She's right about this, you know

she's right about this, you know.

Attached: 81+kLQB47+L.jpg (1256x2060, 325K)

most underrated Rand

Where did she find the audacity to write that, the manipulative bitch.

>photography is invalid as an art form because, short of choosing a poignant subject, it has no capacity to carry value judgements of insights
As the least photogenic person in history, I can understand why she took this stance. Hear that, photographers? Those hours of painstaking light choice, lens choice, development, and digital editing (ok, fine, Rand wasn't around for this one) were all just arbitrary hokum. Stop taking photos.

Attached: nyyyaaaaeeuuurgh.jpg (800x430, 32K)

She looks like the kind of woman that only drinks champagne

>The pursuit of truth is not important. The pursuit of that truth is important which helps you in reaching your goal that is provided you have one.

What a fuckin Sophist

Is it either hate her or love her or there's a middleground ?

rad fems crave romantic fucking

Attached: 22D07B86-B636-4F40-87D3-FDFD0C365B7A.jpg (599x337, 70K)

Attached: 19EEC402-4E0E-46B1-9FEE-8A4E910189EF.jpg (800x533, 130K)

she says herself she is basically aristotle, cleaned up a bit, plus capitalism

She’s definitely an honest Cunt I’ll give her that. My point is she didn’t start with Greeks, she started with the Macedonians

>this man died for oil
>she does not have a husband because of oil
>she will not have a father because of oil

Attached: pp,840x830-pad,750x1000,f8f8f8.jpg (750x1000, 78K)

this is the cost of progress, white boy

>ayn rand
>right about anything
rofl

Progress to what?

What did he mean by this?
I have not read the book and do not know the full context, but from reading several of her other works, my intuition regarding her stance on this is that she doesn't regard photography as art because it is not something that is fully processed and generated from human interpretation. A photograph is something that is derived from the chemical/digital processes and the interaction of light. The setup and technological choices belong to a skilled photographer, but they are not CREATING the presentation, they are choosing the the tools to represent physical reality. I think the difference would be best described if you had a photographer and a painter depict the same scene. The photo itself is primarily derived from direct physical process which largely are transmitted directly from light to image, regardless of technology choice. The painting must be entirely interpreted within them mind before being represented. And for the record, I very much enjoy good photography, as I'm sure Ayn Rand did as well.
What's the significance of this, because I honestly don't know what you're getting at or why others should care.

>submit nothing to peer review or even academia because you know youd get shredded in a half second
>did not understand the difference between analysis and simple rationality, like most of her fans
Sincerely considering anything Rand ever said is the greatest pleb filter in the last 100 years.

>Sincerely considering ideas not approved by institutions that are currently paying people to bitch about how logic is too eurocentric is the greatest pleb filter

>I have less competition because of oil
>I have one more potential conquest because of oil
>I have a potential "daddy-issues" version of a previous conquest waiting for me in 16-18 years because of oil

Attached: panty-sniffing-pepe-21954145.png (500x548, 36K)

A hard fucking truth brother. Just try reading Rand talk about tapdancing in this and not feel your heart soften.

Is this actually good?

Truth.

jews*

I cannot help but think of this book whenever I listen to my electro swing playlists

>tfw reading psychology of self esteem
>tfw by the end feel like it's kinda dumb and one sided
>tfw reviews say it's basically rand's rationalist outlook
>tfw don't feel like taking it seriously at all
>tfw still no self esteem

Attached: Mr. Terry 2017-10-21 22-30-17.jpg (1280x800, 121K)

Rand BTFO'd

What the fuck are you on about cat?

Got a problem with ES or something cat?

Like most everything else, news at 11

I just wanted to call her a bitch

You must have had some warrant on the noggin to use the word "manipulative" bud

It sounded fitting

Sicko

Yea Forums doesn't like it. It's like a marriage between super upbeat normiedom and retro hipsterism to them.

It's not. Put some actual thought into your posts shitposter

I read it, this is a good post. Spot on.

>Those hours of painstaking light choice, lens choice, development, and digital editing

Attached: soyboy01.jpg (720x720, 56K)

No one who doesn't own a fedora likes electro swing.

Fedoras are only bad when millennials with no self awareness don them. And no I don't own one. Isn't this meme dead anyway? This shit is ancient.

I'll do better next time if leave long enough to try

Attached: orig.jpg (2000x1200, 363K)

meant for

this isn't even a very good photograph

I will if I live long enough to try again

Before you start thinking you've made any kind of good point with these posts:
>A certain type of confusion about the relationship between scientific discoveries and art, leads to a frequently asked question: Is photography an art? The answer is: No. It is a technical, not a creative, skill. Art requires a selective re-creation. A camera cannot perform the basic task of painting: a visual conceptualization, i.e., the creation of a concrete in terms of abstract essentials. The selection of camera angles, lighting or lenses is merely a selection of the means to reproduce various aspects of the given, i.e., of an existing concrete. There is an artistic element in some photographs, which is the result of such selectivity as the photographer can exercise, and some of them can be very beautiful—but the same artistic element (purposeful selectivity) is present in many utilitarian products: in the better kinds of furniture, dress design, automobiles, packaging, etc. The commercial art work in ads (or posters or postage stamps) is frequently done by real artists and has greater esthetic value than many paintings, but utilitarian objects cannot be classified as works of art.
Disagree with this.

>and digital editing
That's precisely where it stops being photography qua photography and becomes something else brainlet.

Attached: shooting man.jpg (1379x1101, 224K)

Ill take "People That Don't Matter" for 500$

>I am an amoral writer and non artist who has written a lot about morals and art

who is ayn rand?

She’s right about most things especially her stance on Indians and niggers.

>Ill take "People That Don't Matter" for 500$
This might be a cute comment if you weren't posting it in a thread about the fucking person.
Amoral how? Do tell.
>aestheticians have to be artists
Brainlet opinion.

>posts another poignant picture
What did he mean be this?

But isn't composition creative? The so called "existing concrete" is very abstract term in it's own right, it's the idea that the senses can give a faithful reflectin of the object

and here's a painting of some fucking fruit and a fucking jug that blows all of these gay sentimental photographs out of the water

Attached: SC341330.jpg (1024x813, 656K)

Attached: 1554357744857.png (581x651, 710K)

>T. Guy who's in debt 32k for "photography school"

>Woman
>Tries to shoehorn romance into everything
typical

hahaha did terry actually do this

She's talking about the romanticist approach to aesthetic assessment and her formulation of Romantic Realism, to account for what the movement lacked.

>But isn't composition creative?
I'm not sure if you're applying "composition" properly in reply to that post. In the case of photography and art, the role of composition would likely be that one creates a composition of concepts that they wish to be represented in their work. For a photograph, this would involve appropriate juxtaposition, exposure, perceived motion, contrast, etc., which, as Rand would put it, are technical in nature given that the actual process of perception and representation is performed and finalized by the camera, not the photographer's mind. She is not detracting the value of a great photographer, only making a distinction. In terms of a painter, he too would also apply concepts such as juxtaposition, contrast, texture, perspective, etc. in their art form. All of the perception and representation must be done within the mind of the artist though, as each stroke of a brush, or digital manipulation, it requires a conscious, value-based decision on the part of the artist as to why they are creating or manipulating their work in the manner that they are. To answer in short, composition is not inherently creative, given that the definition is merely "a combination of parts". To be creative requires a conscious thought and drive to apply that thought in the physical world.

Hi Reza.

No way u actually read that LOLE

What kind of person makes this post? I'm genuinely curious?

Midwits point out that there are still poor people in a productive society and consider that an argument against 'capitalism' (or equivalent). If you point out thy'ey are less physically miserable than in a non capitalist and industrial society, you will be accused of being dense/evil. It's feel good bullshit that doesn't dare choose actual alternatives like ecofascism.

Randy's romances are the only good part of her novels. She explains women in an autistic-ready manner.