baletindomewen

Henna body art

61 posts in this topic

I would also think, like myself, that most people on this forum have never even heard of Henna before nor seen it. So, a properly thought out response on something that you have never seen before is most likely not going to happen, instead you would give you automatic value judgement. I think Brian (B. Royce), gave his automatic value judgement to Henna.

It's one thing to have an involuntary shudder when you see something ugly unexpectedly. It's another to take the time to hit "Reply", wright an answer carefully enough to have proper grammar and spelling, hit "enter" and post - this is a relatively slow, completely controlled, thought through reaction. Different standards of custom & decency (should) apply.

On my poetry thread I am used to receiving one-word or one-sentence expressions toward my poems. Sometimes it is simply "Delightful". I am perfectly comfortable with this. I do not question the responder's methodology. Nor would I if the response was negative.

Surely you would be puzzled and upset if someone took the time to enter a few words of comments about something you are passionate about, and those were "I find this poem revolting". You would wonder why, you would ask yourself why the poster felt the need to express themselves so forcefully. You would wonder if it is the theme, the medium, the choice of words. At best, you would completely discount the post as being devoid of any useful information to you or other readers, and rightly wonder why the poster took the time to write it, and what were their motives. In short, you would react as you would to any rude comment. At best, they're a waste of everyone's time, at worst they are hurtful.

No, I wouldn't. Just as I don't wonder about "I find this poem to be delightful", or just as I don't wonder about one-word or single-sentence comments on the movie, book or live entertainment threads.

If my comment was a waste of your time, why are you wasting even more of your time commenting on my time-wasteful comment? Why not spend valuable time in praising baletindowen and her art, or other henna art which you admire?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"ARI: I've heard that Miss Rand was not shy about expressing her evaluation in public of something that displeased her. Did either of you ever witness this?

Mary Ann (SURES): Along with a few freinds, I attended a piano recital at Carnegie Hall with Ayn and Frank. The artist was Witold Malcuzynskik, and the program was predominantly Romantic music. We were seated in the front row, directly beneath the pianist. At the end of each Romantic piece, Ayn expressed her approval by smiling broadly and holding her hands up as she applauded. Then, he played a modern piece; I don't remember what it was, but it was awful. At the end of that piece, some people in the audience stood up and applauded. Ayn - without taking her eyes off the pianist - remained seated. She raised her arms slowly, then lowered them and sat on her hands." [Facets of Ayn Rand, pg. 105]

And on the subject of anger.

"ARI: Any final toughts on the subject?

Charles (Sures): Just this: her expressions of anger were not the outbursts of someone run by wild and uncontroled emotions. She didn't use anger to intimidate people, as bullies do. When she got angry, it was precisely because she was a thinker and an evaluater who was certain of her convictions. She judged something as right or wrong, good or evil - and she responded accordingly. She didn't simmer and stew; she came to an immediate boil. Her thinking was not hampered and slowed down by chronic doubt, and her emotions were not suppressed or muted by it, either. Moreover, her emotions never clouded or distorted her thinking. And the anger didn't last. It was over almost as soon as it began.

Mary Ann: At some point, you are going to ask me what I miss about her. One of the things I miss most is what we've been talking about - her anger and righteous indignation, and what it came from. I miss knowing that there is someone in the world who always speaks out, unequivocally, against irrationality and injustice, and who not only denounces evil but who defends the good. She was mankind's intellectual guardian, a soldier in the battle of ideas. Her banner was always flying high.

When she died, someone made the following comment: now anger has gone out of the world. And I thought, it's true, and it's the world's loss, and mine.

Charles: And mine." [Facets of Ayn Rand, pg. 110]

I find it very saddening that some of you are so afraid of someone else's judgement which is what criticism is, the art of judging. It seems that the only judgement that can now be handed out is a "positive" non-confrontational one, how sad.

I also did not state that I had an "involuntary shutter." What I would have is an emotional repsonse to my values which are very thought out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I do think it is reasonable to expect tactfulness from reasonable people.

Especially here where the assumption is we are among friends.

In any case, tact is a social skill well worth cultivating. (Even when Francisco told James Taggart he was a schmuck, he did it with grace and elegance.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I do think it is reasonable to expect tactfulness from reasonable people.

Especially here where the assumption is we are among friends.

In any case, tact is a social skill well worth cultivating. (Even when Francisco told James Taggart he was a schmuck, he did it with grace and elegance.)

I agree that tact is something worthy of applying and of being expected in a place like THE FORUM. I also think that honesty is a virtue worthy of praise and I would much rather have someone tell me the truth, than be tactful with me, if a choice has to be made between the two.

I find it amazing that most of you did not hesitate to attack Brian nor did you use tact to do so. Tact is defined as a keen sense of what to do or say to keep good relations with others. One of you that disagreed with Brian's statement could have asked him why he specifically stated what he did, but instead you all condemned him. You could have also written him through a PM and asked him if he could post why he did not like the Henna. As a matter of fact baletindomewen did ask for a reason and Brian responded. No one says that you have to agree with Brian's response nor the manner of his response.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow...I was totally not expecting such a continuing thread as this when I posted the topic...lol

In regards to comments that the henna is distracting from the rest of the body...

When I do henna on myself, it is usually for an upcoming dance performance. Anyone who has seen Bollywood dance knows that hand movements are vital to the Bollywood style, so I use henna to enhance that. Also, I just like to see the reactions from people, and I like that I'm just about the only person in my area whom one would ever see with henna, so it makes me feel unique (unless some uncultured fool tries to accuse me of being a terrorist supporter, which is no fun).

As far as the job, yes I'm trying to turn henna into a business to escape my current 9-5. Henna is challenging for me; there is a lot more science to it than I ever thought possible, not to mention I've never been much of an artist so learning the different styles and applying them has definitely been a challenge for me. Not to mention starting my own business has been a challenge in itself, to say the least. Unfortunately I'm not quite ready to do henna and dance as a full-time, lifestyle-supporting business, so I'm stuck with my 9-5, which is both good and bad. I work for my father in our family business. My mother used to control all the bookkeeping, and up until my parents divorced a few years ago, the business was very rocky (which is what happens when the wife of a business owner sneaks ungodly sums from the business accounts to buy drugs, as I later discovered), and my father is no bookkeeper, so I agreed to come on as his Office Manager and help him keep the business afloat despite the financial problems the divorce caused. There's really not much to the job, so I get bored very quickly, and I've been doing it so long that it's no longer a challenge. Still, it is in my best interests to stay there for now, for several reasons, but mostly because the down-time at work provides me with hours upon hours in which I can work on my own business, read Rand's books, do homework, and participate in the online forums to which I belong...lol. So, I'm able to work toward my future goals while I plod along at Dad's shop.

Sorry...totally on and off topic there...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wow...I was totally not expecting such a continuing thread as this when I posted the topic...lol

In regards to comments that the henna is distracting from the rest of the body...

When I do henna on myself, it is usually for an upcoming dance performance. Anyone who has seen Bollywood dance knows that hand movements are vital to the Bollywood style, so I use henna to enhance that. Also, I just like to see the reactions from people, and I like that I'm just about the only person in my area whom one would ever see with henna, so it makes me feel unique (unless some uncultured fool tries to accuse me of being a terrorist supporter, which is no fun).

As far as the job, yes I'm trying to turn henna into a business to escape my current 9-5. Henna is challenging for me; there is a lot more science to it than I ever thought possible, not to mention I've never been much of an artist so learning the different styles and applying them has definitely been a challenge for me. Not to mention starting my own business has been a challenge in itself, to say the least. Unfortunately I'm not quite ready to do henna and dance as a full-time, lifestyle-supporting business, so I'm stuck with my 9-5, which is both good and bad. I work for my father in our family business. My mother used to control all the bookkeeping, and up until my parents divorced a few years ago, the business was very rocky (which is what happens when the wife of a business owner sneaks ungodly sums from the business accounts to buy drugs, as I later discovered), and my father is no bookkeeper, so I agreed to come on as his Office Manager and help him keep the business afloat despite the financial problems the divorce caused. There's really not much to the job, so I get bored very quickly, and I've been doing it so long that it's no longer a challenge. Still, it is in my best interests to stay there for now, for several reasons, but mostly because the down-time at work provides me with hours upon hours in which I can work on my own business, read Rand's books, do homework, and participate in the online forums to which I belong...lol. So, I'm able to work toward my future goals while I plod along at Dad's shop.

Sorry...totally on and off topic there...

Well, it's great to see you're working hard toward the kind of life you desire. It appears you have a good head on your shoulders. I wish you much success and happiness.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I also did not state that I had an "involuntary shutter." What I would have is an emotional repsonse to my values which are very thought out.

Even if your emotional response is good and proper, it doesn't necessarily equate to it being good and proper to express that emotion to everyone around you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I find it amazing that most of you did not hesitate to attack Brian nor did you use tact to do so.

I disagree; the posters--at the very most--politely but strongly disagreed with B Royce's comments. Please provide evidence where someone failed to use tact.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I find it very saddening that some of you are so afraid of someone else's judgement which is what criticism is, the art of judging. It seems that the only judgement that can now be handed out is a "positive" non-confrontational one, how sad.

Ray, there is a world of difference between thoughtful criticism, versus issuing a standalone comment with absolutely no context that can very easily be interpreted only one way (as being rude).

If one of your clients asked for your thoughts on their appearance, and you only said "My initial reaction was one of repulsion" would this be "the art of judging" to you, or would it just be an improper and/or rude comment?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wow...I was totally not expecting such a continuing thread as this when I posted the topic...lol

It's art! People often have strong reactions to art. I'm glad you posted it, it made for a good discussion. :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I also did not state that I had an "involuntary shutter." What I would have is an emotional repsonse to my values which are very thought out.

Even if your emotional response is good and proper, it doesn't necessarily equate to it being good and proper to express that emotion to everyone around you.

I agree. But, what is good and proper according to your standards is most likely not the same for someone else.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I find it amazing that most of you did not hesitate to attack Brian nor did you use tact to do so.

I disagree; the posters--at the very most--politely but strongly disagreed with B Royce's comments. Please provide evidence where someone failed to use tact.

A keen sense of knowing what to say or do to keep good relations with others is not what I thought was being accomplished when I read some other people's post. Also, how come it is okay that others have "politely but strongly disagreed' with B. Royce's statement, but he cannot strongly disagree with someone's work?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I find it very saddening that some of you are so afraid of someone else's judgement which is what criticism is, the art of judging. It seems that the only judgement that can now be handed out is a "positive" non-confrontational one, how sad.

Ray, there is a world of difference between thoughtful criticism, versus issuing a standalone comment with absolutely no context that can very easily be interpreted only one way (as being rude).

If one of your clients asked for your thoughts on their appearance, and you only said "My initial reaction was one of repulsion" would this be "the art of judging" to you, or would it just be an improper and/or rude comment?

Actually to criticize is to make a judgement. B Royce's statement was his judgement, whether you like it or not.

And to answer you question, yes it would be applying "the art of judging," but you are chainging the subject/concrete. I have never used that word to describe one of my clients and they have never asked. But, I have had clients ask me about certain works of art, and I have given them my immediate thoughts whether good or bad. If you have a set of moral standards, you stay true to them no matter the consequences.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whatever one may think of it (and I am suprised that in a forum devoted to Ayn Rand that it has not been said), henna body art is not art. Not by my definition or any rational definition of art. Why is it being called art? It is a type of design. It is a hobby, maybe. It is maybe even a ritual in some way. It is not art.

I hope I have provided enough context to now say that I consider it not only not an art, but unattractive as well. But, to each his own. But there is absolutely no context (a woman dancing, or moving in any way in any type of lighting) in which these markings on skin can make anyone more attractive or interesting. Just my opinion - with context provided.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Actually to criticize is to make a judgement. B Royce's statement was his judgement, whether you like it or not.

And to answer you question, yes it would be applying "the art of judging," but you are chainging the subject/concrete. I have never used that word to describe one of my clients and they have never asked. But, I have had clients ask me about certain works of art, and I have given them my immediate thoughts whether good or bad. If you have a set of moral standards, you stay true to them no matter the consequences.

Ray, I don't think anyone's here compromised their moral standards or some such thing. Plenty of people expressed their disapproval of henna; Sophia tactfully said "not my cup of tea" rather than that she was revolted. Isn't there a difference? Having a strong opinion does not mean going around proclaiming it loudly and making sure nobody within 5 blocks is mistaken about what you thought; that opinion should be expressed at a proper time and in an appropriate manner. That's what manners are, right? Manners do not exclude or come in conflict with moral judgment in any way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What does "not my cup of tea" actually mean? From my understanding, it means I do not like it. Sophia, along with others maybe willing to mingle words by hiding their true meanings while others are not. No where have I stated that people should not use manners, I am only stating that it is perfectly fine for someone to "strongly disagree."

Did not one of you read my quotes on Ayn Rand and her "strong disagreement" with the musical artist? I also again repeat my question, which has not been answered, why is one's "strong disagreement" considered okay and anothers not?

Have Americans become so weak that they cannot handle "strong disagreement?"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Have Americans become so weak that they cannot handle "strong disagreement?"

Let's remember that it is the 18th century men that practically invented tact. "Your most obedient and humble servant" and all that. They took tact and polite conversation to the extreme. So being tactful has nothing to do with being American. Patrick Henry went out of his way in his "Liberty" speech to indicate that with all of his furious exclamations and indignation, he did not mean to personally offend any of the other members of the House. These are Americans, aren't they?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What does "not my cup of tea" actually mean? From my understanding, it means I do not like it. Sophia, along with others maybe willing to mingle words by hiding their true meanings while others are not.

That is correct. You got it. That is what it means. So in what way was I hiding my true meaning?

It seems to me that a false dichotomy is being presented here - saying that one can not express strong disagreement/dislike (although mine was not strong) and be tactful.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sophia and FC, I am not saying that tact should not be used in a proper situtiaon or context. What I am saying is that it is not always done nor is it correct or proper to use tact. If you find it is more important to use tact, do so. If you find it is more important to use both tact and judge something accordingly, do so. If you find something so offensive that tact cannot possibley or logically play a part in your jodgement, do so.

A independent person will make their own judgements towards things worthy or not worthy of value. That same person will have different responses to something that they value or do not value that might be totally opposite of someone else, so be it. It is not up to you or anyone else to judge for someone else how they should respond, although you may judge that you do not like their response.

And, FC, Bill Gates has been know to attack his employees ideas/statements by stating "that is the stuipidist idea I have ever heard." Is Bill Gates not an American also?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Did not one of you read my quotes on Ayn Rand and her "strong disagreement" with the musical artist? I also again repeat my question, which has not been answered, why is one's "strong disagreement" considered okay and anothers not?

I read it and I have a few comments:

First, what Miss Rand did was not rude. If she had yelled or boo'ed, then it would have been a more appropriate analogy, but this isn't one.

Second, the situation was very different. She had paid to see a performance - she had not been asked her opinion on a piece. She was stuck in her seat listening to the performance with no option to choose to do something else (she could have left, but that would have been tremendously rude indeed vis-a-vis the rest of the audience).

Third, this is not an objectively horrible craft. One can like it or not, but there's nothing in it that is fundamentally irrational or evil.

Finally, I find it curious that you would ask *us* to justify or reaction, when you are the one who pulled some anecdote and posted it without any explanation as to why it was relevant. As the poster of said anecdote, it is your responsibility to explain to us why you think this matters. Then we can discuss - again - whether or not we agree with you or why.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Regarding Ray’s point…

To me the important thing is to be able to judge and make your judgments known. There are few things worse than a society that stifles opinion. The claustrophobia will kill you. This is something that was great about Ayn Rand, she expressed her opinions, and she did it incisively, logically and with passion. She did it when virtually nobody else would.

I think you should be polite when expressing your opinions as a rule, but not as a principle. There are times when harsh, to the point statements are the most effective and the most valuable way to make a point.

For instance, when dealing with some leftist extolling the virtues of socialized medicine, a pointed statement of disgust could be quite useful.

You aren't beholden to others, you don't exist at the behest of others, you exist for your own life and happiness. So, be polite as a rule, but don’t kneel before it in the face of greater values. That's the way I see it, and I also sometimes believe it's a challenge to be harsh where you know you should be, because it's a risk.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sophia and FC, I am not saying that tact should not be used in a proper situation or context. What I am saying is that it is not always done nor is it correct or proper to use tact. If you find it is more important to use tact, do so.

If a person is enough of a value to me that I choose to interact with him, then I think it is a matter of justice (if not to him, personally, then to his position as someone I choose to deal with) to be tactful and courteous. Thus, if I am having a public debate with a jerk, I treat him as someone worthy of having a public debate with and not as a jerk.

What I may say about the jerk when I am not interacting with him is another story. :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I agree that tact is something worthy of applying and of being expected in a place like THE FORUM. I also think that honesty is a virtue worthy of praise and I would much rather have someone tell me the truth, than be tactful with me, if a choice has to be made between the two.

I think this is setting up a false dichotomy. Being tactful is most about saying the right thing at the right time, to not offend someone you value. It does not mean being dishonest nor does it ever imply you must be dishonest.

For example, if you are at someone's funeral and in front of all the mourning people who love her say something like, "Finally this angry person is gone from the world" you may be telling the truth as you see it--but was it necessary to pronounce right there, at their funeral, in front of mourning people? How is that situation appropriate? Yes, of course you are judging. But judging and pronouncing moral judgement at an inappropriate time are two different things.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites