From: "Technotranscendence" <neptune@mars.superlink.net> To: <extropians@extropy.com> Subject: Re: "objectivist art" was Rand and Romanticism Date sent: Sat, 23 Oct 1999 20:01:50 -0700 Send reply to: extropians@extropy.com
> On Saturday, October 23, 1999 2:03 PM Replicant00@aol.com wrote:
> > << I mean if Hitler liked using toilet paper should everyone who
> > is against Nazism stop using the stuff? I hope not!:) >>
> >
> > that is a silly argument, useless! Silly!! DUMB!!!
>
> Good comeback.:) You can do better than that.:) Silly human.
>
> > Come on, you can do better than that.
> > Ok how abotu this?
> >
> > I said that Objectivist art *reminded me* of art that Hitler liked, for a
> > reason:
> > She liked what he liked, idealization of man and a rigid adherance to
> > portraying only those " higher " values. Ugh... repeat Ugh... Let's put it
> > this way, I find both Hitler's Nazi art, and Objectivist art rigid and
> > stiff... art that is so limited, and so very rigid and stiff, is ugh.
> > So: if Hitler's toilet paper was rigid and stiff,(ugh) then yes- and
> you've
> > given me a good arugment: - )
>
> And if not, then you argument falls apart.:) Surely, if you stack the deck,
> you'll win at every turn. Is that what you want? To win or to learn?
>
> But seriously, I do see what you mean, but an important point here is much
> wider. Doctrinaire art of all sorts is stiff, mechanical, formulaic. I
> gave other instances of this. Those who adhered to Amy Lowell's Imagist
> rantings wound up making such and they were hardly Nazis or Objectivists. I
> think this slavishness is bad for art, though sometimes something like this
> can inspire someone. Certainly, H.D. was able to take Imagism and make it
> her own -- rather than just becoming a Imagist-poem-machine.
>
Stalinist and Maoist art (painting, sculpture) was similarly Al Gore-
ish.
>
> Cheers!
>
> Daniel Ust
> http://mars.superlink.net/neptune/
>
>