(Note: Changes from original are in red)
Purpose
To bring equality and empowerment to men through laws and education. We recognize no man is perfect. The movement is neutral on personal political or religious convictions, they are not to be used as reason for arguments for or against mens rights. Personal religious or political convictions may drive us to do better in the movement and do not contradict the previous statement. We are speaking for all men regardless of any physical or mental state of being as not to exclude anyone. Leadership is universal and there are humanistic and structural elements that are critical to the success of how to lead others. Ignoring the gender element in that dichotomy is losing a valuable portion of our humanity and sometimes the key to breaking through as a leader and cannot be ignored for empowerment of others. Programs that assist men in becoming the best they can offer society benefits everyone. An example of inequity is the U.N. Division for the Advancement of Women that has the ultimate purpose of making sure they get better treatment. However, there are no U.N. offices for men even though men make up a significant amount of deaths from suicide and work. If sex trafficking and working should be an exclusive dominant calling card for equal rights according to the U.N. for women, they need to also make one for men that are the providers for most of the families around the world as well.
Aims
The use of reason is important and should be the ultimate pillar in men's rights. As we are well aware that not everything would be solved just by logical deduction alone, what can't be decided should be assisted on the basis of ethics. It may not offer the right solution all the time, every time, but sometimes the process will have to go on forever. What we cannot accept is arguments that cannot be proven just for the sake of winning an argument. For example, feminists often say that a lot of rape cases go unreported because of fear. While that might be true, there is no reliable data to support such a falsifiable claim. Unfortunately, many people use these ad hominem arguments, we won't because we are better. We have to recognize the difference between ability and rights for men. While our abilities may be different depending on the individual, we should all be equal in our rights. We also will make sure that the person perpetuating such a weak argument known when made. Fear of the unknown and intimidation is not the way to get people to follow the movement. Chauvinism is not the way to win the hearts and minds of others. It's also disingenuous for the cause or recognizing the humanity and equality in rights for all. As we are all human, we will not disallow anyone that wishes to assist with the movement. We will not support any organizations that, specifically or by design, discriminate against others on the basis of race, religion, gender, sexual preference, alliance to political parties, ect. A perfect example is the Pink Ribbon Campaign that only addresses issues about breast cancer and encourages the government to only give assistance to women for the medical condition. Cancer is one of the leading diseases which is the leading cause of death in the United States and there is little success in defeating. A donation or support for an organization like the American Cancer Association is preferable to any Pink Ribbon Campaign.
A list of goals
-Abolish Alimony
-Abolish compulsory circumcision of minors
-Change the status of men as useless disposable people.
-Change the inequity of divorce recipients who receive large sums of money. It's a 18th century idea of protecting a woman by means of financial support for a time when adult women in a 21st century society doesn't make sense.
-Change the status of rape being more serious than sexual assault, women get less of a sentence for virtually the same crime with less punishment, this is unacceptable.
-Change the treatment of male prisoners that receive less time to visit their children or family compared to their female counterparts
-Change the status of women being excluded from the draft, it benefits us to bring them on board
-Enact a federal law that gives protection from discrimination based on sexual preference
-Educate boys and men on how to become better members of society
-Expose paternity fraud, have laws and efforts to block DNA confirmation for child support removed
-Expose chauvinism for what it is whenever it rears it's ugly head
-Domestic violence laws and hate crime laws need to be eliminated as redundant and sexist, we already have laws against assault and battery, violence = violence
-Title 4D needs to be eliminated from the federal funding program
-Violence Against Women's Act needs to be eliminated
-Enact laws for prostitution to be legal, repeal old anti prostitution laws
-The draft, get women in the draft or just abolish it completely
-Capital Punishment, a more international issue rather than national, the way men are executed are treated differently based on gender.
Monday, August 2, 2010
Friday, May 7, 2010
Debunking Hockney
There are some legitimate and convincing arguments that could lead to the conclusion that "optical devices" were used by some masters that lived hundreds of years ago. There is the example of Lorenzo Lotto's "Husband and Wife" which in my opinion is very convincing. I have also seen the screen behind Joseph's back on Robert Campin's "The Mérode Altarpiece" points to a possible use of a lens or mirror. However, there are some basic fallacies that exist in the book that I couldn't help but notice. Most of things I noticed in the book are blatantly misleading or just outright inaccurate.
Fallacy 1: This "eyeballing" business.
One is he starts off by talking about pure "eyeballing'. "By this, I mean the way an artist sits down in front of a sitter and draws or paints a protrait by using his hand and eye alone and nothing else, looking at the figure and then trying to re-create the likeness on the paper or canvas"(1). According to this definition camera obscura, camera lucida, lenses, or mirrors are not the only things that would fall under the category of technical aids he uses so frequently in the book. But, known art tools like a proportions divider or a grid would not covered under the definition"eyeballing" as it excludes these devices. Of course, on page 12 he says the definition of optics is "mirrors and lenses (or a combination of the two)". One convolution starts early on, on Page 54 when Hockney talks about "some artists used technical aids to help them" and then shows an image of an Albert Durer print in which an artist is utilizing a divice that works on the same principle as a grid. Also, the technical aid in the print can also be emulated by the use of a proportion divider as well, connecting the dots later on. In contrast, he uses a oil painting by Caravaggio and mentioning the difficulty with a drawing machine, the time "time consuming" nature, and asks the reader "Was it just divine skill, or could he have used optics?". Paintings were time consuming and technical aids were in use. Even Leonardo da Vinci made use of sometimes large grids in order to get the proportions correct on a canvas, they were not uncommon tools at the time. That according to Hockney, that wouldn't be "eyeballing". Even then, so far as we know, Caravaggio didn't use a dot matrix or a sketched underdrawing in his works, ever. Leaving out these details can easily mislead a reader to believing that an artist used either eyeballing or optics, and not other technical aids.
Fallacy 2: An excellent draftsman automatically makes you a bettter painter.
There is a technical difference between painting and sketching. Hockney gives examples of his ability to make realistic sketches by use of optical assistance. However, there is not a single painting done by the author in any example in the book. The entire book is comparing examples of paintings to other paintings. The fatal flaw was when Hockney compared an oil painting and a sketch, both by Geerit Van Honthorst. Sketching and painting are both similar in the way you build up details as you complete the work. However, mixing colors and drawing using charcoal are skills that are not congruent. You can be wonderful sketch artist and not be as an oil painter and visa versa. The other point is, as far as I know, there arn't any painters that actually use optics to aid them in painting on a canvas. For artists like Leonardo da Vinci, elaborate underdrawings were common. He was excellent at sketching and painting. For artists like Caravaggio, who left no sketches or underdrawings, use the paint itself, or in his case incisions, to line up an image from a live model(2). It's common to also hear that Vermeer also didn't have any "preparatory drawing" so it must have been the use of camera obscura that gave him this advantage correct?(3). Whats hard to ignore, however, is how many contemporary realists that produce more realistic appearing paintings that da Vinci made that don't use camera obscura to assiste them in creating their works(4).
Fallacy 3: Two masters with equally exceptional skills should produce similar results with 2 different types of media.
The most common comparison that I saw in the book was a fresco and an oil painting. A fresco is a wall painting done by embedding paint directly into the wall while it is still wet. If there are mistakes, there are ways to overlay the paint on the wall but they tend to not last as long, especially in humid areas. An the example in the book contains a comparison of two masters from the same period. The first one is a Michelangelo fresco detail from the Sistine Chapel and the other is a Raphael oil painting portrait. A fresco, no matter how masterful the artist was, had to be done quickly. The small details don't appear on many fresco's, if any, to the same level a oil painting protrait does. Also the fresco has a different visual texture compared to the oils. A fresco appears faint and chalky compared to the bold oil colors. Also, a portrait is supposed to be representational of the subject as accurately as possble. You can make and oil painting look like a fresco but you can't make a fresco look like an oil painting. Comparing tempuras and oils also contain innately different visual texture when made side by side. This is seen on "Leonardo Da Vinci" (2004) Episode 1"The Man Who Wanted to Know Everything"(5).
Fallacy 4: All master artists were equally proficient at the same technical level, all the time.
There was one comparison between da Vinci paintings done about 30 years apart. It was a comparison between not so naturalistic Ginevra de' Benci and the more naturalistic Mona Lisa. In 30 years time, an artist can make a shift in technique and improve on their own skills. This comparison is a good example of that but lack credibility. He emphasizes the existand of the shadows underneath the mouth and nose and again asks the reader "Did Leonardo use optics for the Mona Lisa?"(6). What about the highlights of the hair? There is much more detail on the Ginevra de' Benci than the Mona Lisa. This is nothing more than cherry picking comparisons. The worst comparisons in the book was a comparison of watercolor paintings (7). The text reads "Now compare Durer's watercolour Large Turf from 1513 on this earlier drawing of a field of weat". First, I would like to note that the page he mentions, the image is not a "drawing". The texts makes a suggetion that both were done by the same artist because it leaves no specific information. Perhaps the author knew that not many people would bother to look up the actual source of the image on the opposite page. I found out that the wheat field image came from a book called Tacuinum sanitatis, a middle ages health guide according to wikipedia. The book says the image was done around 1300's, wikipedia say around 1450's, I'll go with wikipedia. Books up until the advent of the printing press were all done by hand. Manuscripts that contained illustrations, instead of just containing just text, are fairly rare. The Limbourg Brothers were very skilled at painting and did the illustrations in Très Riches Heures du Duc de Berry. However, one thing needs to be remembered, exceptional artists working on a manuscript was uncommon. It's interesting that such a popular example of a noted manuscript was not once mention in the text as "Was it just divine skill, or could [they] have used optics?". At any rate, the Tacuinum sanitatis example of a wheat field shouldn't surprise anyone as to why the skill didn't quite measure up to Albert Durer's Large Turf. I don't know of any naturalistic still lifes that existed at that time or earlier, to the degree that Albert Durer accomplished, in a manuscript.
In conclusion, the most significant contribution to this entire field that needs the greatest undivided attention to academic inquiry needs to be credited to David Hockney. David Hockney is masterful in articulating limitations of 2 dimensional art and has a vast understanding of composition, structure, and effects in art. The academic question of weather or not old masters used optics is important to art historians. To make more conclusive evidence available, the studies which Charles Falco has conducted, and continue to conduct, are important. I don't think anyone will have an answer as to why people at the time of the Renaissance wanted to start with more realism. However, a la mode deviances were fairly slow during those times according to taste. Just like evolution of species, there are many things throughout art history that slowly evolved by adding more complexity with different media and techniques. The advent of lens and concave mirrors should not be assumed as a default position of trying to explain away naturalistic human figures in painting. The book is bent on convincing the common reader that optics were why changes in the art world existed. There wasn't a single piece of evidence in the book that can convice someone that a figure, and not an object, was conceived by using an optical divice. We cannot assume we know what caused a sudden explosion of realistic proportions and dipictions of people during the Renaissance. At best we can tell that masters may very well have dabbled in use of optics but there is much more research that needs to be done.
(1) David Hockney, Secret Knowledge Pg. 23
(2) "Caravaggio's Incisions" by Ramon van de Werken and "Caravaggio and L'esempio davanti del naturale" by Keith Christansen (www.caravaggio.com)
(3) http://www.essentialvermeer.com/technique/technique_drawing.html
(4) http://www.thecardermethod.com/clips/overview.html (also see: www.florenceacademyofart.com, www.jacobcollinspaintings.com, www.tonyryder.com, www.thecardermethod.com)
(5) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WcCHmXhhA0s&feature=related
(6) David Hockney, Secret Knowledge Pg. 136
(7) David Hockney, Secret Knowledge Pg. 142-143
Fallacy 1: This "eyeballing" business.
One is he starts off by talking about pure "eyeballing'. "By this, I mean the way an artist sits down in front of a sitter and draws or paints a protrait by using his hand and eye alone and nothing else, looking at the figure and then trying to re-create the likeness on the paper or canvas"(1). According to this definition camera obscura, camera lucida, lenses, or mirrors are not the only things that would fall under the category of technical aids he uses so frequently in the book. But, known art tools like a proportions divider or a grid would not covered under the definition"eyeballing" as it excludes these devices. Of course, on page 12 he says the definition of optics is "mirrors and lenses (or a combination of the two)". One convolution starts early on, on Page 54 when Hockney talks about "some artists used technical aids to help them" and then shows an image of an Albert Durer print in which an artist is utilizing a divice that works on the same principle as a grid. Also, the technical aid in the print can also be emulated by the use of a proportion divider as well, connecting the dots later on. In contrast, he uses a oil painting by Caravaggio and mentioning the difficulty with a drawing machine, the time "time consuming" nature, and asks the reader "Was it just divine skill, or could he have used optics?". Paintings were time consuming and technical aids were in use. Even Leonardo da Vinci made use of sometimes large grids in order to get the proportions correct on a canvas, they were not uncommon tools at the time. That according to Hockney, that wouldn't be "eyeballing". Even then, so far as we know, Caravaggio didn't use a dot matrix or a sketched underdrawing in his works, ever. Leaving out these details can easily mislead a reader to believing that an artist used either eyeballing or optics, and not other technical aids.
Fallacy 2: An excellent draftsman automatically makes you a bettter painter.
There is a technical difference between painting and sketching. Hockney gives examples of his ability to make realistic sketches by use of optical assistance. However, there is not a single painting done by the author in any example in the book. The entire book is comparing examples of paintings to other paintings. The fatal flaw was when Hockney compared an oil painting and a sketch, both by Geerit Van Honthorst. Sketching and painting are both similar in the way you build up details as you complete the work. However, mixing colors and drawing using charcoal are skills that are not congruent. You can be wonderful sketch artist and not be as an oil painter and visa versa. The other point is, as far as I know, there arn't any painters that actually use optics to aid them in painting on a canvas. For artists like Leonardo da Vinci, elaborate underdrawings were common. He was excellent at sketching and painting. For artists like Caravaggio, who left no sketches or underdrawings, use the paint itself, or in his case incisions, to line up an image from a live model(2). It's common to also hear that Vermeer also didn't have any "preparatory drawing" so it must have been the use of camera obscura that gave him this advantage correct?(3). Whats hard to ignore, however, is how many contemporary realists that produce more realistic appearing paintings that da Vinci made that don't use camera obscura to assiste them in creating their works(4).
Fallacy 3: Two masters with equally exceptional skills should produce similar results with 2 different types of media.
The most common comparison that I saw in the book was a fresco and an oil painting. A fresco is a wall painting done by embedding paint directly into the wall while it is still wet. If there are mistakes, there are ways to overlay the paint on the wall but they tend to not last as long, especially in humid areas. An the example in the book contains a comparison of two masters from the same period. The first one is a Michelangelo fresco detail from the Sistine Chapel and the other is a Raphael oil painting portrait. A fresco, no matter how masterful the artist was, had to be done quickly. The small details don't appear on many fresco's, if any, to the same level a oil painting protrait does. Also the fresco has a different visual texture compared to the oils. A fresco appears faint and chalky compared to the bold oil colors. Also, a portrait is supposed to be representational of the subject as accurately as possble. You can make and oil painting look like a fresco but you can't make a fresco look like an oil painting. Comparing tempuras and oils also contain innately different visual texture when made side by side. This is seen on "Leonardo Da Vinci" (2004) Episode 1"The Man Who Wanted to Know Everything"(5).
Fallacy 4: All master artists were equally proficient at the same technical level, all the time.
There was one comparison between da Vinci paintings done about 30 years apart. It was a comparison between not so naturalistic Ginevra de' Benci and the more naturalistic Mona Lisa. In 30 years time, an artist can make a shift in technique and improve on their own skills. This comparison is a good example of that but lack credibility. He emphasizes the existand of the shadows underneath the mouth and nose and again asks the reader "Did Leonardo use optics for the Mona Lisa?"(6). What about the highlights of the hair? There is much more detail on the Ginevra de' Benci than the Mona Lisa. This is nothing more than cherry picking comparisons. The worst comparisons in the book was a comparison of watercolor paintings (7). The text reads "Now compare Durer's watercolour Large Turf from 1513 on this earlier drawing of a field of weat". First, I would like to note that the page he mentions, the image is not a "drawing". The texts makes a suggetion that both were done by the same artist because it leaves no specific information. Perhaps the author knew that not many people would bother to look up the actual source of the image on the opposite page. I found out that the wheat field image came from a book called Tacuinum sanitatis, a middle ages health guide according to wikipedia. The book says the image was done around 1300's, wikipedia say around 1450's, I'll go with wikipedia. Books up until the advent of the printing press were all done by hand. Manuscripts that contained illustrations, instead of just containing just text, are fairly rare. The Limbourg Brothers were very skilled at painting and did the illustrations in Très Riches Heures du Duc de Berry. However, one thing needs to be remembered, exceptional artists working on a manuscript was uncommon. It's interesting that such a popular example of a noted manuscript was not once mention in the text as "Was it just divine skill, or could [they] have used optics?". At any rate, the Tacuinum sanitatis example of a wheat field shouldn't surprise anyone as to why the skill didn't quite measure up to Albert Durer's Large Turf. I don't know of any naturalistic still lifes that existed at that time or earlier, to the degree that Albert Durer accomplished, in a manuscript.
In conclusion, the most significant contribution to this entire field that needs the greatest undivided attention to academic inquiry needs to be credited to David Hockney. David Hockney is masterful in articulating limitations of 2 dimensional art and has a vast understanding of composition, structure, and effects in art. The academic question of weather or not old masters used optics is important to art historians. To make more conclusive evidence available, the studies which Charles Falco has conducted, and continue to conduct, are important. I don't think anyone will have an answer as to why people at the time of the Renaissance wanted to start with more realism. However, a la mode deviances were fairly slow during those times according to taste. Just like evolution of species, there are many things throughout art history that slowly evolved by adding more complexity with different media and techniques. The advent of lens and concave mirrors should not be assumed as a default position of trying to explain away naturalistic human figures in painting. The book is bent on convincing the common reader that optics were why changes in the art world existed. There wasn't a single piece of evidence in the book that can convice someone that a figure, and not an object, was conceived by using an optical divice. We cannot assume we know what caused a sudden explosion of realistic proportions and dipictions of people during the Renaissance. At best we can tell that masters may very well have dabbled in use of optics but there is much more research that needs to be done.
(1) David Hockney, Secret Knowledge Pg. 23
(2) "Caravaggio's Incisions" by Ramon van de Werken and "Caravaggio and L'esempio davanti del naturale" by Keith Christansen (www.caravaggio.com)
(3) http://www.essentialvermeer.com/technique/technique_drawing.html
(4) http://www.thecardermethod.com/clips/overview.html (also see: www.florenceacademyofart.com, www.jacobcollinspaintings.com, www.tonyryder.com, www.thecardermethod.com)
(5) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WcCHmXhhA0s&feature=related
(6) David Hockney, Secret Knowledge Pg. 136
(7) David Hockney, Secret Knowledge Pg. 142-143
Wednesday, March 10, 2010
Monday, December 28, 2009
Tuesday, December 22, 2009
Sunday, December 20, 2009
Debunking the Amero
With one website I can pretty much debunk the propaganda about the upcoming "Amero" coins and North American Union.
http://www.dc-coin.com/
I think both Hal Turner and Daniel Carr both are lying on the matter of not only the US Mint in Denver ever producing these "Ameros" but also in the interest of Daniel Carr, weather or not Hal Turner actually assisted in this, I think was great publicity to sell the coins that were minted independently with a fictictious currency, in order to fall within Federal Laws of minting and coinage, was a fantastic marketing scheme. It was fantastic to the fanatical conspiracy theorists and probably the slumping sales of an independent coin artist who acquired his own mint from denver and produces his own coins as art that he sells.
-Anikinippon
http://www.dc-coin.com/
I think both Hal Turner and Daniel Carr both are lying on the matter of not only the US Mint in Denver ever producing these "Ameros" but also in the interest of Daniel Carr, weather or not Hal Turner actually assisted in this, I think was great publicity to sell the coins that were minted independently with a fictictious currency, in order to fall within Federal Laws of minting and coinage, was a fantastic marketing scheme. It was fantastic to the fanatical conspiracy theorists and probably the slumping sales of an independent coin artist who acquired his own mint from denver and produces his own coins as art that he sells.
-Anikinippon
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)