Howard Roark

Excuse me, but I am not trying to come off like anything. If you think that I am being dishonest, support your assumption, instead of merely calling my answer "silly," and getting away with this frivolous and dismissive non-criticism. As I said before, I can only think of two sarcastic comments that I made, and I apologized for them. In that sense, I would agree with you, if that is what you call “from the beginning.” Apart from that, none of the arguments you listed were intended to be sarcastic. That is a shame, because you tried to make it look like there were thousands of them, even though you only mentioned three. My surprise for her praise was not sarcastic, but you say it was, so maybe you can share with everyone your method for figuring that out. I explained why I think that my comparison is legitimate. Later on, I indicated the similarities and the differences that I found between the scribble and most of her paintings, which I listed at the beginning of this thread. No sarcasm there either. At first, I thought that it would be obvious that her paintings were bad, hence my initial sarcasm, but then I realized that this was not the case. While other posters were dubious about this, if by “other posters” you simply mean "Aequalsa," who asked me if I saw the paintings, I explained why I thought this was true. My intention was never to hurt the artist's feelings as an end in itself, even though you say it was, it never crossed my mind, but you can try to prove it. If she felt disparaged, there is nothing I can do about it, except for saying that I am deeply sorry, but my criterion is not based on her feelings. Your entire second paragraph is merely an assumption. I should dismiss it out of hand, but I want to rapidly clarify some points. No, the standard for art is not figuring out the message in two seconds. You are right. Yes, I am welcome to not look at her paintings. What makes you think that I do? No, I am not angry at other Objectivists. They can like what they want. By the way, if I remain here, is simply because I keep answering questions that are addressed directly to me, or comments that pertain to me, like yours.

All right. I never read your answer to Alexandros, but I am not supposed to read every single reply that you give to other members than me, and you are not supposed to assume that I do. You could have simply stated that you had answered my question before, and none of us would have wasted our time. If you take criticism of your work personally, that is your loss. You will have to learn how to correct your way of thinking, or simply deal with it, as everyone else does. Furthermore, you cannot simply state that your paintings are more valuable than a scribble as a fact of reality. Maybe they are valuable to you, since you worked on them, but every value requires a valuer, so please speak for yourself. I can understand that you worked really hard on your paintings, but I am criticizing the product of your work, not how much it cost you, or how much time you spent on it, or what it personally means to you. From that point of view, the only difference I can perceive between most of your paintings and the doodle that I presented before is simply a matter of medium and technique. I am certainly not trying to be cruel, but I am not impressed by your work, even though I wish I was. At first, I was a little sarcastic because I thought that you were not being serious, since Ayn Rand was very clear about her disdain for your type of work. I apologize for that.

I am deeply sorry if you felt that my criticism was cruel, but you are being overly dramatic about this. I never intended to be disrespectful. I was even interested in your procedure, and asked you about your personal technique, but your answer was completely dismissive. The only sarcastic allegations I can think of would be my first two replies, and the sarcasm was very mild. Of course, you deserve respect, but I never attacked you personally. I was expressing my disapproval for your work, which is not going to be praised and pampered every time you present it in public. I am sorry that you think this is unjust, but I am not going to change my mind simply because of how you feel. Moreover, I am not concerned by the fact that my words are being taken seriously or not. I still think they are true. In any case, many members agreed with me, and they do take them seriously. So, I am not the only heartless villain in the picture. I think that your paintings are bad, but I never accused you of intentionally giving them the appearance of a doodle. That is simply the outcome, and I indicated why I personally think this is true. If I accused you of trying to create bad art knowingly and on purpose, as you said I did, please provide evidence. Since you seem to know more about my motives than I do, I am definitively interested in your method for concluding that my arguments were secretly being used as an excuse for spreading my cruelty. Ascribing false and arbitrary motivations to suit your denunciation of my arguments is called "psychologizing." Now you have something to actually call a "betrayal of Objectivism."

Determinist (and moderators), a question identical to yours was asked here already.

Thank you. I use a Wacom Intuos3 tablet, like this. I think it is absolutely indispensable.

You should take a look here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here and here first. That should be more than enough to clarify the issue for you.

As you wish. I was simply asking a question, but I am not interested anymore.

Is it diluting paint with water and applying it with a sponge? I am curious about your technique, because I was asked to do a fauvist painting using this method, and the result was almost the same.

Sorry. This was not on purpose. I read my answer again, and it did seem a little disrespectful. I apologize for that. However, I am not abandoning my statement. Even if it sounded impolite, it is still true.

You ended up explaining nothing. What is the relation between using the word "perfect" and the behavior of the so-called "Objectivists" that you described above? Ask yourself if their actions actually correspond to Ayn Rand's philosophy in the first place. What is even the purpose of bringing this up? If you read Atlas Shrugged, then I assume that you understand why unquestioning agreement is not a principle of Objectivism. At this point, you also understand that Objectivism is an integrated philosophical system. Ideas that are simply extracted at whim from the system to which they belong cannot function as a proper philosophical guide. What philosophy are you basing these objectives on? As I see it, your philosophy is nothing but an indefinite, vacillating, disorganized collection of isolated and conflicting ideas, mixed at random according to your urges of the immediate moment. What is the purpose of having a philosophy then?

You are a very talented artist. I am simply speculating, but I can deduce a lot from your life and the tragedy you went through by looking at these paintings. I am definitively curious about the fact that there are three men portrayed in almost every one of them. I really like Commemoration. It reminds me of Bryan Larsen's Young Builder and There's Opportunity Here.

This is an obviously incomplete face that I am drawing on Illustrator CS3:

You are not alone. I am a tremendous fan of Porcupine Tree, and every other musical project of Steven Wilson in existence. I even own an autographed Molotov and Haze LP, and a copy of Spiral Circus on cassette. I always enjoy watching Steven Wilson being interviewed. He is a very passionate, well-spoken, intelligent musician. You can tell that he knows his stuff. Some of his views may serve as good topics for this forum, like his criticism of the CD and MP3 era, or the concept behind Fear of a Blank Planet. I thought that I was the only person here who knew anything about Porcupine Tree.

That will teach her!

Why would I exaggerate? Sorry, but I am being honest. I saw a face in a couple of his paintings, or something like that, but there is definitively more to art than barely spotting the shape of an object in a blurred jungle of incomprehensible smears.

It means the opposite of "objective." I am not trying to be disrespectful, but an Objectivist should know what "objectivity" and "non-objectivity" mean, particularly as a moderator of an Objectivist forum. An unintelligible, amorphous, obscure, indefinite and ambiguous collection of smears on a canvas, which has to be given meaning arbitrarily through an enigmatic code of mysterious symbolism hidden from a rational mind, is definitively not an example of art under Ayn Rand's aesthetic theory. Perhaps the meaning of the author's paintings can only be revealed to a distinct class of art critics, but I, for one, cannot distinguish most of them from this doodle:

That is off the subject. We are focusing on the intensity of the hatred. However, it makes no difference at all. You are claiming as a fact of reality that no one can experience hatred intensively without hating himself. This is certainly false, but never mind. There is no need to make a fuss about this.

This topic has been already discussed here and here.

Who would have thought that unintelligible non-objective modern art was going to receive such a good response from the members of this forum?

Of course not, but that is beside the question. You are speaking of intensity. A rational man can experience hatred in a much more intensive manner than the one you presented in your example, and still appreciate himself in a positive way. Writing articles is not the only possible outcome of feeling hatred intensively. The statement from your first post is fallacious.

Why?

That is disgusting.

Of course not. I am evaluating his work based on this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this and this.

How can you possibly be unsure? At least the answer is perfectly clear.