Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

spaceplayer

Regulars
  • Posts

    136
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by spaceplayer

  1. Well, the essay before "Don't Let It Go" is titled "What Can One Do?". So, short answer: Don't Let it Go!
  2. (Spoiler alert) Sorry...hated it. Superficial posing as deep. Had its moments, and a Twilight-Zone-ish vibe, but I think it was too shallow to be good allegory. It just felt like one big gang war, with the aliens supposedly the "moral" ones, but not even. It really just felt like an attack on humanity, how we're monsters at heart, with the character of Wikus as some kind of "Christ-like" figure (in the sense that he sacrifices himself to atone for humanity's sins.) Their was a comment about the "aliens" and the concept of property rights, yet they are presented as bottom-feeding scavengers (prawns). I'm not sure if this was an attack on capitalism, it felt like it, though. It had a "pro-Palestinian" vibe to it, more specifically an "anti-apartheid" vibe, yet black and white are depicted as united...in their manipulation and genocide of the aliens. It was just a mess, philosophically. The whole "hybrid" gimmick (the Twilight Zone gimmick) falls flat, because the idea that "deep down, we're all the same" is presented here as mere multiculturalism. Supposedly, it could be twisted to say that what makes us human is our conceptual faculty, since the aliens and humans could speak to each other, and that we shouldn't view each other as animals. But then, why ignore the United States and the fact that we do, in fact, have such concepts already? (The fact that this was set in Africa is telling, so is the fact that America is not mentioned.) In other words, same ol' philosophic trash.
  3. I think Rand nailed it in "Don't Let It Go": "It does not occur to the British worker that he is free to assume responsibility for anything beyond the limits of his particular job. Initiative is an 'instinctive' (i.e., automatized) American characteristic; in an American consciousness, it occupies the place which, in a European one, is occupied by obedience." If this is true, why would the British question National Health? And if this is true, let's stop comparing ourselves to the British and what they do or don't like. Be Americans.
  4. Uh, as a long time book store employee, I can safely say that that book is a constant seller, the kids are well aware of it.
  5. Thank you, Thales. The naivete is startling, to say the least.
  6. Well, is there a distinction made between "interactive art" and "interactive entertainment?" (Allowing, of course, for the inevitable hybrids.) Entertainment can, by it's definition, be passive or active, but art always starts as an individual thought expressing one's personal values. I've been thinking about this for some time, as a musician myself. I hear about the new technology being a way to "socialize" music, where people are empowered to remix and create their own songs from other people's music. While I can see some pro's and con's to this, I first strip away the "technology" side of the issue; the fact that it's done with 1's and 0's doesn't erase the nature of art as being, primarily, a "selective recreation" according to value judgements, which, despite the protests of the socialists, means it's primarily an INDIVIDUAL creation. Yes, an artist can collaborate and employ division of labor where others can contribute THEIR value judgements...but the flip side makes me think of the "social art" of the FOUNTAINHEAD, or the architects who imposed themselves on Keating/Roark's housing project ("we want to express our creativity, too.) Of course, the issue comes back to intellectual property and consent. That was a non-electronic "interactive art" of the worst kind. But on the positive side, if someone does a remix or mashup of my music, and I like the result, I'm not going to complain. And there's the give-and-take of performance, like "call-and-response" where the musician calls out a line and the audience/other performer calls it back. The interaction can alter the original artist's intent in a good way, and the energy exchange can be amazing. So, interactive art is nothing new, it's just taking an electronic form. Just my spur of the moment thoughts, but yeah, valid concept if done by consenting adults.
  7. Hi, Focus. You might want to check out my blog, orpheusremembered.blogspot.com. There, I address Rand's theory of music in-depth, and I do talk about the psychology of how music evokes emotions. I invite you to read the blog first, before venturing out into forum-land; in the spirit of understanding better WHY you like what you do. While music discussions on O'ists forums have a history of veering off-course and devolve into personal arguments, agendas, and vendettas, Orpheus Remembered is a bit more restrained, even-handed and calmer, so you're not on trial, and can make up your own mind. You should probably read THE ROMANTIC MANIFESTO first, just to be familiar with Rand's arguments and ideas on the subject, which I address at length. Incidentally, while I'm not a fan of most "noise rock" or "atonal" pieces of the Edgard Varese variety, I am a big fan of Pink Floyd's early music, which contains many "noise" passages; unlike most of the noise stuff that I've heard and didn't like, their stuff seems to have a certain "musicality" to it that is due, in part, to their applying their architectural training to composition. I always thought that interesting, given the description in THE FOUNTAINHEAD of architecture as "music frozen in stone."
  8. I am not denigrating charity, I am calling out the usage of a certain symbol, one that Rand called out thoroughly in ATLAS. Don't tell me this organization does not realize the implications of using THAT symbol. Leaping to moral judgement? More like "read between the lines."
  9. http://www.robinhoodresponds.org/be-robin-hood.aspx Has anyone else seen the commercial for this on CNBC?Sorry, try not to puke, but you have to know your enemy and what you're up against. I have a feeling this in response to the "John Galt" signs at tea parties...
  10. Mr. A, I haven't done a systematic survey, but I'd say it's because the Hollywood elite knows how to put on a good show. Michael Jackson gave away his earnings from the VICTORY tour to charity because of a letter from a young fan calling him "selfish." I think the "Stars" simply know to play the game and give away enough to charity to present themselves differently, and thus, be "spared" the wrath of the populace for the millions. Ever notice that when a celebrity is on a game show, the money always goes to charity? Like good little performers, celebrities are adept at "acting" like they aren't selfish little prigs, unlike those greedy politicians...why do you think politicans get actors to spread the socialist agenda?
  11. A little personal anecdote: I used to play in a cover band 15 years ago. Our singer was charismatic, funny, and engaged the crowd. He was also an alcoholic and often went out of tune when drunk on stage. We had a split towards the end, and I replaced him on the mike for one night. I was sober, stayed in tune, and played bass at the same time. The reaction was nowhere near the reaction he got from the audience. I was a dutiful workhorse, he was the life of the party. Try as I might, I simply don't have that "extroverted" personality required to be a frontman (of that kind.) Something was missing, that "it" factor, and, well, he had "it." Same with Michael Jackson. I suspect many who "wonder" about MJ's appeal simply don't get the funky, sensual side of things, it's not "rational." It's psychological. Michael Jackson gave the audience something they wanted on a personal level. To say his music, or to say that MJ wasn't "anything amazing"....well, to his fans, he obviously was. Like it or hate it, you can't take that away from them (I'd like to see you try!) The point? It's not about "musical ability" or technical virtuosity with Michael Jackson, it was, to use Rand's term, "the inexplicable personal alchemy." It was the style, the projection of...well, whatever it was he projected, and the projections of the audience onto Jackson. He was a package-deal of the charming, precocious kid from the Jackson Five, combined with a certain sensuality that could be tender on one hand ("The Girl Is Mine, "Ben"), funky and sexual ("Don't Stop 'tl You Get Enough"), and, em, er...dangerous ("Beat It," "Thriller.") A lot of his fans were women, and he could project the warmth and safety of a good provider, but also be "the bad boy." And he projected fun AND confidence. (I bet fans of Salieri probably said the same sort of things at the news of Mozart's death. Surely Salieri was a better composer; Mozart wasn't anything special...
  12. From Journals of Ayn Rand: David Harriman (editor) gives a lengthy explanation/defense of Rand, but I'll let her speak for herself: "[My hero is] very far from him, of course. The outside of Hickman, but not the inside. Much deeper and much more. A Hickman with a purpose. And without the degeneracy. It is more exact to say that the model is not Hickman, but what Hickman suggested to me." p. 22
  13. But then I wouldn't have had room for Pop Tarts.
  14. Jeanine Garafolo better be careful, for the things I might call HER.
  15. Hi, Wrath. Normally, I'm NOT a spelling/grammar Nazi, but considering the context of the original post, I thought it was warranted. (And it was more a like ribbing than a gutting.) I'm more of an anti-hubris Nazi, anyway.
  16. I've seen those classic posters. Actually, they've been using those for years, including ATLAS, so that's a bit encouraging.
  17. Heheh. It reminds me of a situation years ago while working for a carpet installer who likened himself to being "the smartest man in the world." He used to ride me for being stupid (I was inexperienced and not mechanically inclined). One day, while spreading glue for tile, he announced that "the smartest man in the room just put his hand in the glue." Truth is, he WAS smart, and damn good at his job...and let everyone know about it, if you know what I mean... We all have our kryptonite...keeps us on guard against hubris...
  18. I've seen this display in a Philadelphia Barnes and Noble store. They stuck it between two employee office doors, away from fiction, where customers aren't likely to go. It's on the third floor, same as fiction, but nowhere near fiction, closer to arts and crafts. It smacked of "We'll do it, but we won't like it."
  19. I'm hoping that tool kit contains spellcheck. There's also something to be said for correct spelling and grammer. Ironic that such a claim about "the smartest forum in the world" was so poorly written!
  20. You know, one of the benefits of being gay is being allowed to try different things that seem to shrivel up the balls of straight men. I don't like show tunes, but I do like an iced raspberry mocha and beers with fruity flavors. If being a "man" means drinking nothing but bitter hops and good ol' American soil, I think I dodged a bullet.
  21. Thales, I'm familiar with all your arguments, and have found them wanting, so I'm happy to just register my dissent. You can seek out what you consider the best, by all means, but what's best for you might now be what's best for me. Viva la difference.
×
×
  • Create New...