excellent work

Sehr schöne Arbeit. Prima!

Superb manual skills, and Great composition, not to mention wit. Excellent social critique. Bravo!

You got that well right my friend

Yeap! That would be why we need capitalism in the world?

Yes Blood money. WOw you really got this spot on.

A NEW TERRIFIC IMAGE!

I think you should go with your initial call, my site mail says you called it "Blood Money" and that's what I think it should be. I do not hesitate to edit titles or story's that I post after they are uploaded. Things always look and read different on the screen.

Nice job

In critique I offer the words of Leonard Peikoff, from “The Philosophy of Objectivism,” “Arbitrary” means a claim put forth in the absence of evidence of any sort, perceptual or conceptual; its basis is neither direct observation nor any kind of theoretical argument. [An arbitrary idea is] a sheer assertion with no attempt to validate it or connect it to reality. If a man asserts such an idea, whether he does so by error or ignorance or corruption, his idea is thereby epistemologically invalidated. It has no relation to reality or to human cognition. Remember that man’s consciousness is not automatic, and not automatically correct. So if man is to be able to claim any proposition as true, or even as possible, he must follow definite epistemological rules, rules designed to guide his mental processes and keep his conclusions in correspondence to reality. In sum, if man is to achieve knowledge, he must adhere to objective validating methods—i.e., he must shun the arbitrary . . . . Since an arbitrary statement has no connection to man’s means of knowledge or his grasp of reality, cognitively speaking such a statement must be treated as though nothing had been said. Let me elaborate this point. An arbitrary claim has no cognitive status whatever. According to Objectivism, such a claim is not to be regarded as true or as false. If it is arbitrary, it is entitled to no epistemological assessment at all; it is simply to be dismissed as though it hadn’t come up . . . . The truth is established by reference to a body of evidence and within a context; the false is pronounced false because it contradicts the evidence. The arbitrary, however, has no relation to evidence, facts, or context. It is the human equivalent of [noises produced by] a parrot . . . sounds without any tie to reality, without content or significance. In a sense, therefore, the arbitrary is even worse than the false. The false at least has a relation (albeit a negative one) to reality; it has reached the field of human cognition, although it represents an error—but in that sense it is closer to reality than the brazenly arbitrary. I want to note here parenthetically that the words expressing an arbitrary claim may perhaps be judged as true or false in some other cognitive context (if and when they are no longer put forth as arbitrary), but this is irrelevant to the present issue, because it changes the epistemological situation. For instance, if a savage utters “Two plus two equals four” as a memorized lesson which he doesn’t understand or see any reason for, then in that context it is arbitrary and the savage did not utter truth or falsehood (it’s just like the parrot example). In this sort of situation, the utterance is only sounds; in a cognitive context, when the speaker does know the meaning and the reasons, the same sounds may be used to utter a true proposition. It is inexact to describe this situation by saying, “The same idea is arbitrary in one case and true in another.” The exact description would be: in the one case the verbiage does not express an idea at all, it is merely noise unconnected to reality; to the rational man, the words do express an idea: they are conceptual symbols denoting facts. It is not your responsibility to refute someone’s arbitrary assertion—to try to find or imagine arguments that will show that his assertion is false. It is a fundamental error on your part even to try to do this. The rational procedure in regard to an arbitrary assertion is to dismiss it out of hand, merely identifying it as arbitrary, and as such inadmissible and undiscussable.”

Hi wblack! So what exactly are you trying to say? In constructive criticism I do prefer a personal statement over a quote, because naturally, even though there may be a lot of overlaps the quote never refers to the subject addressed as well a the explicit opinion of the critic. From what I gather you would have liked me to be more precise on what exactly I refer to with the image? If I infer correctly you want proof? I must strongly disagree here. My goal is to make people think. My goal is not conveying a fixed opinion on a particular example. To achieve that my artistic statement actually has to be “arbitrary” because otherwise I put too tight a leash on peoples minds. If folks begin to wonder if there is any truth to what I depict and find their own examples where it might or might not apply my goal is reached. What conclusion they draw is irrelevant to me. My aim is to trigger the mental process not the outcome. Therefore your quote does not apply. It only applies in the discussion of a defined subject. All the best Ash

Nicely done Ash... the image speaks for itself. The title fits well and the subject matter is socially pertinent for the times. I'm not sure what wblack was trying to say with his longwinded explanation of arbitrary, but it didn't fit into any type of critique. I like the artwork and also the thought behind it, fits right into how I think and feel about the "money machine" that we call Corprate America these days. Well done, Seth