About
Content
Store
Forum

Rebirth of Reason
War
People
Archives
Objectivism

Post to this threadMark all messages in this thread as readMark all messages in this thread as unreadPage 0Page 1Page 2Forward one pageLast Page


Post 0

Sunday, February 18, 2007 - 5:05amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Something about this sketch looks dark and sinister if not outright evil.  Please share with us why you like it.

Post 1

Sunday, February 18, 2007 - 5:17amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I suppose in part because, much to my total delight, it looks dark and sinister if not outright evil. 

It also radiates pure mental passion and raw power... Rand looks like someone who is not to be trifled with, and is quite pleased with herself.  I admire those things. 

Beyond this, I also find it a bit humorous and, perhaps even, a bit self-deprecating.  But that's just me... I don't like to take myself or my interests too seriously.  

Again, that's just me.  You are free to be as rigidly sacrosanct as you like.


Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Post 2

Sunday, February 18, 2007 - 6:06amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
It doesn't strike me as sinister, just very serious in a humorous way. Seriousness is a basic characteristic of AR, and the drawing looks just like her too. The humor comes from this truthfulness (I have a theory of humor that it stems basically from truth indirectly referred to). It pokes a little fun at her attitude, but not, I think, in a malicious or destructive way.

It's funny because it looks so much like her. That's crucial in a caricature. It was a quality that even the bust of AR posted elsewhere could have used more of.


Post 3

Sunday, February 18, 2007 - 11:22amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I am with Jeremy and Rodney in finding this funny.  The fact that her serious expression is on that gigantic of a head is what made me laugh.  Her head is bigger than the world she is holding.  Maybe they we're trying to say something (I don't know if positive or negative) with that.  Thanks for sharing Jeremy.

Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Post 4

Sunday, February 18, 2007 - 11:49amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I doubt that her head being bigger than the world means anything other than that it is the usual procedure for cartoonists and especially caricaturists to enlarge the head.

I think it's a very cute drawing and would even make a good logo for a lighthearted Objectivism site (if such could exist). Might be good public relations.


Post 5

Sunday, February 18, 2007 - 1:24pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
The artist is obviously skilled. But I don't think drawing AR with a sinister, crazed expression is something that should strike Oists as "cute" or "delightful". That's a bizarre emotional response, to say the least.

Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 6

Sunday, February 18, 2007 - 4:07pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Jon,

Oh, I wouldn't say it's bizarre at all... at least if you're defining "bizarre" as meaning "incomprehensible".  On the contrary, I would say it's absolutely comprehensible:  my appreciation for the drawing seems to me an authentic and loving response to the whole Ayn Rand, rather than just the intolerant and sanitized idealization of her that so many objectivists would rather promote, finding the whole Ayn Rand unappetizing to face in its entirety.  In short, the reason this caricature works for me, is that it happens to capture the whole Ayn Rand for me, warts and all.  And it's the warts and all that ultimately make her human and connectable to me.

Rand, to me, was a creature of such unbridled, superhuman intelligence as to be supremely intimidating and, yes, even scary because of it.  I don't think there was a single person who ever read her work, who didn't get the sense that she basically held the world itself in her hands, to do with as she pleased.  Many people were enraptured by that aspect of her, and others were horrified by it.  A given person's response to this "scary smart" nature of hers is, I tentatively feel, basically an indicator of how fully compatible they feel ideologically with what she stood for, and how safe they would ultimately feel in a Randish world. 

I believe that those who felt on some level like they were at odds with her ideas, feared subconsciously that they might be on the receiving end of harsh consequences meted out by an emerging objectivist presence in the world.  Thus, her scariness was experienced more purely negatively.  On the contrary, those who believed they would have gotten along very well with Ayn Rand, had they ever been able to meet her, due to a feeling of kindredness, would likely have processed her "scary" aspect as "scary super cool", as I do.

I happen to fall into the second category.  I don't think I would ever have feared Rand, had I met her in person.  I might probably even have argued with her on several points.  But I would always have felt a sense of safety around her... the kind of safety that comes from knowing you're in the presence of a kindred spirit, no matter what.  And what is certain is that I would not have felt the need to avoid her full reality and scariness, in order to feel comfortable about her.  I could have accepted her as is, warts and all.   I would suspect that's where you and I are different, at least off the top of my head. 

Perhaps you're just not as comfortable with the dark side of things.  But I've learned that facing the dark side of things is essential, because unless you're willing to be fully present for everything, you don't really know what you're really dealing with, enough to really appreciate it as you might. 

So, yes.  I'm laying it all out on the table here:  Rand was scary.  But, to me, she was super scary, super cool.  And I think that's the feeling these other folks are having, and is why they also find the drawing as delightful as I do... because I think that all the thoughts and feelings I've just described are also happening to them in the blink of an eye, almost too fast for the mind to sort out, and for words to properly convey.

(Edited by Mr. Jeremy M. LeRay on 2/18, 4:27pm)


Post 7

Sunday, February 18, 2007 - 4:13pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Audrey,

I hadn't thought of that. 

Maybe her head is bigger than the world because she was the sort of person whose mind could contain the whole world, and even a bit beyond that.  Truly, I think, one always got the sense from reading her books that Rand's mind really was bigger than the actual world itself, in that she could always envision possibilities that the present world simply could not begin to imagine. 


Post 8

Sunday, February 18, 2007 - 5:11pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I especially like the eyes.

I think if this artist was hostile to AR, he certainly did not communicate it well.


Post 9

Sunday, February 18, 2007 - 5:34pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Rodney,

I'm going to keep looking for other caricatures of Rand.  I think I saw a t-shirt cartoon of her somewhere...


Post 10

Sunday, February 18, 2007 - 5:41pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I found this t-shirt cartoon of her on cafepress.com:

http://www.cafepress.com/cp/moredetails.aspx?showBleed=false&ProductNo=96764826&colorNo=4&pr=F

It's actually pretty good, too... and much more gentle and light than the other caricature which is, of course, a bit darker and more humorous, as is usually my preference.


Post 11

Sunday, February 18, 2007 - 5:49pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I would personally buy an Ayn Rand bobble-head for my desk and dashboard.

Sanction: 19, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 19, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 19, No Sanction: 0
Post 12

Monday, February 19, 2007 - 12:06amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

They made a cartoon of our prophet.  Shouldn’t we start a religious war, protest, burn flags and such? 

 

This may be a good time to start a worldwide debate about the many forms of prejudice Objectivists have to suffer, to explain only a small minority of Objectivists are hard core. The rest of us believe in being kind to animals and watering plants, just like everybody else. Don't they know cartoons like that hurt us in our very soul? There should be a law against cartoons like that. Unfortunately , that is never going to happen as long as the West continues to impose his doctrine of free speech on other cultures. But the least they could do is apologize.




Post 13

Monday, February 19, 2007 - 3:25amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit


I like the first cartoon better, especially the Spock like "one up, one down" eye brows. It's subtle, but there.


Post 14

Monday, February 19, 2007 - 10:24amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Guido Beelen,

"They made a cartoon of our prophet."

Due to the "randroid" accusation, I didn't really enjoy this mock of jihad. If you would have said "our great philosophical inventor/founder/teacher" I wouldn't feel this way. I'm not sure exactly who you are trying to mock.

Post 15

Monday, February 19, 2007 - 1:25pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Jeremy, I think your very long explanation, while containing some flowery language, is just a rationalization for an irrational emotional response. And concluding that I'm only comfortable with a "sanatized idealization" of Ayn Rand based on that is also irrational.

I fully recognize and accept that AR wasn't a perfect person. However, artists are *selective* in how they portray their subjects; how an artist presents a subject reveals what that artist considers essentially important. To the skilled artist in question, AR is essentially menacing and crazy, like an evil villain on television plotting to take over the world (complete with a globe held in her hands). It's possible, of course, to portray AR's passion and intellect without making her appear this way, but this artist chose to do otherwise.

If you want to know more about where I'm coming from, you should read the Romantic Manifesto. You state: "It's the warts and all that ultimately make her human and connectable to me." That's exactly the opposite of what AR writes in her example of a painting of an otherwise beautiful woman who has an ugly cold sore on her lips. Portraying "warts" on what is good is NOT proper in a piece of art (art isn't biography). And if you think it is, you really need to check your premises.

By the way, lest you think I'm an old man who just can't understand what's cool, I'll tell you I'm only 28--and I do.

Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 16

Monday, February 19, 2007 - 2:16pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Portraying "warts" on what is good is NOT proper in a piece of art (art isn't biography).
 
What's wrong with "warts"?  That's the problem here.  You obviously have a preference for perfection that I don't.  Perfection is inimical to the creative process.  Things which are perfect are ultimately dead; they have no possibility or room for change, so they are static.

I have no interest in that sort of thing.  I like Rand's characters because they struggle.  Because they have ambition for things they eventually attain, after which time they most likely move on to their next challenges, because they have attained perfection and perfection gets boring and old very quickly.  What's more, if they were creatures of true perfection, they would not interact... just like the noble gases of the periodic table.  There could be no chemistry.  And I can't relate to that which I have no possibility of chemistry with.

I totally disagree with your imposed definition of art as perfection and not biography.  However, I would be very interested in seeing what you think would be a "proper" representation of Ayn Rand.  Judging from your tone, I strongly suspect it would leave me totally cold and bored to tears.


Sanction: 9, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 9, No Sanction: 0
Post 17

Monday, February 19, 2007 - 3:01pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Jon:
To the skilled artist in question, AR is essentially menacing and crazy, like an evil villain on television plotting to take over the world (complete with a globe held in her hands).
I beg to differ. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder and I see nothing menacing or crazy in this caricature. I see a penetrating intellect. I see a person with limitless confidence and knowledge of how her views can shape the world. Her smile is pleasant but not ingratiating. I think the portrayer is an admirer.

Sam


Post 18

Monday, February 19, 2007 - 3:47pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Jeremy, what was the context for this picture?

Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 19

Monday, February 19, 2007 - 4:36pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I think the portrayer is an admirer.
I agree.


Post to this threadPage 0Page 1Page 2Forward one pageLast Page


User ID Password or create a free account.