Duck For Cover: The Problem with Lanza

Here we go again..... Goodbye Soloists.

(sorry Linz, but chicks dig artists)

Post 101

Saturday, April 16, 2005 - 9:32am

ahem...

Context anyone?

I do quote Namesake (Michael Newberry) once again from a post after the remark in question was made:

Derek continued: �I'd also like to challenge Michael to name one composition by John Cage that sets his soul on fire and makes him gasp at the heights that man is capable of reaching.�

Oh that�s easy, I can�t stand Cage.

And - he is a painter, not a writer.

He just tried to make a point about how history judges artists - not the nature of the art they did, and misfired a little. (He did get pretty damn polemical though...)

That (historical importance) is what he meant by "take," not his personal preference. Not how HE judges the works of these artists, but how MANKIND judges them in historical importance because of their commitment to their convictions.

Why is that so hard to see?

Come on. Let's cut him some slack here. He has a major event coming up and is steeling himself for it. Making an all-out play for greatness is very trying on the nerves...

Michael

Post 102

Saturday, April 16, 2005 - 1:03pm

Linz,

It is one thing to exercise one's skill at verbal fulmigation, and another to do the kind of "macho flash" you just pulled. Newberry is an artist, not a fucking philosopher or communicator. If you sincerely wish to understand his point in context, look first at his paintings. You just acted - or at least wrote - like an intrinsicist.

Context matters, Linz. Real men apologize for acting out like you did.

Newberry, Hong,

I hope than Linz is just having a bad day. Give him a chance to apologize, and in any case don't slam the door - if he doesn't apologize I'll be following you out.
(Edited by Adam Reed
on 4/16, 1:14pm)

Post 103

Saturday, April 16, 2005 - 1:29pm

I didn't know who Duchamp was, did a little web search, and found this atrocity: http://www.beatmuseum.org/duchamp/fountain.html.

So on the one hand I sympathize with Linz. On the other hand, Linz's response was not unlike a classic Leonard Peikoff response, failing on at least some occasions to give someone even a sliver of benefit of the doubt before condemning them to hell, but with perhaps a bit more zeal than Peikoff usually has (to Peikoff's credit, and I've heard him do this on his radio show, and after the station break, he made a public apology - though I don't think he's consistent regarding correction of his unjust outbursts). I guess my head will be on the chopping block next for making the comparison...

I admit to not following this thread all that closely, but I can imagine that Newberry had some abstract point he was trying to make about the characteristics of a good artist, and to drive the point home he chose the worst possible example of their content in order to illustrate the character issue he had in mind. Not something I would ever have done, and I'd even argue that his method was very flawed (no artist who generates garbage like that has any virtue worth talking about), but still he gets the benefit of the doubt in my book.

Post 104

Saturday, April 16, 2005 - 1:37pm

Linz wrote:

Such simpletons should have the good manners to shut up.

Heh, in spite of what I just wrote I've got a lot of sympathy for this sentiment...

Post 105

Saturday, April 16, 2005 - 1:46pm

Wow.

What an incredibly silly rant.

Ok. First off. I don�t take anything like that remotely seriously.

Rants of this nature remind me of a prissy, contradictory lover in such a bad mood that what they really need is to be fucked. Or the hysterical child that needs to be taken off their candy and put on a diet of vegetables and put to bed.

But serious, no.

What I do take seriously is Solo.

I have profoundly enjoyed the people I have gotten to know on Solo. Not only do I have great respect for most the people on Solo I know many of them in real life. That has been an extremely valuable and unique feature, that it is real; it is not a virtual community of anonymous people but a really outstanding group of passionate intellectuals.

Some months ago I decided to start posting deeper and more soulful thoughts. I have always been a little shy to write or talk from the place where my art comes from. It�s a kind of wondrous place where there is a lot of joy, color, and radiance�and there is a kind of thoughtful presence that seeks out and weighs the value of possible subjects. Outside of that place I can get involved in pissing contests, really bad wicked impishness, and unintentionally be cruel�but I don�t feel those things deeply and I never, ever paint from there. I am beginning to find out that communicating from where I paint can touch off good and negative buttons. Obviously the �good� reactions are awesome. But there is not much I can do about the �bad� reactions other than to ask whoever is pissed off to rise up and see things in a different light.

Calmly yours,

Michael

Post 106

Saturday, April 16, 2005 - 1:58pm

Bravo, Michael!

Saturday, April 16, 2005 - 2:20pm

Michael,

Thank you for being a real Mensch.

Post 108

Saturday, April 16, 2005 - 4:38pm

Please stick around, Michael.

Post 109

Saturday, April 16, 2005 - 5:08pm

Michael,

I just caught up with this thread. I disagree with you about Lanza and Rozsa, but your response to the latest turn of events is the height of good grace.

MH

Post 110

Saturday, April 16, 2005 - 5:23pm

"Newberry is out of here..his groupies had better go too."

WHOA!!!

ARE YOU KIDDING ME??

Post 111

Saturday, April 16, 2005 - 5:38pm

As usual the issue has now become my blowing my stack, not *why* I blew my stack. May I remind you what Newberry said:

"Another wicked point but very truthful, is that I respect several PM artists for their artistic integrity. I would take Duchamp and John Cage anytime over Rozsa and Lanza."

Do you people know who John Cage was? The "composer" of silences, chainsaws, bolts & screws & the like, the worst kind of pomo charlatan, the epitome of contemporary nihilism. To credit him with any artistic integrity *at all*, let alone tout his "integrity" as superior to Rozsa's or Lanza's, is an inexcusable obscenity. To do it on SOLO is an insult I have no words for. You bet I'll blow my effing stack.

What makes this so bewildering for me is that we, SOLO, have done a Newberry Calendar. SOLO paid Michael's air fare to SOLOC 1 in New Zealand. I have personally given Michael encouragement with his projects at every opportunity. I have lauded him as the slayer of the pomo dragon. Now I feel as though I've been had.

If there's something I'm not getting here, I'm open to being told what it is. I don't *want* to throw Michael out ... *of course* I don't. Hell, he's part of the furniture. But please take a look at what he said & contemplate its meaning. If I've got it wrong, please explain how. The rationalisations I'm seeing don't cut it.

Linz

Post 112

Saturday, April 16, 2005 - 5:58pm

I just sent this letter to Joe Rowlands:

"Newberry, you are a maggot. Get the fuck away from SOLO, you creep. And anyone who supports his low-life position. Get the fuck out of here. Now. For ever....Derek - in case you missed it: Newberry is out of here. Anyone who lauds Duchamp & Cage over Lanza & Rosza does not belong within a zillion miles of here. Newberry has shown himself to be a smart-ass postmodern sneerer, a liar & a hypocrite. He's gone. And his groupies had better go too. SOLO was founded for those who take The Romantic Manifesto seriously."
Linz

Joe,

Is the above a joke or a temporary over-reaction?

I can understand if it is one of these (Rand used to do the latter.)

If it is neither:

I withdraw as a speaker at Solo Newport Beach a week from now.

1. I will not be attending Solo Newport Beach and would like to request my money back unless it has already been spent on the rooms and no one is willing to take my place.

2. I will be leaving SOLO.

3. I will work with other people to start an alternative which starts with the principles of benevolence, tolerance...and only excluding people for disruptive behavior.

Not for their degree of understanding of Objectivism. Or their intellectual clarity...or aesthetic preferences.

...Or their friends

Phil

PS, I thought we went through this with Kelley and ARI's expulsions and Peikoff's expulsion of anyone who had dealings with or "sanctioned" NB and George and Edith and I thought we learned something from them.

Post 113

Saturday, April 16, 2005 - 6:14pm

Linz: I agree with you 100%. Using Cage and Duchamp as examples of "artistic integrity" *is* an inexusable obscenity. To evaluate them as on a higher plane than people who dedicated even a part of their lives to the creation of real value, is at best, the result of extremely rationalistic and confused thinking. It was this "at best" that I was giving him some benefit of the doubt for.

I definitely think he has some serious explaining to do. Hong opened it up for him, but it's his responsibility to do the explaining, not our responsibility to rationalize for him. And now I note in his latest post that he calls your statements "an incredibly silly rant", which he mocks you for. So now he owes you not only an explanation, but an apology.

"Such simpletons should have the good manners to shut up." Indeed.

Post 114

Saturday, April 16, 2005 - 6:19pm

To all,

Just as an historical point that might be of interest, if I'm not too late viz. the supposed distinction between film and dance/opera. Tschaikovsky, one of the masters of the ballet score, was given specific instructions by the choreographer on the order of: 2 minutes of waltz allegro, 3 minutes of 4/4 accelerando, etc. for at least one of his ballets (I've forgotten which one-I'll get back)

Tom Rowland

PS got out my Lanza two-LP set. What a magnificent voice. 'Nuff said?

Post 115

Saturday, April 16, 2005 - 6:44pm

Whew,

What flame throwing! At least Peikoff presented a case against Kelley rather than treat the issues as though self-evident (please, don't take this as an attempt to change the subject.).

Lindsey, you know that quite often I am on your side. Indeed, I agree with you this time on the "value" of Cage and Duchamp. But, really Linz, I think MN was, perhaps, being hyperbolic, and maybe you were just trying to top him? But since when has expressing one's honestly held views on this forum been a cause for expulsion?

Well, I guess I came close....or maybe mine was more like expatriation.

Gotta love your passion though...

Tom Rowland

Post 116

Saturday, April 16, 2005 - 6:49pm

Jesus, Shayne. First you compare me to Peikoff, then you agree with me. I'm not sure which is scarier! :-)

Seriously, thanks for the understanding.

Phil, I think you should hold your horses. I think *you're* the one over-reacting now. I don't need to be lectured about benevolence. I see nothing benevolent in extolling the "artistic integrity" of a John Cage.

Tom - which Lanza did you get?

I had visitors here last night, & we were pumping Mario, & Anna Moffo, & Callas, & Fritz Wunderlich, & Bjoerling, through my speakers ... One of my visitors was a soprano who always sobs uncontrollably at Mario's glorious Che Gelida. Happened again last night. Then to come to the computer & see that John Cage remark ...

Linz

Post 117

Saturday, April 16, 2005 - 7:07pm

Linz, the reason everyone's focusing on your outrage is because that's what inflamed outrage does: it attracts attention to itself, and away from whatever issue it's aimed at. Which is why it's ill-advised. When you blow your stack this dramatically you are ensuring that all anyone will think about is your blown stack. Even though I profoundly disagree with Michael, it's obvious from his own works that his heart is in the right place.

Now for the issue at hand. This thread is proof of what happens when clarity is replaced with constant tap-dancing. Michael has kept on explaining that his view of art is integrated and that he just wants to mention the importance of artistic integrity. Fine, but we all know and agree with that. The fact is, this thread did not begin as a friendly reminder of the sanctity of artistic integrity. It began as a vehement attack, for which insufficient reasoning was provided.

Michael, your point about purity of vision is well-taken -- nobody disagrees. But exactly why would you prioritize that over *everything*--leading you to "take" pure evil over impure good? Exactly why should Stalin be commended for being a perfect Communist -- and championed over someone who was an imperfect Good Samaritan? That such prioritizing would place Cage over Lanza proves itself invalid. There must be a flaw in your reasoning if it would lead to such a conclusion.

So, we all understand your points about artistic values and vision. What you haven't done is explain why your attack was so vehement and why you hold the priorities that you do. Again, I won't accept any path that would ultimately lead me (if it came down to it) to Cage over Lanza. But you laid down the path. Please, either defend it convincingly or abandon it.

Alec

Post 118

Saturday, April 16, 2005 - 7:07pm

I also agree completely with Linz's post (#111). This thread has been a profoundly disturbing one. I expect way more of SOLOists than infantile attempts at humour and throwaway comments when we're discussing something serious. But more than anything else, I've been appalled by Michael N's sneering tone, exemplified in exchanges like this:

Me: "Lanza on his best days achieved miracles. Ultimately, that's all that matters."

Newberry: "Ok, for you that's all that matters."

Me: "I'd also like to challenge Michael to name one composition by John Cage that sets his soul on fire and makes him gasp at the heights that man is capable of reaching."

Newberry: "Oh that's easy, I can't stand Cage."

Remember that Michael had just singled out Cage as someone he'd "take any day over Lanza and Rosza" because they lacked Cage's "artistic integrity." This is sickening stuff. Cage was a charlatan, and Michael quite rightly despises the former's "music." To then suggest that a nihilist like Cage should be worthy of praise for being true to himself is akin to applauding Hitler for living up to the credo he espoused in Mein Kampf.

Why on earth would anyone use Cage - of all people - to beat up on a guy who gave so much of himself, and whose only "fault" (in the context of this argument) was that he didn't sing on the operatic stage during the last 11 years of his life????

As for Michael's recent attack on Norman Rockwell for the "sin" of making money from his art, I'm surprised that Rand herself hasn't been condemned here for writing *commercially* successful novels. For money's what seems to rile Michael the most. How dare Lanza have been so successful when he should have been suffering for his art?!

In a recent post, Michael defined what he meant by "artistic integrity" and I responded in defence of Lanza's true worth (post #97). Come on, Michael - read that and then try to tell me that Lanza is still undeserving of respect as an *artist*.

And to Alec (whose last post crossed with mine): Special thanks for this:

"I won't accept any path that would ultimately lead me (if it came down to it) to Cage over Lanza. But you laid down the path. Please, either defend it convincingly or abandon it."

Bravo, Alec.

(Edited by Derek McGovern
on 4/16, 9:14pm)

Post 119

Saturday, April 16, 2005 - 8:38pm