Duck For Cover: The Problem with Lanza

First things first:

Mike, regarding post 105:

------Standing Ovation!!!------

Next, for an Objectivist to call someone a perfect communist or a great postmodernist, is a horrible insult much worse than simply swearing obscenities at someone. The two ideologies represent (along with religion) the genocide of the vision of the world that we as Soloists are striving to create. Let's not lose the big picture here.

I'm not sure if this is part of Newberry's intentions when he stated what he did or not. He is not speaking in terms of actually work produced, nor the respective vision from which such work comes, but the idea that the artist is following their own vision. If I am correct then, he is reacting to an intrinsic quality of being consistent and integral. These concepts lose the stigma of intrinsicism when employed by great artists whom communicate a vision of greatness. I think he gives too much credit to the PMs for having vision however, but I understand his point.

When you read Newberry's criticisms on the PM movement, it's clear that he holds the movement in contempt. When you look at his paintings, you know that your eyes are beholding a creation borne of a vision full of passion and intelligence that has no use for the work of Duchamp, Cage, Cowell, and other charlatans.

Adam

P.S. Linz, if you are still serious about what you said about wanting Micheal and his followers off of Solo, then this will be my last post.

Post 121

Saturday, April 16, 2005 - 9:12pm

He is not speaking in terms of actually work produced, nor the respective vision from which such work comes, but the idea that the artist is following their own vision. If I am correct then, he is reacting to an intrinsic quality of being consistent and integral. These concepts lose the stigma of intrinsicism when employed by great artists whom communicate a vision of greatness.

Adam, those were excellent points you made.

George

Post 122

Saturday, April 16, 2005 - 10:20pm

Just so we're clear - no one's being booted. I've calmed down to that extent. But I couldn't take a dimmer view of what Michael said. Derek McGovern's, Shayne's & Alec's posts above put the issue very well.

Linz

Post 123

Sunday, April 17, 2005 - 12:19am

I want to state in clear unequivocal terms that I understood and understand what Michael Newberry was talking about.

I will not qualify that.

My previous posts attest to my position.

In fact, it was not very hard to understand either, especially in light of all that he had written before and all his magnificent painting.

What the hell happened to the total passion for the total height around here anyway?

Michael

Post 124

Sunday, April 17, 2005 - 1:49am

I'm glad things have calmed down.

Right, Michael N:

I just checked back over the whole thread and in summary I think what you're saying is that you respect Duchamp and Cage because of their artistic integrity, which you define as "truth to ones vision, elation, possibility of leadership of cultural (r)evolution, individuality"; and your comment about taking Duchamp and Cage over Lanza and Rosza comes from the fact that you believe the latter pair lacked this artistic integrity. Is that correct?

If not, ignore the rest of this post :-)

There have been plenty of posts here making the case (correctly in my opinion) that Lanza and Rosza did indeed have artistic integrity, but I see a much bigger problem here. As Adam B just pointed out, you seem to be upholding an "instrinsic" quality of integrity, apart from the wider totality of an artist's work. Now of course integrity in a romanticist and/or Objectivist context is something praiseworthy, but you're in a sense reifying that one quality and arguing that it is always praiseworthy irrespective of a person's wider philosophical and/or artistic context.

It seems to me that integrity (whether artistic or in any other walk of life) is praiseworthy only in the context of a person holding life affirming values. And while I accept that different people may still hold basically life-affirming values even while disagreeing on the precise specifics of those values, integrity in the service of anti-life art or philosophy, or anti-life values in general, is surely a force for evil.

MH

(Edited by Matthew Humphreys on 4/17, 1:51am)

Post 125

Sunday, April 17, 2005 - 2:14am

Just so I'm clear on what we can all agree on so far, these are the only positions anyone is allowed to have from here on out in this thread, or in life:

(yay bullets!)

Lanza was a magnificent artist.
Lanza was not a perfect man.
Neither are you. (But so what? Change is permanent.)
Postmodernism blows on several levels.
MN is a magnificent artist.
MN is not a perfect man. (Nor is he a maggot, liar, or hypocrite.)
Neither are you. (But so what? Change is permanent.)
MN is not an advocate of postmodernism.
Linz is a magnificent man.
Linz is not a perfect man.
But I am.

SOLO (and humanity, if it's to survive) needs people who recognize what total passion is, and want to reach the total, rational height. Newberry, Linz, and Lanza would seem to fit that bill.
Anyone who disagrees with me on that note can go diddle themselves silly with a power screwdriver.
Artistic integrity can go diddle itself as well, if selling-out or breaking down draws from men's souls the purity of spirit and genuine talent of Rockwell, or the sleek, visceral, enlightened yearning of Michael Newberry, or the booming, joyful song of Lanza. (At least, that's how I see the artwork...I'm no art critic. But I know what's good.)
It is/has been astonishing to witness the bringing together and bringing to bear of so much talent, so many great minds, and the simple and joyful display of such good-fucking-taste as I have seen on SOLO. The connectivity of it all is amazing. Mind-blowing, even. It cannot be coincidence. Nothing so silly and inconsequential as mere coincidence could explain this, and the absolute certainty that we know what the hell good art is! (Well...that's veering a bit off-topic, but you get the gist. Think about it if you don't.)
Bullet-format discussions are the wave of the Future.
I love you all! (except for that Rowlands...he's a dick. On second thought, nix that whole "love" thing....kinda fruity. I really like parenthetical asides, don't I?)

(Edited by Jeremy on 4/17, 2:28am)

Post 126

Sunday, April 17, 2005 - 2:39am

Hahahahaha! Dear Jeremy! Now *that* kind of humor in the midst of a carnage-fest I like. That other cutsie inane stuff from other quarters ... well, a little goes a long way.

The total passion for the total height hasn't gone anywhere. It's right here, where it always was. We should simply note that its best embodiment is not the "integrity" of a low-life like Cage. To laud, & lord, Cage's "consistency" over a great artist who, as Derek said, just didn't happen to sing on the opera stage for the last 11 years of his short life is, I repeat, an inexcusable obscenity. Michael didn't have to present his case, such as it is, that way. He chose to do so for effect.

I'm mindful of a promoter of silly mind-games here who gets off on this sort of thing, so I propose to give him no further satisfaction by saying anything further. I think my point is clear.

Linz

Post 127

Sunday, April 17, 2005 - 6:09am

"Integrity", Rand said, "does not consist of loyalty to one's subjective whims, but of loyalty to rational principles." ['Doesn't life require compromise', VOS,69]

Post 128

Sunday, April 17, 2005 - 10:21am

I am glad this thing is starting to lighten up a little.

I think what I found to be most discouraging during this whole affair was that while everyone was

(1) busy ignoring what Michael really had to say since the beginning,
(2) accusing him of attacking their artistic tastes - as if he was actually doing that instead of explaining his own magnificent integrity
(3) lavishing attention on an hysterical outburst
(4) saying the equivalent of "I love you, but..." to Michael (and I personally don't love that way - I leave out the "but" because when I love, that issue has already been answered - just a total passion for total height thing)
(5) grandstanding

one of the best real-life short stories I have read in a long time anywhere is receiving little comment. I loved reading "My Father My Self" by John Newnham. The man is a fucking genius. He is an artist doing great art. He is just starting to bloom. This is happening on Solo right now. It is tremendously exciting to watch it.

At least he has 4 Atlas thingies from sanctions, so at least some people are reading it. And what few comments there are attest to the power this work has had in reaching them.

As a matter of fact, I think I will read it again - for the fourth time - to chill out and get back to my own exalted sense of life - then maybe I will take another long look at Namesake's works on the Internet for dessert.

I'm spending way too much time around here on things that don't really matter in the long run anyway.

Michael

Post 129

Sunday, April 17, 2005 - 6:49pm

Since this is lightening up a bit, and the thread contains the word Lanza, this shouldn't be too off topic...Just wanted to mention that I just saw a commercial for Aquafina water set to the Drinking song by Lanza...

Post 130

Sunday, April 17, 2005 - 6:57pm

Yes - thought that one was interesting....

Post 131

Sunday, April 17, 2005 - 7:18pm

I'm glad to see there are no purges, so at present I expect I'll be going to Solo in Newport Beach.

I hope this sort of thing doesn't happen often for this sort of reason and that people don't have to feel they have to watch or censor expressing their aesthetic or other opinions.

I am relatively new to Solo, having only started reading and posting heavily last four months. So I hope this was an aberration.

(I certainly am willing to forget about Linz blowing his top or perspective--happens to everyone; I've certainly done it--and on this basis hope Kat and Hong will return also.)

Phil

Post 132

Monday, April 18, 2005 - 6:24pm

I have been mulling over the particular kind abstinence on this thread. And I thought about Solo�s mission statement a great deal, and the very strange behavior of Lindsay, and taking into account that he is a New Zealander, crude is the best way to describe the most sophisticated of them and I began to see a possibility that aesthetics or artistic integrity is totally not the issue for him but passion is. I am also beginning to see that Lindsay is going to hound me with stupid ridiculous comments like being: an intrinsicist, platonic, passionless, blau blau blau, of course if he could see that couldn�t come up�

Perhaps he doesn�t give a shit about aesthetics unless it is improperly saddled with marking out your territory with hot, wet expression.

Perhaps if I where to approach Lanza from where my passion lies and I were to write�what a fucking awesome voice and expression of passion, that guy is giving everything, ringing heart and soul out of guts and filling the air with glorious sound, and he gave everything everywhere he went�he poured and poured out is soul until there was nothing left and then poured out even more. He gave so much that no audience, no wife, no child could give back 1/1000^th of what he gave. Like a volcano or cinerary red hot planet he burned everything up and vanished, not some long drawn out boring living death but in a white hot heat of glorious hysterical tragedy? How in the light of that kind of fierce passion can you coldly ask about �paths�? Or career moves? Just fucking watch, sit back, and observe a passion like no other on earth!

He was like the huge volcanic eruption that blew away Atlantis, the island of Santorini, and died as quickly as he appeared; still in its glorious youth�no boring issues of subtlety, growth, watching yourself grow older, being haunted by mistakes you have made, losing some of the exceptionally raw ability, having trouble reaching the highs of your fearless youth.

What do I say to glorious burn out? Fuck NO! Burnout, what a goddamned waste. As an artist and as a person I want everything! To live and bathe in exaltation of love as if I were to live there forever, to integrate my god damned mind in the most awesome way as if I could tap dance over the universe of knowledge as easily as Astaire glides over the studio stage. Not to be USED as a fucking stooge or to be considered a piece of some fucking piece of furniture in virtual lounge of intellectuals! To grow in every way as a human�to know how to find the words to make Lindsay swallow his rants and leave him reduced to burping, which I have done�to glide as quietly as pelican over glassy, purple, pink and aqua waters�to match scholars in the chess of the mind without losing sight of real perceptions and knowing which normative conclusions actually lead towards flourishing life.

Here is Lindsay with all the fucking guts to personally take on politicians and whole political parties, to take on postmodernism, to fight for beauty in and passion and wastes his time ranting at me like a piss poor whining poodle. Fuck I hate poodles and whinny ones I just kick out of the way.

What the hell do you think Icarus Landing is? Some brilliant guy that burned out? Fuck no. It�s audacious man rising to the most glorious heights imaginable and he found the way to bring that back to earth with wisdom and with the message: �Go for your fucking highest, you can do it! it won�t end it tragedy but in a glowing love of existence.�

So that is how I would speak if I were only speaking from my passion and not from my total being.

Hahahaha

Of course, I can go back to being a thorn and quote Romantic Manifesto about how some men, Lindsay, can�t bide by any examination of their aesthetic tastes; or how Dostoevsky followed is �artistic integrity� to create, the opposite of his original intent, one of the most evil characters in literature; or how your emotions are not tools of cognition; and etc. but I should hope you guys have had enough.

Michael

(Edited by Newberry on 4/18, 6:56pm)

Post 133

Monday, April 18, 2005 - 7:50pm

Newberry,
YOU GOT IT!

You talk about artistic burnout. Neil Young sang "it's better to burn out than to fade away...". Kurt Cobain did him one better, after quoting Young in his suicide note...

TALK ABOUT A FALSE DICHOTOMY!

Stars are born, stars will die, but you can't destroy matter or energy; after the star is gone, new ones are born.

(Edited by Joe Maurone
on 4/18, 8:04pm)

Post 134

Monday, April 18, 2005 - 8:10pm

With all the high falutin' music around, the kat had my tongue, but Joe's brave stance gave me courage to stand on my maestro's shoulders, flick my bic and yell

FREEEEEEEBIRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRDDDDDDDD!!!!!!!

Post 135

Monday, April 18, 2005 - 10:07pm

Michael: You just don't play fair. It was you who started this thread, declaring from the rafters that you were one of those who "dismissed" Lanza & Rosza. You then said you'd take a lowlife like Cage any time over these guys because they lacked his "artistic integrity." Then you defined this elusive integrity. When I responded, pointing out that even by your own criteria Lanza measured up (and then some!), you ignored me. Now you come out and scream your adoration of Lanza. That's a wonderful thing, but I can only ask: Then what the hell was the point of this whole thread??

For God's sake - go back to post #97 and give us a direct answer for once!

(Edited by Derek McGovern on 4/18, 11:02pm)

Post 136

Tuesday, April 19, 2005 - 6:04am

Derek,

I am sure your mother loves you but I guess that she too has thought that you have had your moments of denseness?

Different point, you asked: "Then what the hell was the point of this whole thread??"

The point is that Duchamp is the 20th Century's most influential artist. As judged, correctly, by an in-depth and sincere poll of art intellectuals and artists given by the BBC. Why? Or I should say: what made that possible?

Michael

P.S. I do play fair just not by your rules.

(Edited by Newberry on 4/19, 6:08am)

Post 137

Tuesday, April 19, 2005 - 1:21pm

Karl Marx was the 19th Century's most influential thinker.

John Rawls was the 20th Century's most influential philosopher.

Point?

Michael, once again you've made some great and -- in their context -- powerful points, about yourself and art, but all I could discern from your previous post regarding the point of this thread is that your "total being" would take Cage over Lanza!

No halfway decent explanation has been provided, 140 posts in!

Alec

Post 138

Tuesday, April 19, 2005 - 1:25pm

Michael,

The point is that Duchamp is the 20th Century's most influential artist. As judged, correctly, by an in-depth and sincere poll of art intellectuals and artists given by the BBC. Why? Or I should say: what made that possible?

What made that possible is the pigshit screwball culture we presently live in.

MH

Post 139

Tuesday, April 19, 2005 - 2:28pm