Francisco Ferrer

How could you guess how you'd respond to "such a painting" unless you saw the painting? Then I'll ask, how does Rand expect us to respond her argument unless we see exactly what she has in mind? Show me what's she's referring to, and I'll respond to it. But if all we are dealing with a hypothetical work of art, Rand has given us no reason to reject it "instantaneous[ly], much faster than the viewer’s mind could identify all the reasons involved." I cannot imagine how a painting of a woman with a cold sore could be interpreted as an "obscenely vicious attack on man, on beauty, on all values." How about Rand's projection of Kira's dying, grounding the subject in Rand's view of what a particular societal situation would factually produce? Sounds a lot like kitchen sink naturalism to me.

Thank you. Your position is that this use of force, in this situation violates the VIII Amendment which states: Is that a fair representation of your position? A... Yes, that as well as the Sixth, Seventh and Fourteenth Amendments.

An example might help, I do not follow his blog and Gulch did not provide a link. A... Post Script: http://www.henrymarkholzer.com/blog.html Example

The Constitutional lawyer who's not too keen on the Eighth Amendment.

An art critic is not necessarily a second-hand anything. Diderot's Salons, for example, is an achievement not only in the description of notable paintings of his time, but in helping the reader to understand the merit of those works. As for Pauline Kael, I frequently disagreed with her, but invariably found her witty, observant and instructive.

Every choice and value-judgment implies some estimate of himself and of the world around him—most particularly, of his capacity to deal with the world. He may draw conscious conclusions, which may be true or false; or he may remain mentally passive and merely react to events (i.e., merely feel). Whatever the case may be, his subconscious mechanism sums up his psychological activities, integrating his conclusions, reactions or evasions into an emotional sum that establishes a habitual pattern and becomes his automatic response to the world around him.If one saw, in real life, a beautiful woman wearing an exquisite evening gown, with a cold sore on her lips, the blemish would mean nothing but a minor affliction, and one would ignore it. * * * If one saw, in real life, a beautiful woman wearing an exquisite evening gown, with a cold sore on her lips, the blemish would mean nothing but a minor affliction, and one would ignore it. But a painting of such a woman would be a corrupt, obscenely vicious attack on man, on beauty, on all values—and one would experience a feeling of immense disgust and indignation at the artist. (There are also those who would feel something like approval and who would belong to the same moral category as the artist.) The emotional response to that painting would be instantaneous, much faster than the viewer’s mind could identify all the reasons involved. The psychological mechanism which produces that response (and which produced the painting) is a man’s sense of life. --Ayn Rand, "Philosophy and Sense of Life" Why is the inclusion of a blemish on a beautiful face necessarily "a corrupt, obscenely vicious attack on man, on beauty, on all values"? If I saw such a painting, I would probably draw the opposite conclusion: that minor imperfections are of no consequence; that true beauty is transcendent. And why must the artist's inclusion of birthmarks or warts or sores denote a negative, man-hating sense of life? Is it not possible to be intensely happy with one's life and hopeful about mankind while observing (through art) particulars that ground a subject in the real as opposed to the ideal? Why can't the grotesque be a subject for art without jumping to the conclusion that the artist hates life? The hunchback of Hugo's famous novel is both ugly and sympathetic.

Remember: government walls can be used to keep people in as well as out.

EllenThe operetta could be Lehar's popular The Merry Widow. Act III is set in a ballroom.

Paying government workers for taking a day off at first glance seems to be a disgraceful waste of tax dollars. In fact, the more days we keep bureaucrats away from the office, the less damage they'll do to the economy and society.

Were you looking for it last year, or were you looking to confirm your biases so as to enjoy having something to gripe about? I must have been looking in the wrong location. I was on the isle of Manhattan. Next time I'll try Brooklyn. There was an opportunity to do something different with the exterior, and they went with the same old glass and steel rubber stamp. Look at New York's skyscrapers of the past 20 years. They are, for the most part, suits cut from the same fabric: the New York Times Building, the Trump World Tower, the Bloomberg Tower, 7 World Trade Center, the MiMA Building, etc. I acknowledge exceptions such as Gehry's magnificent 8 Spruce Street. But for the most part, the major buildings of the past two decades do not vary significantly from architecture of 70 years ago. We're in a rut. Yes. During any one time in history, most designers borrow from others, or downright copy them. The history of architecture has rarely been about thrill-seeking novelty. At present, most new buildings are copies of copies of copies. That's a great solution. If you don't like classic rock, then don't tune to a classic rock station. If you want great Italian food, don't go to a sushi bar. If you want to see exciting new clothing fashions, don't expect to find them worn by people in corporate boardrooms or government agency headquarters. And if you want to see wildly original, revolutionary styles of architecture, don't look for them in business or government towers, or in sections of cities where there are aesthetic covenants due to local pride in historical landmarks. Tune to a different station: arts and cultural centers, educational complexes, etc. On my next search for exciting new buildings in New York, I will avoid the neighborhoods where I don't expect them to be located.

Is this some kind of self flagellation using music? If you listened to a classical musical station and they "over-played" Mozart, a composer you love, you would "purposefully" not choose to play Mozart? Is this a Dominique Francon psychosis? I love reading _______, therefore, since everyone put it on their best seller list for a decade, I am going to deprive my aesthetic pleasure and refuse to read _________ forever! That'll teach me! Seems a tad sick to me. A... I know there must be people who eat the same thing for dinner every night, no exceptions. However, most indivdiauls, if they can afford it, like a little variation, Mon: tacos; Tue: grilled chicken; Wed: meat loaf; Thu: salmon; Fri: beef stew; Sat: pizza; Sun: fried chicken, and then back to the tacos again. This psychotic fetish for change, I suppose, is a result of American affluence.

And I disagreed. Contemporary architecture is just as new and original as the practice of architecture has always been. There are innovators, and there are copiers, and there are traditionalists, etc. New ideas come slowly, and they are slow to be appreciated. Great. I'll look for it on my next visit to New York. I didn't see it last year. I disagree. Do a Google search for "architects" in an average small city in the US. They are not creating work that was (or even could have been) created at the end of WW2. You seem to want an all-out revolution -- a total disconnect from past methods -- where I think most innovators today are more focused on subtlety and taste. A good analogy might be music: where you want someone to invent a new instrument, with new notes, chords and timbres, and you want him to write music specifically for that instrument, others are focused on the innovations in arrangement -- despite using the same old instruments, notes, chords and timbres, they are creating original melodies. Here's the Lever House, one of the tired old designs of the early 1950's. Here's the new Federal Building in Cleveland, one of the radical new designs of the 21st century: Same instrument, new melody? Really? Badly needed by whom, and why? How did you come to that conclusion? How have you measured need? What's going to happen if the "design revolution" doesn't come? Will our lives be empty? Will some people die from being exposed to non-revolutionary architectural design? Needed by bored, decadent thrill-seekers looking for originality. During any one time, there have always been only a few "small voices" that are exceptionally creative. If that is the case, then just a few designers overhauled the look of the centers of American cities, 1900-1950. So you want someone to be "dominant," and therefore you want everyone else to copy him? That's your notion of "innovation" and "originality"? You want downtown America to have a new leader of "fabricated sameness"? Francisco Ferrer, on 23 Jul 2014 - 04:15 AM, said: I'm sorry. You sounded as if you had a theory that you were dedicated to. My apologies. Um, but now it seems that you kind of have conflicting expectations. You want "differentiation," but yet you seem to believe that a "design revolution" will be shown to exist only when all architects follow one leader and make downtown America look like his style. I didn't say I wanted someone to be dominant. I want someone to change the five-song playlist. I'd rather have Gehry dominate for a while than have another half century of city blocks filled with walls of glass. If that is the case, then I am truly incompetent at expressing what I thought was a simple idea. Let's use your analogy of music. I loved the Beatles in the 1960's and 1970's. Then Top 40 radio ran them into the ground. I have not purposefully chosen to play a Beatles song in decades.

Indeed, it's a matter of taste. Generally, people don't like the new, especially in architecture. They seem to need a lot of time to adjust. Psychologically, people seem to need architecture to be their sturdy connection to the past and to the concept of endurance and stability.Future generations will be puzzled to hear today's judgments of postmodern architecture, in the same way that critics of Wright's time now sound silly and panicked (they thought that his work was "extremely ugly...a monster of awkwardness," "stark, unmodelled...rude, incomplete, unfinished," and merely an "interesting experiment...without grace or ease...at times even bizarre." ) My complaint about today's architecture is precisely that for the most part it isn't new. It's a rehash of the forms that have been in place since the end of World War II. I said earlier that modernism in the early 20th century provided a much needed revolution in design. Another such dramatic change is badly needed now. There are a few creative minds like Gehry striking out in new directions. But at the moment, he is still "one small voice" (if you'll forgive a Fountainhead allusion.) His designs are influencing a lot of downtown America. Other architects borrow from him. They're a bit more conservative, but they are being influenced by him. When downtowns in America start looking like this, we'll know Gehry is dominant. They don't. He isn't. Gehry: Phoenix: Great! I'm glad to hear that you don't let dedication to an architectural theory stand in your way of loving architecture which doesn't fit the theory.J Good advice, but I haven't yet discovered a theory to dedicate myself to.

The largest structures -- towers -- have never been very conducive to artistic expression. That has not stopped me from loving 70 Pine St. (1932), 40 Wall St. (1930), the GE Building (1933), or the Woolworth Building, among many others in New York. Exciting new designs happen all the time, but, as has always been true, most residences and workplaces will not be much different from all other residences and workplaces. And contrary to what you say, postmodern architecture has been very innovative. Today's architects are creating structures that Wright would not have thought possible. I guess it's a matter of taste. Post-modern buildings, to me, look like architecture in search of a gimmick. Yes, Gehry is quite original, and I do like some of his work. But his designs are hardly shaping the look of America's downtowns: I disagree, and on many levels. Wright talked a lot about respect for place and purpose, but the talk didn't always translate into reality. The Guggenheim being one glaring example. He was easily talked out of his original "low, crawling vision" by his client, and then he arbitrarily resurrected a Tower of Babel concept that had nothing to do with anything. The building isn't well suited to its purpose or site, but it's nevertheless a great work of art to a hell of a lot of people. Contrary to your opinion, boldness, freshness and respect for place and purpose are alive and well in Frank Gehry, Santiago Calatrava, Zaha Hadid, etc. J I guess I'm part of that hell of a lot of people. I never miss the Guggenheim when I'm in the city or Wright's Xanadu Gallery in San Francisco.

Then never mind the picture. I've visited most of America's 20 largest cities in the past ten years, and I don't see much individuality or originality among the largest structures. The early 20th century gave us an exciting and necessary design revolution. But since World War II we've been in a holding pattern. I realize there are some important exceptions, as shown by contributors above, but the look of the average residence and workplace has not changed significantly in the past 50 years. Not everything in Wright's portfolio was a work of art. But he offered a boldness, freshness and respect for place and purpose that is for the most part gone today.

Whose forays into surrealism did not escape Rand's critical eye.

James Garner delivering terrific dialogue by Paddy Chayefsky:

Nobody gets elected president unless she/he plays the game. And the rules are written by the Insiders, the Elite, the Establishment. (For those who are shocked by those words, we'll use Rand's less frightening "pressure groups.") Sen. Warren will quietly distance herself from her anti-Establishment past, just as smoothly as Sen. Paul's recent quick change act. She has now co-sponsored legislation with Sens. John McCain of Arizona, Marco Rubio of Florida and Orrin G. Hatch of Utah. She also recently came out in favor of the corporate welfare trough known as the Import-Export Bank. The genius of American politics is that when the public gets tired of being screwed over by one party, they can turn to the opposition which will do exactly the same thing under the banner of reform.

"Expropriate" is exactly the right word. Contrary to some supposed defenders of capitalism, taxation cannot be explained away as a means to repay government for services rendered. The Mafioso providing “protection services” in return for extorted payments may in many cases really protect his clients from other criminals, yet we would not count his actions any less illegitimate for that reason. The upshot is that, whether or not I am given anything in return for my tax dollars, those dollars are still taken from me involuntarily even if I do not want the services provided or would prefer to get them elsewhere. No one would consider the local florist any less a thief if, after taking some of my property by force, he sent me flowers." --Edward Feser, "Taxation, Forced Labor, and Theft"

Just wait until politicians start covering themselves with this stuff.

No architect should want this monstrosity on his resume. It is literally falling to pieces. A chunk of the facade crashed to the sidewalk a few years ago and might have killed somebody. The government paid a contractor $6 million to clean up the mess and put netting around the upper floors to prevent more damage. The GAO says it will actually take more time and money to renovate this white elephant than to demolish it and build a new structure on the same site. It is less than 40 years old. Nothing beside remains. Round the decay Of that colossal wreck, boundless and bare, The lone and level sands stretch far away.

The Legacy of Margaret Thatcher by Sean Gabb Plus, she loved Britain's socialized medicine. And at the end of her reign, Britain's taxes were higher than when she came to power. She believed in making sacrifices to stop "climate change." She supported and helped pass new gun restriction laws. Still, she didn't just stand on the sidelines criticizing like some know-it-all utopian. We can all admire her for being so practical and getting things done, can't we?

And at least he's not an enemy of capitalism. How is he concerning the Cronies. The Corporations that receive favors and subsidies from the government at our expense. Ba'al Chatzaf If you want to see his position on cronyism or any other topic, just check out his current book list: http://www.paul.senate.gov/?p=students Look it over. His core principles are right there.

Getting around to commenting on the inclusion of Michelangelo and Vermeer among "Rand's enthusiasms"... Rand was mixed on both. She called Vermeer the greatest painter and praised his style *, but said that he combined "a brilliant clarity of style with the bleak metaphysics of Naturalism" * and presented as his subjects "the folks next door [...] to kitchens." * If you look back to post #29, you can find the start, in Tony's agreeing with Rand on Vermeer, of the long altercation to follow. Except for some material on the "David," Michelangelo hasn't come up for much mention on the thread, and I don't recall off hand there being anything said about Rand's considering his work "malevolent universe," similarly to Beethoven's. Here's a mention of Rand regarding Michelangelo from the Full Context interview with Joan Blumenthal. (In a separate post, I'll quote the whole section from that interview about Rand's and Joan's disagreements on art.) Ellen I think I'm on firm ground in saying that nothing appeared in The Objectivist without Rand's full approval. Thus I took Mary Ann Sures's endorsement of Michelangelo as a reflection of Rand's: "Michelangelo was the greatest artist of the Renaissance, and his work may be taken as representative of the spirit of that era." It is true that Sures later scolds the sculptor of The Dying Slave for "tragic heroism," for portraying "man as a being for whom existence means struggle . . . but who will struggle in vain." ("Metaphysics in Marble," The Objectivist, February and March 1969) But once we start eliminating all the visual artists Rand had the least misgivings about, who the hell is left? Frank O'Connor?

His website removes books by Rand, Mises, Hazlitt, Goldwater, Buchanan, his dad, and others outside the boundary of acceptable opinion. Book page before: freebeacon.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/Rand-Paul-Reading-List.pdf Book page now: http://www.paul.senate.gov/?p=students Let there be no doubt: Rand is no utopian idealist, but someone we can count on to roll up his sleeves and do what's practical, what works.