RoR: Forum

Philip, I'm not calling you a subjectivist. I recognize fully that your comments are about benevolence, and not turning discussion of art into fights. Okay?

But then, your description of how things get ugly revolved around people asserting that their beliefs are right, and everyone else is wrong. From this thread, and every other thread I've ever seen on this issue, the "I just like it" camp are never asserting that they're right and other people are wrong. They're preaching a form of artistic relativism, and are getting angry because their own personal favorites are being called "inferior" or "crap" or any number of other things.

So again, who could you possibly be referring to? I can't see how any of your statements could be aimed at them. They only make any sense when directed at the objective standards group. And technically, that's not really true either, as the objective standards people usually differentiate between personal feelings of art and the objective merits of the art. But it does sum up nicely the opinion of the subjectivist camp, which is that those damn objective standards people are always trying to tell everyone what they should and shouldn't like, as if they're better than us!

Yes, being benevolent is a good goal. But if people are going to be offended as soon as you even mention the possibility of objective standards, it's they who are to blame, not those promoting objective standards. The subjectivists will take it personally when the art they like is discussed negatively (not their tastes...the art itself). But you can't blame that on those who aren't subjectivists. The only way they can not offend the subjectivists is by pretending objectivity is impossible.

So still, I think your original comments are aimed at the wrong group. And they seem to conform to the subjectivists notion that a critique of the art is a critique of their personal views. Nothing you've said has made me think otherwise.

As I said earlier: "Your post indicates that you think it's the fault of the people demanding excellence and objective standards, as if they're just pushing their own preferences and angering others."

Post 41

Saturday, June 11, 2005 - 12:50am

Joe,

I'm actually not against objective artistic standards, although mine are much less rigid (not to mention different) than those of Objectivism. But I wasn't criticizing Michael for upholding objective standards; I was specifically criticizing him for the *way* in which he has invoked them on various threads. His posts have struck me the wrong way before, as they struck Joe Maurone on this thread, and a whole bunch of people on that Cage/Lanza thread. It's not that I don't agree with Michael (on this thread I do) -- it's that his tone has seemed to be more denigrating than informative. Using objective standards merely to rank art is totally futile to me -- using them to explain or appreciate or criticize is thoroughly illuminating, even if your conclusions *and* means are disagreeable.

Take this thread. I *still* don't know what Michael doesn't like about this painting. If he came out explaining, I would've learned something. Take the Lanza thread. Instead of comparing Lanza to someone he thinks is genuinely better, Michael compared him to someone whom he knows is unconscionably worse. Well, that denigrating, provocative approach -- which may work in non-artistic fields of thought -- failed miserably. He would've done much better to praise Lanza to his overall value, and then praise whoever he considers superior to his superior value, explaining the discrepancy. Then we could've debated the matter. But the emphasis was on denigration from the get-go. And that's against the very spirit of art, which is why it comes off so poorly.

Michael, I *know* what you are trying to do and I trust that you're sincere. But your discourse could do much more to help your cause.

Alec

Post 42

Saturday, June 11, 2005 - 1:21am

Michael was not purporting to compare Lanza to a better singer ... he was comparing Lanza's artistic integrity, unfavourably, to that of the nihilist "composer" Cage. He deliberately chose someone he knows is a musical icon to many here to make the most odious of odious comparisons. His definition of integrity would award points to Hitler for acting consistently on his hatred of Jews. I still shake with anger when I think of this. I withdrew & apologised for the specific epithets I hurled at Michael over it, but that doesn't alter the fact that I've lost all respect for him. Phil comes along & says we must treat all disagreements as just that, & be unfailingly polite, even to people whose positions we hold in contempt. I say, bollocks.

Re objective standards�of course they exist, & we can spell them out, even in that most intimate & directly emotional of art forms, music. Doesn't follow that we'll find ourselves liking the stuff that most measures up. And in any event, the standards must take the genre�context!�into account. No point comparing a Blues singer to an opera singer, etc.. But we don't need to go into *those* nuances to know that rap is crap & so forth.

Linz

Post 43

Saturday, June 11, 2005 - 1:37am

BTW, observe that Joe & I are poles apart on the matter of Newberry. Just shows that there's no monolithic SOLO view that folk get expelled for disagreeing with. Hong, please note.

Linz

(Of course, I shall be excommunicating Rowlands tomorrow. :-))

Post 44

Saturday, June 11, 2005 - 1:41am

Alec wrote:

Michael, I *know* what you are trying to do and I trust that you're sincere. But your discourse could do much more to help your cause.

The problem with Michael's discourse is that he renders meaningful debate impossible by refusing to address points made in good faith by other posters. Instead he indulges in throwaway comments such as, "Lindsay, You are transparent to me." Well, what exactly does that mean? I'm getting a real sense of deja vu here. How many times has Michael sought to trivialise others' posts with either a smart-arsed comment or an ambiguous response (often couched in the kind of "hip" language he feels is de rigueur for an artist)? While this may appeal to his self-declared groupies, I find his conduct on this forum either evasive or smug, or both.

And as an aside, I'm now convinced that his provocative comments during the Cage/Lanza debate were made purely for sensationalistic purposes (ie, to piss Linz off). If Michael had been honourable about wanting to engage in genuine debate on that issue, he wouldn't have repeatedly ignored those posts that challenged his "Lanza lacked artistic integrity" argument.

(Edited by Derek McGovern on 6/11, 2:00am)

Post 45

Saturday, June 11, 2005 - 2:21am

Derek wrote:

Alec wrote: Michael, I *know*�what you are trying to do and I trust that you're sincere. But your discourse could do much more to help your cause.

The problem with Michael's discourse is that he�renders meaningful�debate impossible by refusing to address points made in good faith by other posters. Instead he indulges in throwaway comments�such as,�"Lindsay, You are transparent to me." Well, what exactly does that mean? I'm getting a real sense of deja vu here.�How many times has�Michael sought�to trivialise others' posts with either a smart-arsed comment or an ambiguous�response (often couched in the kind of "hip" language he feels is de rigueur for an artist)?

I forgot about that "transparent" comment. Indeed, what exactly is it supposed to mean? I am transparent to *me*, as it happens. So what? What stupid fucking nonsense!

Linz

(Edited by Lindsay Perigo
on 6/11, 5:00am)

Post 46

Saturday, June 11, 2005 - 3:07am

OK, back to the discussion of this particular art-piece for a moment ...

Michael rightly challenges SOLOists to give some objective reasons for their appreciation of this piece. So far I haven't seen anyone attempt to actually do this, except Bob who in post 18 talks about the portrayal of "John Galt representing me of the mind" and so forth.

Bob's comments are true in a certain respect, but I liken them to the argument of those who like to call heavy metal bands "Objectivist" because their lyrics contain pro-Objectivist or pro-libertarian sentiments. This seems to me quite a fitting comparison because the Atlas picture itself would be most at home on the cover of a heavy metal album.

The point is that the art-from itself is objectively not as good as other art-forms. It's a cartoon ffs! It looks as if it is computer-generated (is it?). The light is all over the place and coming from different angles. The colours are garish and give the impression of clutter. The edges of Atlas against the background don't look right, as if it is two computer images brought together (see the right edge of his right arm for instance).

And so far as content is concerned, Atlas is all out of proportion and he looks like a bogan, and the creatures lurking about underneath are comical. I'll take a beautiful still-life over this any day!

Post 47

Saturday, June 11, 2005 - 3:18am

Linz: "Phil comes along & says we must treat all disagreements as just that, & be unfailingly polite, even to people whose positions we hold in contempt. I say, bollocks."

Point of clarification. You seem to be saying that we need not be polite towards those whose positions we hold in contempt. Does this principle apply across the board, to all SOLO members?

And which expressions of contempt are acceptable? "Bollocks" seems to be fine. What about "wank-job" and similar expressions?

Brendan

Post 48

Saturday, June 11, 2005 - 3:25am

In an earlier post in reference to Michael Newberry, Joeseph Rowlands said:

Michael, on the other hand, is not simply seeking negation in his statements. He does tell us what he loves, and why he loves it. He does seek the best around around him. And it's because of his love of art that he's willing to judge and compare. It's because of his values that he's willing to apply standards of excellence. I personally gain a lot from his posts and thoughts. I've learned a lot about art and about excellence from him, and about seeking the best for myself. Really, there's no comparison here. Michael offers a vision of excellence in every facet of life, while you offer resentment of greatness and bitterness to anyone who recognizes it.

Well said Joe, and I cannot agree more.

George

Post 49

Saturday, June 11, 2005 - 4:58am

And I couldn't agree less. Newberry couldn't be *less* entitled to Joe's eulogy in my view. "A vision of excellence in every facet of life" is precisely what Newberry negates with his vile notion of what constitutes integrity & his denigration of those who had *real* integrity & applause for those who didn't. Fascinating dynamic on this thread. But let no cheap, tawdry, opportunistic, butt-licking player of stupid mind-games who comes & goes & ebbs & flows think he can divide & conquer.

Linz

(Edited by Lindsay Perigo
on 6/11, 5:35am)

Post 50

Saturday, June 11, 2005 - 9:10am

I was glad to see Bob�s response, his explanation gave color and perspective to his opinion which his sole evaluation did not.

On this and another thread Hong and Jeff presented work that they admire and have asked me what I think about it. I have not responded to them. Not out of rudeness but that it would take a lot of work and tremendous care� in Hong�s case to explain the nature of abstract modernism of Kandinsky, Mondrian and how that would be different than an illustrator�s aims. In Jeff�s case to answer him requires a treatise on the difference between fine art and illustration.

An undercurrent through the Atlas thread is a frustration that lingers from the Lanza thread. Alec brings up a good point: �Take the Lanza thread. Instead of comparing Lanza to someone he thinks is genuinely better, Michael compared him to someone whom he knows is unconscionably worse. He would've done much better to praise Lanza to his overall value, and then praise whoever he considers superior to his superior value, explaining the discrepancy.�

I think if Alec goes back to the very first post there I mentioned and linked to information on Leontyne Price for a comparative contrast in career decisions.

I don�t intend to repeat myself but I think I can offer something new about the �notorious� artistic integrity in regard to historical significance. Rand in RM and, I believe, elsewhere discusses the difference between important and good. In art history and history in general there are a great many personalities and products that we would not rightly consider �good� but would judge rightly as being �significant�. Nuclear bombs, Marx, Duchamp, etc.

Derek comments: ��I'm now convinced that his provocative comments during the Cage/Lanza debate were made purely for sensationalistic purposes (ie, to piss Linz off).�

I won�t call this absurd but, truly, it is not my interest, motive, or emotional need to be spiteful. The purpose and motive for bringing up the significance of people like Duchamp, is that their �truthfulness� to their vision was a major contributor to their rise in history�and if Objectivism wants to be a player in the arts culture it is imperative that the talented and the good pursue their efforts with ruthless integrity towards their vision. I remind you that both Sciabarra and Perigo scoffed at the idea of musicians (artists) working in a quarry to maintain their artistic integrity.

Lindsay: �Newberry couldn't be *less* entitled to Joe's eulogy in my view.�

Dictionary definition of eulogy: A laudatory speech or written tribute, especially one praising someone who has died.

Lindsay, again, you fire at the wrong person. I assure you that it�s not the death of my career, passion, joy, work, or life you are talking about.

Michael

(Edited by Newberry on 6/11, 9:40am)

Post 51

Saturday, June 11, 2005 - 1:52pm

Question to Newberry: Is this what you mean by artistic integrity?

The degree to which an artist is steadfast to his vision, as judged by his work, no matter how crappy that vision is.

If yes, I can see now why there is so much heat on the Cage/Lanza issue. Many O'ists would delineate a lower limit for 'vision,' wherein if lower than that, it would not qualify as artistic integrity at all.

I can also see why a scholar would have to frame the definition that way - since the determination of where that 'limit' should be set would leave a window open for subjectivism.

If my speculation is correct, objectively this ought to end all the sillyness.

If this definition matter has been covered before, and that the controversy has raged on inspite of it, then I'm at a lost for explanation.... I haven't followed the threads in great detail and relying on memory.

Post 52

Saturday, June 11, 2005 - 2:59pm

if Bob Palin hasn't lost his appetite yet for posting pics

Nah...

A New Style of Canvas

Post 53

Saturday, June 11, 2005 - 3:18pm

Namesake!!!!!!

GOOD GOD!!!

I have not been following this thread, despite the number of posts that show up down at the bottom of my screen, because I consider the Atlas painting nice, but nothing really special. I just now read all the posts.

My jaw dropped open to see all this controversy raging on again from the Duck for Cover thread. I am sorry I didn't see this earlier.

One thing that is very clear to me is that there is a horrible communication problem between what you are trying to say and your target audience. It has become more than clear that there will be no attempt at all by people like Linz to understand what you are saying if you identify any positive quality in a PM artist for comparison or contrast. He (and others) hates them all passionately and has no use for any discussion that will entertain any merit in them or their approaches. None.

No rational discussion will ever be possible on those terms. Other words must be found to get across your meaning. What makes me sad is that no interest at all is shown by your critics at even trying to understand what you are saying. They do not ask you for a different way to explain what you mean, stating that they hold high prejudice with regards to certain artists.

They have not shown any interest at all in your meaning. They have displayed only interest in what you did not say - and they use your own words as proof of it.

So do not blame them. They are intelligent and honorable people, but rational communication through that route has been shut down forever. You will never reach them by putting Lanza and Cage in the same sentence, much less comparing those two. You will only subject yourself to vituperation and invective.

I know what you are saying, though. You Post 17 was one of the most magnificent off-the-cuff statements of artistic integrity I have read in a long time. You also went a long way there to finding different words. I greatly look forward to the day when personal constraints on my present life will allow me to put this admiration into more concrete action than posting on Solo.

btw - In your first post, I personally find the word "magnificent" appropriate. I think Vallejo's Atlas would be a magnificent book cover on any book with an appropriate theme and I would be proud to have it on my bookshelf.

I do not mean that sarcastically either. That is the proper place for an airbrush painting like that.

Michael Stuart Kelly
Newberry Groupie

Post 54

Saturday, June 11, 2005 - 4:33pm

Michaels Kelly & Newberry

It's just not true to say that Newberry's critics didn't try to understand what he was saying. We got it the first time, & I paraphrased it again in one of yesterday's posts. What *you* two are in denial about is the way he first expressed it�that for artistic integrity he'd take a Cage over a Lanza any day. A simple acknowledgement that that was a dumb-assed & gratuitously offensive way of presenting the case would go a long way to getting this thread back to where we can debate artistic integrity without such an horrendously wrong-headed concretisation hanging over us.

It's no tragedy that this has flared up again. Obviously we've yet to get satisfactory closure on it. It's good that we can have these blow-outs.

I'm pretty certain I didn't mention working in a quarry, btw, but I'll let that go.

Linz

Post 55

Saturday, June 11, 2005 - 5:34pm

Joe, Linz,
I am on a family vacation right now so I need to be short. I respect and like...no...I *love* what both of you and Jeff have achieved with SOLO. It has been a significant and largely positive experience for me. That's why that whenever I saw that there was a problem/imperfection, especially when I saw what I considered to be the biggest problem/mistake that could have undermined all the hard work that you guys had put into this, I couldn't help but to say it out loud. I thought that I know the root of the problem. If I have gone overboard with my comments, I apologize sincerely. I have nothing but the very best wishes for everyone here, truly, at this very minute, I can't think of one exception.

Hong

Post 56

Saturday, June 11, 2005 - 6:34pm

Lindsay,

"A simple acknowledgement that that was a dumb-assed & gratuitously offensive way of presenting the case would go a long way to getting this thread back to where we can debate artistic integrity without such an horrendously wrong-headed concretisation hanging over us."

Michael Newberry took a single property of two complex people and compared them to make a point. He obviously tread on "sacred" ground as far as you were concerned. Your fireworks were obscene. And I'm not sure you had even read Michael's article when you blew up. You describe as "gratuitously offensive" that which you don't even try to understand.

In my opinion it is you that owe Michael an apology.

Post 57

Saturday, June 11, 2005 - 7:08pm

Linz,

I very much want to give this closure also. I sincerely wish you and Michael would kiss and make up. You both are coming from the same basic premises (heroism, rationality and so forth) and are falling out over a detail. You both love deeply and you both think even more profoundly.

I don't know how to say this nicely, so I will just say it. I fully agree that Michael's example was a "dumb-assed & gratuitously offensive way of presenting the case"...

... to you.

(The gratuitous part I am not so sure about, but it has been my general policy to not interfere in fights between married couples...) //;-)

I understood him. Fully and in the words he used.

If I were going after the highest I could lift myself up to in my art, and not simply in Objectivism, I would look at the world-movers, both good and bad, and try to see the similarities that make them tick. To me, this was and is Michael's focus.

But to tell you that (and some others around here) by putting Lanza in the same breath with Duchamp and Cage, especially after reading all that you have written on Lanza, that was nothing short of... of... of... er...

Well, that actually was not a very convincing manner to get his point across to you, was it?

Please, guys, kiss and make up. You both rock.

Michael
(Michael Newberry's friend)
(Linz's too)

Post 58

Saturday, June 11, 2005 - 7:18pm

Kat, things are a little tense around here today. Perhaps we should bring those martinis from the kitchen...

Post 59

Saturday, June 11, 2005 - 7:24pm