Francisco Ferrer

No country which calls the leader of the greatest, noblest nation on earth a “wicked black monkey,” should be allowed to get away with that. It makes me want to force other people to spend their money on bombing the inhabitants of that slave state.

1. Alcoholism/substance abuse is irrelevant to modern art. Just as there were modernist painters who were not alcoholics (Mark Tobey, for example), there were alcoholics who practiced in other schools of art, such as Toulouse-Lautrec. 2. Modernism is irrelevant to leftism. One of modern art's champions was Hilton Kramer, a political conservative who wrote frequently for National Review.

Perhaps the U.S. should apologize to Japan for executing Japanese officials who used waterboarding against American military personnel in World War II. It was not torture; it was a joke. Another character who didn't get the joke can be found here.

I see. The discussion of an artist's works involves making up statements on behalf of the artist. I'm getting a brand new insight into "Objectivist esthetics." HAH. There's what I meant by "arbitrary assertion" in abstract art! You can make up what ever statement you like since you CAN'T know "the meaning", and if the artist knows, he's not telling. You got it. So "Objectivist" esthetics is about making arbitrary assertions on behalf of the creator of the art? Since I can't know what Beethoven "meant" by his Symphony No. 5 in C minor, I am entitled to assert that it is about the "malevolence of the universe." More than that, I am entitled to assert that Beethoven said that it is about the "malevolence of the universe." In this view, uncertainty is the logical basis for drawing conclusions and for putting words into other people's mouths. Rand's methodology in the arts is becoming clearer by the moment. Keep talking. Ah, no. You didn't get it. It is the artist, not me, who is making (what I likened to) an 'arbitrary assertion' - when there are no referents to reality in his picture. It is normally a verbal statement, but could as well be pictoral, I think. In response, I - the viewer - can come up with any "arbitrary" notion I feel like, as to its 'meaning'. "Hey cool, man! This painting is about the cosmos and humans' suffering and confusion...!" (For example) Rand on the arbitrary: ""Arbitrary" means a claim put forth in the absence of evidence of any sort, perceptual or conceptual..." "An arbitrary idea is sheer assertion with no attempt to validate it or connect it to reality..." "Since an arbitrary statement has no connection to man's means of knowledge or his grasp of reality, cognitively speaking such a claim must be treated as though nothing had been said". FF, if you want AR's "methodology in the arts" go to the source, not my extrapolations of it. You say there are "no referents to reality" in the picture, but let me remind you that art is not a mirror to reality but, according to Rand, "a selective recreation of reality." Thus Pollock's swirls and splotches of color do not attempt to reproduce reality or provide one-to-one referents--nor should they. His work recreates reality. That is, it takes the materials of this world and uses them to create a new world. .... If "'Arbitrary' means a claim put forth in the absence of evidence of any sort, perceptual or conceptual," then the burden is on you to show where the artist has put forth a claim. It's surprising how Rand can be misinterpreted. "A re-creation of reality" does not -only- mean "materials of this world" refashioned into another shape. (Though, of course they also are. Paint into an image, bronze into statue, existing language (words) into story). But much further, the "shape" it is given portrays 'another' reality, too -- as the artist sees it --and that is the highest significance (in Rand's reckoning, as we know by her analysis). As for any painting of unidentifiable squiggles, etc., I don't have to "prove" anything about the artist's "claim". On what other authority can you assess his work, a visual medium, but on what you see and don't see there? Seeing is believing, as it's said. This specific artist HAS - implicitly - made "a claim"... by his work. Which is, he does not consider conveying reality or clarity to his audience as important. Fine, I take him 'at his word'. If a man speaks in meaningless gibberish to me, I am entitled to answer in kind, or not respond at all. The "burden" as you put it, is on the artist, first. 'Anthem' is a specious comparison to make since you and I fully understand the novella's content and meaning. It can't be evaded by any mind, it speaks for itself and cannot be mistaken for an "arbitrary assertion". Frankly, I don't necessarily care for Big Name artists and Big Money art: I think the reverence shown for some artists and their work, has more to do with extraneous factors than the art itself. This approaches an authoritarian mysticism, to my mind. Who is misinterpreting Rand? Where does she specify that a work's recreation of reality must adhere to a particular subject, format, arrangement or protocol in order to qualify as art per se? If Rand's beloved Sergei Rachmaninoff can scribble certain notes on a staff "in accordance with his value-judgments," why can't Jackson Pollock drip paint on a canvas in accordance with his? To disqualify Pollock's work as meaningless or to "speak for" Pollock and have him declare his own work is without meaning (i.e. lie about what he said), is to define art strictly in terms of one's own tastes: If you don't like it, it must not be art. In Post #49 you said that "It is the artist, not me, who is making (what I likened to) an 'arbitrary assertion."' You went on to define "arbitrary as a "claim put forth in the absence of evidence." Now you say that his claim is that "he does not consider conveying reality or clarity to his audience as important." First of all, we do not know that Pollock said or believed any such thing. More importantly, let's remember that the purpose of art, at least according to Rand, is not to "convey reality" but to recreate reality. Conveying reality is what people who collect fingerprints and who snap passport photos do. Recreating reality is what most painters, sculptors, composers, and poets do. Finally, nothing in Rand's definition excludes artists who do not express themselves with clarity. So while Pollock's arrangement of colors on a canvas may not be to your liking, it still meets the criterion of recreating reality. Now, what about meaning? Must art take the shape of something recognizable in order to be meaningful? Sergei Prokofiev's Peter and the Wolf imitates a bird call: Sergei Rachmaninoff's Etude-Tableaux Op.33 No.2 in C major does not imitate a bird or anything else that I can tell: May we then safely send Rachmaninoff's work to the gibberish bin because it does not contain any "referents to reality"? Your theory of art amounts to nothing more than feelings parading around in pseudo-scientific garb.

I see. The discussion of an artist's works involves making up statements on behalf of the artist. I'm getting a brand new insight into "Objectivist esthetics." HAH. There's what I meant by "arbitrary assertion" in abstract art! You can make up what ever statement you like since you CAN'T know "the meaning", and if the artist knows, he's not telling. You got it. So "Objectivist" esthetics is about making arbitrary assertions on behalf of the creator of the art? Since I can't know what Beethoven "meant" by his Symphony No. 5 in C minor, I am entitled to assert that it is about the "malevolence of the universe." More than that, I am entitled to assert that Beethoven said that it is about the "malevolence of the universe." In this view, uncertainty is the logical basis for drawing conclusions and for putting words into other people's mouths. Rand's methodology in the arts is becoming clearer by the moment. Keep talking. Ah, no. You didn't get it. It is the artist, not me, who is making (what I likened to) an 'arbitrary assertion' - when there are no referents to reality in his picture. It is normally a verbal statement, but could as well be pictoral, I think. In response, I - the viewer - can come up with any "arbitrary" notion I feel like, as to its 'meaning'. "Hey cool, man! This painting is about the cosmos and humans' suffering and confusion...!" (For example) Rand on the arbitrary: ""Arbitrary" means a claim put forth in the absence of evidence of any sort, perceptual or conceptual..." "An arbitrary idea is sheer assertion with no attempt to validate it or connect it to reality..." "Since an arbitrary statement has no connection to man's means of knowledge or his grasp of reality, cognitively speaking such a claim must be treated as though nothing had been said". FF, if you want AR's "methodology in the arts" go to the source, not my extrapolations of it. You say there are "no referents to reality" in the picture, but let me remind you that art is not a mirror to reality but, according to Rand, "a selective recreation of reality." Thus Pollock's swirls and splotches of color do not attempt to reproduce reality or provide one-to-one referents--nor should they. His work recreates reality. That is, it takes the materials of this world and uses them to create a new world. Ayn Rand did much the same in Anthem. There is no reality in which a society without the light bulb is ruled by a World Council. Rand used the materials of this world to create a new one. Yes, you may "come up with any 'arbitrary' notion" you feel like, as to the picture's meaning. What you are not entitled to do is ascribe your arbitrary notion to the artist--to put words in his mouth. By comparison, I may spin my own interpretation of Anthem, but I am not entitled to speak on Rand's behalf: "My purpose is writing Anthem was to expose the Illuminati Conspiracy that is attempting to subvert man's freedom in this life, this earth." If "'Arbitrary' means a claim put forth in the absence of evidence of any sort, perceptual or conceptual," then the burden is on you to show where the artist has put forth a claim. Is it written on the frame of the painting, on the back side of the canvas, in the exhibition catalog? Unless you can cite a reference, I shall treat your assertion about a claim as just another attempt to misrepresent the artist. And if your response is that a claim is implicit is all works of art, then prove it. On what holy tablet is it written that painting a picture implies making a claim? If Objectivist Art Criticism ever hopes to move beyond its cult of true believers it will have to improve its stock-in-trade of unproven assertions and strawman arguments.

I see. The discussion of an artist's works involves making up statements on behalf of the artist. I'm getting a brand new insight into "Objectivist esthetics." HAH. There's what I meant by "arbitrary assertion" in abstract art! You can make up what ever statement you like since you CAN'T know "the meaning", and if the artist knows, he's not telling. You got it. So "Objectivist" esthetics is about making arbitrary assertions on behalf of the creator of the art? Since I can't know what Beethoven "meant" by his Symphony No. 5 in C minor, I am entitled to assert that it is about the "malevolence of the universe." More than that, I am entitled to assert that Beethoven said that it is about the "malevolence of the universe." In this view, uncertainty is the logical basis for drawing conclusions and for putting words into other people's mouths. Rand's methodology in the arts is becoming clearer by the moment. Keep talking.

I see. The discussion of an artist's works involves making up statements on behalf of the artist. I'm getting a brand new insight into "Objectivist" esthetics.

"I don't do no stinkin' meaning" equals "It has no meaning" equals "It isn't art." This is much the same argument as: "I dislike rap" equals "Rap does not meet my standards for music" equals "Rap isn't music." Brant is correct. Using an "objective esthetic" (which is really nothing more than personal taste) to bar certain works from discussion and consideration is a form of "cultural fascism."

Rand: "Art is a selective re-creation of reality according to an artist’s metaphysical value-judgments." This, then, is art: And so is this: Both are no less "vehicles of meaning" than this:

What, a second-hand name for a first-hander? Why not create a name? Like, say, "Nedril" or "Pruvia" or "Luwest"?

From the Times: Mr. Branden, who was 84 when he died on Wednesday at his home in Los Angeles County, would go on to change his name at Ms. Rand’s suggestion (it had been Nathan Blumenthal) and to become perhaps her most ardent disciple. Why did she suggest the change?

So you are also opposed to boxing and football? No fair! You've jumped the context. --Brant So Spartacus can initiate force, but Mike Tyson cannot? The context is a fight to the death, not merely a fight and not war. You are denaturing the discussion which deserves a conclusion. With a conclusion we could go on to consider boxing in the context of the conclusion. --Brant Forgive me. I took the context to be "two guys initiating force which is against the law therefore." Boxing and fighting obviously never result in death and therefore have nothing to do with the central issue of initiating force, which means causing someone to die.. That is not what initiating force means. You can cause someone to die using force in self defense. You responded to my post which has its own context which is not the post that started this thread. All threads contain a cascade of contexts or a river of thoughts. I made an error up thread by not noticing David had included the word "sober" in the first posting. This was not respectful of his context but essentially an innocent mistake. You riding this dead horse of yours to a hoped for conclusion ignores that it isn't going anywhere. Or, think of it as trying to correct a parallel parking mistake by not simply pulling out and starting over. You can argue interminably with a Greg over not much, but not with me. --Brant Yes, I should have pulled out of the parking space, but I was afraid not only that someone might grab that space but that I might pull too far out and hit the dead horse or else be swamped by that cascade of contexts, not to mention the river of thoughts we're experiencing with the new climate change.

So you are also opposed to boxing and football? No fair! You've jumped the context. --Brant So Spartacus can initiate force, but Mike Tyson cannot? The context is a fight to the death, not merely a fight and not war. You are denaturing the discussion which deserves a conclusion. With a conclusion we could go on to consider boxing in the context of the conclusion. --Brant Forgive me. I took the context to be "two guys initiating force which is against the law therefore." Boxing and fighting obviously never result in death and therefore have nothing to do with the central issue of initiating force, which means causing someone to die..

So you are also opposed to boxing and football? No fair! You've jumped the context. --Brant So Spartacus can initiate force, but Mike Tyson cannot?

Maybe the police should stop harassing businessmen.

So you are also opposed to boxing and football?

The statement that "the divide between society and state" is "flawed" suggests society and the state are one and the same. Are they? For example were the American colonists of the 1770's one and the same as their British rulers? How does the theory of no division between state and community account for an anti-British majority existing side by side with a minority of loyalist Tories who represented about 15% of the population during the Revolution? As for Sparta, the military leaders of that ancient country insisted on a form of eugenics that got rid of children that did not meet certain physical standards. It does not require too much imagination to suppose that not all youngsters went willingly to their deaths. Thus clearly there was a division between state policy and a certain minority of the population. Hitler said, "Ein Volk, ein Reich, ein Führer" ("One People, One Empire, One Leader"). Must we take him at his word and suppose that the leader of Germany, 1933-1945, spoke with one voice for all Germans?

So stop rooting for more people to get freedom. The deserving folks already have it. Right here and now. And they are the only ones that should have it. When you root for people to get something that they don't have, you are granting your sanction to the awarding of the undeserved. And you must never, ever grant sanction to evil!

I want people who deserve freedom to get freedom. And people who don't deserve it to be denied it. And that's the way things work right now, Morrie. Even under feminized liberals like Obama. Be it Mao or Jefferson, we'll always get what's coming to us. Whether the government grows into a monster ten times its present size or crumbles like the Tower of Babel, it won't affect decent Americans one bit. They'll still be getting exactly what they deserve. And the crybabies who get corralled into socialist re-education camps? It's their own damn fault for not living like an American! So what's the point of changing something that ain't broke? Keep cheering if you want to. And while you're at it, give a cheer for two plus three to equal five. Without a strong fan base, who knows what might happen this season.

For 70 years AT&T held a legal monopoly on telephone service in the United States. It worked just fine. If you didn't like your service, you cancelled and went without a phone.

To me personally it doesn't matter... because I govern myself and don't need the government to do it for me. I consider politics to be entertainment like sports. You pick a team and root for it to win. The American Capitalist minority is my team because I'm one of them. You don't have to root for it. The American Capitalist minority team always wins. That's because our team is composed of decent folks, and decent folks always get what they deserve. The government, even in the hands of feminized liberals, will never be able penetrate the invisible force field of Americans with a high DQ. Artist rendering of military grade laser deployed against American with a high DQ.

What difference does it make what a Obama does? No matter how much funding and totalitarian, unconstitutional, feminized, liberal power he has, he will still treat decent people decently, right? "I tell you, if you live a life deserving of a decent government... the government will treat you decently. So why should we decent people give a flip about what the dictators in Washington do? No tyrant has ever been able to penetrate the Force Field of Decency.

For those distressed by how little of their tax dollars go to support the Ukrainian army, here's a chance to clear out all that clutter in one's checking account: http://euromaidanpress.com/2014/07/04/verified-ways-to-help-the-ukrainian-army/ And, as for you younger lads, the babes love men in blue berets:

Who has defended your right to ask really stupid rhetorical questions? A... The foremost opponents of honoring that beast of burden the taxpayer would be those who wish to preserve the illusion that taxes are not a form of theft but voluntary contributions. They include a former IRS commissioner and Harry Reid. In any case, here's the monument I have in mind. It would stand about 300 feet tall on the mall in Washington, financed, of course, by contributions that are actually voluntary.

If Labor Day were not a holiday to celebrate unions but instead honored those who sacrificed their incomes for the betterment of federal paycheck collectors, then it would be called Tax Slave Day and would be observed not in September but on Tax Freedom Day. Dr. Gary North has rightly proposed that the payroll (or withholding) tax, invented by Milton Friedman in WWII. be abolished. Instead annual income taxes would be due on the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November. Voters would mark their ballots on the same day they wrote a check for a whole year's worth of taxes. Revolt ensues.