RoR: Forum

An experiment ... I'm seeing whether making a comment post gets a gallery post listed on its section page (this thread currently isn't showing on "Art"), and whether I can now post freely (the Atlas Points page says that I can, and thanks for the "votes" involved).

Mostly, though, it's an excuse to share the story behind this piece of winged art ...

When I was surprised one day in 2000 to find out, on line, that Dean Lee had created this illustration for a story of mine, of two characters I had created, captured perfectly by someone I'd never even spoken to in person ...

... it was a singular experience. For a few minutes, I couldn't talk clearly. I could barely handle the mouse and keyboard, with my hand feeling numb. I was shaking with delight, even while fearing that I was having a mini-"stroke" with all the blood rushing from my brain to my pounding heart.

Does every author get to have such a world-shaking thrill? Out of knowing that he'd communicated this well, this exactly, so that a recent Net artist friend could zero in on what his characters were all about? I doubt very many do.

Total passion for the total height? (To borrow from a meme in The Fountainhead.) I felt it that day.

Post 1

Saturday, January 3, 2009 - 12:29pm

Great piece of art (both of them) and great story.

---Landon

Post 2

Tuesday, January 13, 2009 - 3:30am

Thanks, belatedly, to Landon for his response.

{MiniRemonstration}

Do very many people here respond to something, anything, affirmative? The art galleries appear to garner almost no traffic. At least this site has them.

It seems to be true, almost everywhere I've interacted with others who are Objectivist in outlook. Nearly everyone I meet would rather dispute than celebrate, criticize than innovate. I confess to being weary of it, after more than 30 years in this milieu.

{/MiniRemonstration}

Please forgive my getting this off my chest, and believe me, I'd much prefer to post and talk about art here.

I've long wondered if some outlooks, to borrow from the title of Tascha's work at deviantART, "can't stand the light."

Post 3

Tuesday, January 13, 2009 - 9:40am

The aesthetics side has always been a problem in terms of serious discussion or seeking an objective manner of assessing works - and to the extent of any interest, most seem to be in the realm of musical preferences of various bands... at least that has been my impression over the years... some poetry has been noted, but few comments, as if is an alien matter - perhaps because of unfamiliarity in how to approach it [do they even teach that these days, outside of contemporary post-modern crap pieces?]

As far as paintings go, while am sure there are more O'ist artists than Michael Newberry and myself, none others seem to have have bothered chiming in on this forum... and our emphasizes are quite divergent, for all the common elements behind them...

Post 4

Friday, March 13, 2009 - 5:18pm

After two months of this thread being dormant, I had to share this lovely photomanipulation by Rick Blackwell, from his gallery at deviantART, currently used on my Windows desktop ...

Image Hosted by ImageShack.us

... and at the risk of sounding too defensive (or spoiling for a fight) in advance, I hope that we won't have anyone calling for bowing toward Rand's insistence, in her Romantic Manifesto, that photography is not an art form.

If architecture got her special favor as crossing conceptual boundaries in a legitimate manner — with her own obvious (and worthy) reason for such pleading having begun and ended with the words "Howard Roark" — this kind of blending can also qualify, straddling painting and photography. Rand didn't anticipate every technology that would come along.

I don't see why a work such as this cannot be art. It's a selective re-creation, though at second remove, of an actual model (two photos), leaves, cloudbanks, and other elements.

It also combines and modifies them to create a work that embodies an implicit assessment of existence by the artist. (Though as to exactly what that is, for him, I have no clue. He doesn't care to talk in public about his visions and motivations. I asked him, and he fears exposing too much of his private life. With rising net.savagery, I can hardly blame him.)

I'll note what I see in this: An allusion to one's winning out over decay and dissolution (the leaves), rising toward what is possible for oneself, while still holding on to the beauty that can be found in the world. ... It's fuel for my spirit, anyway.

Post 5

Friday, March 13, 2009 - 5:53pm

I don't understand why people think that photograph can't be art. I have seen photographs that are stunning in their ability to evoke emotions by the choices involved in subject and composition (and then there is always Photoshop). Technology can start with a photograph and take it anywhere that oil paint and a brush can go. And with sufficient skill, an artist could take oil and brush and create something nearly identical to an unretouched photo. Art isn't defined by the media, it is comes out of the artist, and it requires some form of arrangement, of recreating, of selecting, of arranging... for the purpose of concretizing an abstraction. Music, paintings, sculture, movies, plays, dance, novels, poetry, architecture, and photographs - lots of media.

(Edited by Steve Wolfer on 3/13, 5:54pm)

Post 6

Thursday, July 1, 2010 - 7:39pm

I'm returning to this thread, first, to repost the illustration by Dean Lee to my short story that I used in Post 0, since the link has died and I can't edit that post any longer.

And to follow it up with another interpretation of these two winged characters by Clayscence, an artist from Uruguay that I commissioned through deviantART.

Other winged artworks will very soon be shared below. Please share any that you may have found, as well!

Or just tell me the silliness or greatness of my artistic obsession with such pinions. Or talk about symbolism, illusion, photography as art (or not), or anything else on topic ... {sigh} I wish these galleries got more use {re-sigh}

Geekish and wholly tangential notes (if discussing these, please start or add to another thread):

I have to wonder why that "Edit" button is offered at all, when a post is "too old to edit." It goes along with my long-standing RoR puzzlement at, right now, still having to manually enter HTML code in the "Gimpy Netscape" posting box.

Firefox (here, using v3.5 for Windows) has long been far from a marginal browser choice. Internet Explorer 4 isn't even supported any longer, and its successors have fallen greatly in market share. More browsers should be able to access advanced editing features.

Does anyone maintain or update this site's technical aspects any more? Is anyone designated, or has anyone volunteered, to even attempt to do so? I would be glad to help.

The links in the original article and in my posts above are currently still valid. Other images are still available, even though ImageShack has become problematic as a reliable hosting service. When images go astray, I'll link to reposts at my account with Photobucket.

(Edited by Steve Reed on 7/01, 7:56pm)

Post 7

Friday, July 2, 2010 - 2:50pm

Reed -

I have to wonder why that "Edit" button is offered at all, when a post is "too old to edit." It goes along with my long-standing RoR puzzlement at, right now, still having to manually enter HTML code in the "Gimpy Netscape" posting box.

There's a time cap on edits for reasons having to do with posterity, history and honesty. What reason is there to severely edit an old post when a new post will suffice? It would be very very difficult to keep track of people if they were able to constantly change what they've said in the past.

However, if a member wises to edit an old post, either I, Dean or Joe (moderators of the site) can help, but a request needs to be made to change the old post. After a request is made, the moderators make the call whether or not to change the original post. I usually accommodate those requests if they're made to me, but even I can't change posts that are above a certain age. Only Joe can.

Does anyone maintain or update this site's technical aspects any more? Is anyone designated, or has anyone volunteered, to even attempt to do so? I would be glad to help.

Several people work daily to maintain the site, including myself. Thanks anyway.

Post 8

Saturday, July 3, 2010 - 6:52am

William-Adolphe Bouguereau and the French academics set a standard.

Wings can have a purpose

But you don't always need them.

Post 9

Saturday, July 3, 2010 - 12:13pm

I did ask that those notes be replied to in another thread, not in this gallery, but anyway ...

> Reed - [...] <

Please don't do that. It's very dismissive, almost contemptuous, and I don't think I deserve it. I doubt you would like it if I addressed you as "Isanhart."

> What reason is there to severely edit an old post when a new post will suffice? It would be very very difficult to keep track of people if they were able to constantly change what they've said in the past. [...] <

Fine, then — so why is that edit button offered when it doesn't even work, and isn't meant to work? It ought to be removed when your time frame has passed, whatever it may be.

Anyway, I thought it was obvious that I was talking about editing functional items, such as updating dead links. You seem to be presuming more nefarious motives on my part.

> Several people work daily to maintain the site, including myself. [...] <

Then would you, please, finally update this Web coding to allow Firefox users (30 percent or more in the U.S., 50 percent or more in other countries) to use a fully functional text editor?

I, and many others, would rather not use Internet Explorer — and its security and stability compromises — simply to post on this site. It's one reason I've been an infrequent visitor.

(Edited by Steve Reed on 7/03, 12:15pm)

Post 10

Saturday, July 3, 2010 - 12:27pm

Thanks to Michael for posting those Bouguereau beauties, winged and otherwise.

I'll have some more, transferred to the Photobucket service so they can be reliably hosted. They'll be posted here when I'm in a better mood {sigh}

Post 11

Saturday, July 3, 2010 - 2:34pm

Good grief -

Please don't do that. It's very dismissive, almost contemptuous, and I don't think I deserve it. I doubt you would like it if I addressed you as "Isanhart."

That would totally crack me up, Steve REED. We have several "Steves," so don't be so touchy.

Fine, then — so why is that edit button offered when it doesn't even work, and isn't meant to work? It ought to be removed when your time frame has passed, whatever it may be.

It does work, it just won't work for non-moderating members.

Anyway, I thought it was obvious that I was talking about editing functional items, such as updating dead links. You seem to be presuming more nefarious motives on my part.

I know that's what you meant. I personally don't think you have any nefarious motives, but we do get those types sometimes, thus, the edit button is locked after a determined time.

Then would you, please, finally update this Web coding to allow Firefox users (30 percent or more in the U.S., 50 percent or more in other countries) to use a fully functional text editor?

Not my field. Get ahold of Dean Michael Gores or Joe Rowlands and ask them. Dean created the site. Joe hosts and owns it. Or, maybe you could complain to FireFox and tell them to do something about it, seeing that it's a browser issue and not a site issue.

Post 12

Sunday, July 4, 2010 - 5:13am

Steve Reed: Please don't do that. It's very dismissive ... Then would you, please, finally update this Web coding ... and many others, would rather not use Internet Explorer ..."

Uh, Steve, since we do not pay for this value, I make fewer demands, even though, I, too own a Macintosh in addition to my PC. For the edit function to be disabled after the time frame would take some checking codes and functions. This site was hard-coded, you might say, it was not thrown up with Frontpage or something. I have my own website at www.washtenawjustice.com and I am the webmaster for our www.michigancoinclub.org, so I know what is involved and while it is "easy" or "trivial" or whatever, it still takes work for someone.

In the past, I criticised the operators here for having no model to earn revenue. As capitalists, that might be expected. However, I also write the "Internet Connections" column every month (for the past seven years) for The Numismatist magazine and I see a lot of websites. When it comes to revenue streams, not one has inspired me to say to Joseph or Dean "Hey, look at this." So, I am happy that they are (ahem) altruistic enough to do us a service for whatever selfish motives of their own that might satisfy.

L'Amour Mouille (Wet Cupid) - William-Adolphe Bouguereau - www.bouguereau.org

Post 13

Sunday, July 4, 2010 - 3:39pm

I didn't create the website. I made a small number of additions. Most of the credit goes to Jeff Landauer and Joseph Rowlands.

Post 14

Sunday, July 4, 2010 - 4:58pm

Well, damn.

I thought you had more to do with it than that, Dean.

Post 15

Monday, July 5, 2010 - 12:36pm

I have to admit, those winged characters in post 6 come off as a bit creepy to me. Maybe because I've seen some horrifying stuff from that 'deviantart' site that the aesthetic of drawing something in that style just reminds me of it. I mean it is called "deviant"art. It also looks really amateurish.

By the way Steve Reed, you should try and calm down. The people who run this site don't have an obligation to you to change the settings to your liking. It's like you're walking into someone's house you're invited to and you start demanding better food be served and changing the furniture. It's a bit rude. It's one thing to offer constructive criticism and it's entirely another thing to take the attitude you are owed a different website.

(Edited by John Armaos on 7/05, 1:08pm)

Post 16

Sunday, August 8, 2010 - 7:06pm

John, did you follow the suggestion to French Academic Art? Academic Art is in the realist tradition. That said, I wish that I could paint or draw as amateurishly as the artists you condemn. I believe that it is not the technical application that bothers you as much as the thematic portrayal: lifeless. The artist has skill, but lacks passion.

But not all passions are created equal.
George Rennie: From 1841 to 1847 he was Liberal Member of Parliament (MP) for Ipswich, retiring before the 1847 general election in favour of Hugh Adair.
(Wikipedia here)

Post 17

Friday, October 1, 2010 - 12:03pm

To play catch-up here after a few months (it takes much more attention to have to code replies with HTML) ...

My technical requests were posed as exactly that, requests, which were meant to urge that RoR not remain a brackish backwater as to ease of use. And, in turn, to try to help avoid what this may be doing to discourage gaining and keeping interested participants.

I make no "demands." After being a member here for some time, appreciating the forum's being offered, yet being discouraged from participating more by its technical limits, I don't think such requests are out of line.

Michael: Many thanks for posting several lovely works of art by Bouguereau and others. And for thoroughly understanding, and acting upon, the point of a gallery thread.

John, and anyone else who casts vague (and unsubstantiated) disrepute on a Website such as deviantART: You're blithely ignoring the facts of, literally, millions of different artistic styles and constellations of talents, from published professionals to teenage students.

Judging a Website, in part, from the supposed implications of its name is also quite foolish. dA lives up to the iconoclasm that any art site should cultivate. It's a vibrant community, not without faults — as would be true of any gathering of 15 million members — but nonetheless offering a huge array of visual and verbal art, in a well-engineered (yes, including the Web design) and efficient manner.

The only more pointed counterpoint that makes any sense is to actually link to a representative example of someone who sanely and effectively uses such a site. Namely, my own page at deviantART. If you've joined the site, I would love to hear from you. If you have any questions about it, I'd be glad to answer them.

Also, I offer my dA collections — sizable portions of a carefully chosen 500 "favorites" thus far — of beautiful and provocative Winged Realistic, Winged Fantasy, and Winged Allegory works from the site's artists and writers.

(Not all of these will be visible unless one has a free dA account oneself, and is logged into it, since that's the only way to get past the Mature Content site filter. It's easy to register. The vast, formidable resources for both art creators and art appreciators make it extremely worthwhile to sign up.)

Post 18

Saturday, October 2, 2010 - 7:59pm

... and at the risk of sounding too defensive (or spoiling for a fight) in advance, I hope that we won't have anyone calling for bowing toward Rand's insistence, in her Romantic Manifesto, that photography is not an art form.

I don't know about photography itself, but I've seem absolutely amazing photomanipulations or photoshopped pictures on DeviantArt, that would clearly qualify as art.

As to why there's more debating and less life-affirming on this and other Objectivist websites, I think it's simply that debating and arguing is easier to do than to post or create something life-affirming, and it also gets people emotionally sucked in. I don't actually watch this site too much anymore, I spend most of my online time now at Hacker News, which is full of lots of very interesting and life-affirming things, but I know if we had more people posting their favorite art here, I would certainly appreciate it.

Post 19

Sunday, October 3, 2010 - 1:22pm