Howard Roark

The Postmodernism Generator.

Excuse me, but that is a hasty generalization. How do you know this? Would you mind explaining in detail?

Why?

Yes, but I am responding to his case. If achieving values becomes impossible, as he said, then that should be more than enough to close this case.

Yes.

Ivan Raszl, this topic has been covered to death in this forum. You should look for other threads first, like this one, for example, and try to ask your question there.

You should take a look here, here, here and here first.

Have you heard of Maxim Vengerov? He is really fun to watch. I started saving for a violin when I first saw one of his interpretations of "Caprice Basque." Here is a fragment from that performance. I also like his interpretation of "La Ronde des Lutins," which has been done by Itzhak Perlman, but I like one better. He also made a very moving video in Auschwitz for one of Bach's chaconnes. You can watch it http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0DRdxT7XE1E, if you like.

Do you have a question?

Are you still beating your wife?

Well, this may be true, but you are just speculating about their own motives. If they are looking for a validation, there is a proper way to obtain it, and that is asking for it, instead of simply dumping an article, without stating any particular purpose, and waiting for something to happen. Let them ask specific questions about specific issues, and try to comfort them when you have confirmed that this is what they had in mind in the first place. In any case, I know that Sabre at least asked some questions. Okay, that is fine, but if you want to benefit his thread, you should start by staying on his topic, and analyze his article, or at least answer his questions. We could throw out offensive articles about Ayn Rand all day long. What is the point? Nobody likes to read them. If you think that your article stands out from the rest, because you noticed something unusual that deserves consideration, or something, then say it. A link is not an argument. Also, you should preferably do this in a separate thread, so that we can focus on your specific observation, since this thread is about his article. Just bear in mind that people need motivation to follow a link, and that reading an article requires time and effort. You have to specify what makes yours any different from the others, and why anyone should invest his time reading something filled with offensive comments. Otherwise, you are wasting your time, and probably also the time of someone else. No one needs to read a pile of insults to know what he is up against. If anyone is interested, he can simply grab a book and figure it out himself. There is no reason to go through an unnecessary bad experience, which can only result in frustration, anger and indignation for you. Let alone if you knew this beforehand. Anyway, we are making a big fuss about this. A year and a half ago, approximately.

Well, that is your loss, but do as you please. I doubt that anyone, apart from your family and your friends, is interested in trying to convince you of staying, if that is what you were aiming for. Also, are you threatening someone? Because you sound as if you were giving an ultimatum, or something like that. Anyway, if you are uncomfortable with the current state of your country, and think that you could be happier somewhere else, then you should leave as soon as possible. Absolutely. That is exactly what I am planning to do. As soon as I get my degree, I am leaving my country for good, and I will never come back. I figured out that the situation is not going to improve during my lifetime, and I am wasting my entire youth in this place. Your position is not so bad though. By the way, if you are keeping the name of the country to yourself, why do you even bother in giving us hints? Do you want to make this a guessing game or something? Probably no one even cares. In any case, let me try. Is it Iceland? I always hear great things about Iceland.

Yes, I understand that, but I am asking about their specific reason for bringing the articles to the forum in the first place. What are they expecting to achieve? What makes these two articles in particular stand out from the rest? Are they accurate criticisms? Do they need clarification on some of the issues that were raised by them? Is there a particular question that they want to ask? Are they trying to point out something that deserves consideration? Otherwise, why should anyone care? Throwing out articles filled with insults, without stating any particular purpose, is most certainly against the forum rules. Moreover, if you feel irritated by defamatory articles, coming up with another one, just to indulge in your joint resentment, is completely inappropriate and irrational, Black Wolf.

English is not my first language, so I am not familiar with the word. I just assumed its meaning, because I am in a hurry. In that case, yes, I agree with you.

Offhand, I would say that there is nothing wrong with it. Smuggling illegal substances is obviously inappropriate, but if we are speaking of trivial things, such as toothbrushes or magazines, that depends on his own rational judgment, assuming that it is permitted. What do you mean by "basic things"?

I will have to agree with those who think that trying to come up with a symbol to represent Objectivism is an idle pursuit. However, if anyone wants to carry on with this idea, there are some aspects that should be firstly considered. In order to be functional, a symbol requires simplicity. It has to be easily readable and reproducible. The black and yellow image above has too many elements in it. Some of them are still incomprehensible to me, and nobody is going to stand in front of your symbol, staring at it and examining all of its little details. If you want it to be recognizable, the elements included have to be understandable at a quick glance. Otherwise, nobody is going to pay attention to it, and they will probably forget it a few minutes later. Take a look at some of the most well-known symbols, or famous logos from big brands. They all share simplicity. No one uses the Sistine Chapel ceiling as a symbol, when a red cross or a Nike Swoosh does the job. The last image is fine as it is. The other one looks like a ribbon awarded in a competition, or a text bubble from a comic book. Gradients are nice, but they are usually not advisable. Unless you want to invest all your money in full color impressions of a symbol with hundreds of inks, rather than just one or two, using gradients is probably not the best idea. The same applies to photographs. You must take into account its reproduction. There is no room for much detail or color when using certain physical formats, at least without suffering some type of distortion. The symbol should have a good size ratio, so that it can be still easily recognizable when it is reduced in size for smaller applications. I am curious about how far you are planning to take this, but the symbol has to be simple enough to fit in a pencil or in a golf ball. Also, you might like to add the word "Objectivism" to the illustration, so that people can start associating it with the symbol. The drawing by itself is not going to take you very far. You can drop the name when the symbol acquires enough recognition, but it is always necessary to include it at the beginning. Anyway, there is a lot more to take into consideration, but this should be enough for now.

Thank you, but what is your point? What are you all expecting to achieve with this? I could come up with thousands of defamatory articles against Ayn Rand. What makes this one in particular any different from the others? Why do you even care about them?

There is a chapter from Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal called "The Effects of the Industrial Revolution on Women and Children," written by Robert Hessen. You should try to read it. Also, I think that the term is spelled "laissez-faire," as I understand.

Why would he think that?

Why? How long has he been gay?

Quo Vadis, you may find this quote useful:

I am going to answer for the last time, because this is something that I wanted to clarify in my last comment, but by the time I realized, it was too late to edit my post. The reason why I invested my time and effort in you, is simply because I was giving you the benefit of the doubt, even though most of my answers were not even addressed to you, until you started to bring me up in your comments. In part, I wanted to clarify your misconceptions about me, because I wanted my words to be properly understood by the members of this board that I know or respect. This was never about you. By the way, I learned about Ayn Rand one year ago, and I did it all by myself. When I was repelled and slowed in the process of my understanding, I never put the blame on somebody else. Instead, I ignored the aggressive comments, corrected my approach, and dealt with their hostility by making use of the positive aspects of their arguments, rejecting the rest. Anyway, I just wanted to make that clear. From now on, please stop asking me questions when I say that I am not interested in participating anymore. Thank you, and goodbye.

As I said before, I was starting to lose my interest, and a full criticism requires motivation. I gave an indication of the negative aspects of your work, because the peculiarity of your question caught my attention. I never said that I was interested in your career as an artist, or the development of your mind. There is no connection between us, and you are of no value to me. Therefore, you cannot expect that I invest my time and effort teaching you what has been explicitly treated in Ayn Rand's books. You are responsible for your own acquirement of knowledge, which requires that you do your own research, thinking and integration. When you finish reading The Romantic Manifesto, and distinguish the Objectivist aesthetic principles from yours, come back and ask specific questions about the issues pertaining to your work that need clarification. If you want a short analysis about the flaws of your paintings, read Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand. There is a whole chapter devoted to art, which condenses the Objectivist position, and briefly explains what the negative characteristics of your paintings are, and why they are incongruous with Objectivism. You cannot simply come to this forum without having read anything about Ayn Rand's aesthetic theory, and demand detailed criticisms, which involve extensive explanations of a subject that you are not familiar with. There are probably other members that would attempt to do this, but I am certainly not one of them. Therefore, take the indication from my fourth answer as my concluding criticism, or half-formed answer, as you like to call it, because I am done with this discussion for good. How does this affect the mind of the novice artist or Objectivist? Well, if we are speaking of a rational human being, he will simply analyze the indication, and decide if he wants to study the subject further, and accept it, reject it or evade it. You were probably expecting me to say that it would scar him for life, or something along those lines, but that is not the case. If we are speaking of a child, or an immature adult who is guided by his emotions, that may be so. In any case, it was nice to meet you. Goodbye.

I personally think that he hasn't been funny in more than ten years.

Well, that is your choice. In my opinion, it is your loss, since you are mixing two different categories, resulting occasionally in a difficult situation for you, like the one we had. When I say that you have to act in a certain manner, I am obviously not trying to impose any behavior on you. You can do as you please. I was assuming that you wanted to do something about it, rather than keep suffering on the inside every time you receive a hard criticism. If you want to take the negative opinions of your work as a direct attack to your person, you are going to keep getting your heart broken, claiming injustices, feeling insulted, pleading for compassion and responding in a defensive manner to your critics for doing their job. Learning from a rational criticism can certainly make you a more effective creator, but taking it as personal offense will do nothing but harm to you. If I had the time, I would attempt to do this with some of your paintings, but I am leaving this thread for good. If you want to, you can choose one of your works from my second comment, and apply what I said in my fourth one. In essence, that would have been my answer. At first, that is what I wanted, until your fifty-ninth comment. I responded for everyone's benefit, except for those who already agreed with me, because I had no way of finding out who they were before responding. That is the purpose of the forum. When you finish reading The Romantic Manifesto, I am sure that you will understand what I am defending. I am confused about why you would write your last answer in that unnecessary and pompous manner, but I am glad that you finally found the book. There is nothing to rethink about my premise. I am not going to change what I think is true simply because of others not taking me seriously, if that is what you are suggesting. You are free to ask anyone if they agree or not with the way I put my arguments. Probably no one will, but I am not looking for their approval. The fundamental message behind my arguments is not going to be more true or false because of the presentation. If you want to, you can ask them to write their arguments in the way that you please. I am not forcing anyone to agree with me, nor to hold on to my arguments.