but I do know he created that 'rough' but realistic style by experimenting with photocopies, and I'm almost certain about at least one of the Campbell Soup pieces). Think of the symbolism of a photocopy, or mass illustration, correlated with the symbolism of mass production. Do you see the consistence with the symbolism of 'capturing a whole era and way of life'? It's not different from Marilyn Monroe's piece, where he multiplies, 'massifies' the icon. An icon is something that is revered. Putting one next to the other betrays its lack of holy value (think of Socialist Countries and their portrays of die leader in every room), much like printing too much money, making too many copies of something, or your image being projected to many televisions at once, it is a devaluing by dilution experience. Since both Canned Foods and Superstars came to achieve popularity by machine-like means such as the photocopy, the mass production factory, or the entertainment machine-like industry (TV!), the consistence in that segment of Andy Warhol's work is astounding and elevates him above forgotten experimenters. Now don't make me explain and defend Pollock because I too have a limit, but I could, and I still think that Pollock has some value. But in order to redeem my previous bad comments on Rockwell, I'll post my favorite piece by him instead of an answer: *Because the orange only grows in the Southernmost islands of Europe, other sources blocked by the Turks, it was expensive as any other luxury item. The Sicilian MAFIA has its origins in the century-spanning Citric Cartel, which show the relationship between regulated trade and organized crime. A current example would be soda pop stabilizer, Gum Arabic, with its criminal organization being the Government of Sudan. With the difference that Sicilians did not employ slavery or forced labour to harvest the oranges, whilst reports from the Sahel and its quota system harvest are... a slippery slope. Their system is more akin to Yemen and Oman in 50AD when slaves were sent to the disease-infested 'forests' to extract the myrrh/frankincense from the sap of the 'haunted' trees. @Swerve of Shore: These things happen, maybe more often when I enter a thread. Still, please continue your original discussion maybe in that other thread. In my opinion one doesn't need to hate a style or piece of art to appreciate its opposite. I think there are plenty paradoxes and overlaps in reality which I respect in itself well above what is written about reality.

Perhaps it shouldn't be (and indeed it isn't) in the category of "Fine" Arts, you mean? Because music is the primal, most universal (check what universal means to you), form of art. Ayn Rand was explicit about its power and the problem with Subjectivity it poises, both in her writings (not only The Romantic Manifesto, but the Foreign Music in 'We The Living' and in Atlas) and in her personal life (Mozart!) I would personally prefer it if I saw Gratitude by Danielle Anjou in a fountain at the steps of the skyscraper HQ of a major bank. But Aragne Rouge which I like, opened a door when one is more likely to see another metal balloon dog instead. / re technique and medium: That is a point in itself. New techniques have created new media. As I said, or I say more concretely now, Film is the natural heir to visual art. That doesn't close the market of new media, it simply proves that a pandora box has been opened. Fine arts have not disappeared (as evidence by Quent Cordair) in the New World, but they seem to be very devalued, (a fantastic buying opportunity no doubt!) in the face of all this shooters who think theirs will constitute one of the many new standards. Andy Warhol achieved that in life. I could begin to explain it, maybe in a separate thread, why Andy Warhol is not valueless but by your explanation of Koons, it seems you already know.

I agree, as I said 'this can be seen as the obliteration of art'. And we could end it there, Ayn Rand made some good points in The Romantic Manifesto. She indeed defined art. If you are curious however, even to the point of giving them, and yourself, the benefit of the doubt, about Andy Warhol and Kristo and Koons, then you might find a different rationale to it. They destroy the concept of art in order to 'open it'. And these are the results. I do wonder why people are so much more judgmental, a great thing, when it comes to visual arts, but so libertine when it comes to music, a sphere where, by the standards of this forum's threads on music: EVERYTHING goes. The Emperor's New Clothes are still in place and highly regarded in the world of visual arts. Somewhat in literary arts, and not even imagined in the musical arts. Of course those arts all differ in one fundamental attribute: TECHNIQUE Even a culture that had spitted the atom without becoming culturally relativistic would still have to face the challenges and opportunities of making visual arts with new technology, new non traditional techniques, and unprecedented wealth. From the distance of time, the Sistine Chapel looks very fine and subtle in its magnificence. When it was built and painted however, far from subtlety, it constituted an opportunity to demonstrate the most spectacular and advanced special effects of the time, such as painting two bright contrasting colors and knowing it will look like a carefully shaded degradé from below. Now visual arts have been challenged by animation and cinema, and the better results are making us wait.... Yes. Evidence of this is how East Asians are currently mastering the Classical European composers, or how Western Youth embraces Anime. Or do you mean something else?

I understand that in suburbs, small towns, and good neighborhoods, an American public school might even compete with a religious private school, if money was not the issue. I'm not saying all public schools are necessarily bad when compared to the existing alternative (though they are very much so in principle). But specifically for poor urban children, who happen to be, inexorably it seems, the fathers of the next majority, those who will shape society: what options are available to them? Besides getting 'picked' by a better school for athletic or otherwise merit: are there inexpensive private schools? Are inner city charter schools taking business from existing private alternatives? Or preventing such a market from being created?

Jeff Koons who created this but is getting paid for doing this: In Argentina (Which is a pathetic microcosm of 'the West' with a 20 year lag), the situation repeats itself with the highest paid artists being people like Eduardo Pla and his spheres: Now the artist in question makes only big balls as big pieces of art pay a lot more than small pieces of art. Naturally, in a time that loves and hates, but gives a lot of importance to scale. Andy Warhols and his Campbell Soup, like Koons, or even Pla, however, are not just making experimental urban ornamentation. It is true that this kind of creations can be seen as the obliteration of art, but the rationale of those who foment it is quiet different. Post Modern Art considers that Art, after being liberated from its religious patrons, with Van Gogh being the martyr of the orphaned transitional generation, has saturated its universe. Technology, prosperity and outright Relativism have rendered 'obsolete' the fine arts (since to the Materialistic mind no image could be finer than a photograph), and now art has to find a new purpose. By their own admission they consider we are at the very early stages of a new era, of Art 2.0. So even by their own admission this art represents a return to the primitive. The New Primitive. It begins with childish and very expensive experiments. A balloon made out of metal, a giant topiary dog. But occasionally, thanks to this, in my opinion wasteful and hurtful experiments, something good appears, that otherwise it wouldn't have. But is it worth it?

and back to the West, and in time to the only person who competes with Bach for the title of 'Best'. Thanks to Spinosi and his Ensemble Matheus for reviving so many of Vivaldi's works. btw, along with these two piesces consitute the score of a film by a pretentious European director. Can you identify the film? Credit where credit is due: who thinks the film in question is not worthy of Vivaldi?

Not so long as Free Government Daycare (what used to be school) remains either in existence, or safe enough to trust your children for a few hours every day. Do you suppose there will be a market for it once it becomes simply too dangerous, or rather the dangers will be countered by both guns and gun detectors, and a rationalization about how early exposure to social dangers help the psycho-social development of the child? The those who become richer will take their children out of those hellholes instead of challenging the concept of hellhole as daycare, and the others will be left with little choice between truancy and rationalization. A third option in response to this, I suppose already existing situation, would be... correct me.. Charter Schools? (effectively completing/closing the trap)

perhaps understanding the concept of spontaneous organization would be less time consuming than exploring every possible instance. With the current system there are many similar convoluted situations. For instance the house in front of mine blocks the sunset, or a giant private garden would make an emergency trip to the hospital 10 minutes longer. Should it be illegal for my big yard neighbor to not let me go through his rose bushes in a emergency? etc etc