Duck For Cover: The Problem with Lanza

"I think Michael Newberry's take on this issue is due to his perspective as (primarily) a producer of art, while most of us non-artists here approach it as consumers. The values that an artist would take from his fellow artists might include inspiration from their professional challenges and successes; these wouldn't matter much, if at all, to someone whose only interest is the quality of their work."

Robert, great post: very insightful distinction which cuts through and clarifies a lot of the talking past each other on this thread. You are beginning to develop a benevolent, charitable sense of perspective in your old age. :-)

Post 161

Thursday, April 21, 2005 - 11:20am

Robert said:

"I think Michael Newberry's take on this issue is due to his perspective as (primarily) a producer of art, while most of us non-artists here approach it as consumers. The values that an artist would take from his fellow artists might include inspiration from their professional challenges and successes; these wouldn't matter much, if at all, to someone whose only interest is the quality of their work."

What Michael concluded was that "artistic integrity wins"

I explain in my previous post why I disagree with this and think it is incorrect. You shold read that, then consider this:

Artist or Art Consumer, the end result is the art and the value of it's content. We should recall that the term value implies the question: of value to whom and for what reason? Michael notes that he hates Cage and appreciates Lanza. This he noted after posting that he would take Cage over Lanza becasue of Cage's integrity to his vision. There seems to be a real problem with these two statements. Perhaps Michael can explain this.

I can think of many many examples where people have followed the integrity of their beleifs, where there beleifs were misguided and/or downright evil. Perhaps the root of the issue here is one I note on a daily basis with various theists that I know: nothing annoys me more than a hypocritical holier-than-thou theist who fails to follow the beleifs they so openly espouse. I therefor have more respect for those who actually follow the beleifs they preach. They are still misguided, and have caused endless problems in society, but they are consistent. Is this the type of thing your talking about Michael?

Regards,

Ethan

Post 162

Thursday, April 21, 2005 - 11:24am

Robert Bidinotto writes:

"I know of a number of writers whose work I don't like, but whose career struggles revealed personal virtues that are inspiring to me as a professional writer"

But in a slightly different light,�the struggles of Christo, Cage and the writers you don't like also demonstrates the lengths to which the same people are prepared to go to produce shit. Assuming that they understand what they are doing (ie that they do not fit the clinical definition of a moron), how do their productive virtues look to you now?

Let me use some examples I am more familiar with: Hitler and Stalin both struggled manfully at their chosen dream. Is it better to admire their courage in isolation or despise them because they exploited their innate will-power and cunning to magnify their evil?

This is the problem I have with viewing someone's [insert favorite career] integrity in isolation from the rest of them. I do not see how you can laud the method in isolation of the ends to which it was put. Hence I still do not see how you can laud someone who is stubbornly devoted to producing shit over someone who was less devoted to his craft, but still produced awe inspiring art.

Whether you are a producer or consumer I cannot understand how -- in a world replete with intelligent dedicated people who are stubbornly and myopically devoted to the production of shitty art, shitty music, shitty literature, shitty philosophy and shitty laws -- one could ever demean the likes of Mario Lanza just because he didn't try hard enough! Perhaps if we were drowning in Marios, and Cage was not a producer of shit, then Michael's point about artistic integrity would hold water. Unfortunately we are not.

Thus, I agree with Michael: "pick your role models carefully�look at their whole lives..." (emphasis mine, see Post 150, line 7 for the full quote.) I submit therefore, that Michael is guilty of not practising, in Post 31, what he just preached in Post 150.

[Edited to correct the way I spelt of Michael's name. My apologies for not spotting it earlier.]
(Edited by Robert Winefield
on 4/21, 12:38pm)

Post 163

Thursday, April 21, 2005 - 12:57pm

I think Ethan "gets it" when he juxtaposes Michael's two claims: that Michael hates Cage's "work" and appreciates Lanza, but at the same time Michael would prefer Cage to Lanza in terms of professional "integrity." There do seem to be the two distinct criteria involved in Michael's claims: Michael's aesthetic taste and standards (by which he hates Cage and likes Lanza), versus Michael's sense of...well, let's call it "professionalism" instead of "integrity" (by which criteria he judges Lanza as behaving less professionally than Cage -- less consistently loyal to his own artistic ends and vision).

Michael can let me know if I'm interpreting this correctly.

That said, I have great sympathy for the positions taken by Robert M (post 158), Robert W (post 162) and Ethan D (post 161). While I see Michael's point, John Cage crosses the line for me. No amount of diligent struggle, courage, professional independence, etc., can offset the fact that he was a producer of ungodly noise and vacuous silence, both masquerading as "music." Yes, it was consistent vandalism; yes, it was energetic, too: he might have displayed more singularity of purpose and energy than Lanza. (I don't know enough about either man to say.) But I would not demean the word "integrity" by applying it to his indefatigable musical vandalism. Perhaps I would use the term "professionalism," instead -- but in the same way as I could acknowledge the professionalism of a Mafia hit man.

Regrettably, there is a very interesting issue buried in all of this rhetorical rubble. Michael raises the question of evaluating artists on two tracks: on whether their work meets our standards, and whether it meets their own standards. It's a point Rand herself made, using examples such as Tolstoy and Nabokov to make the point that you can acknowledge a great artist on his own terms -- in terms of his talent in effectively, creatively actualizing his own vision -- but not like either his vision or his work because of its philosophical content. Perhaps that is something like the point Michael meant to stress. If so, I think that point has been obscured in the specific examples Michael cited, and the furor that's ensued.

Maybe now that everyone has quite properly ventilated against Cage, it would be more profitable for us to reroute the conversation to that more general issue. Let me pose some questions:

Can we acknowledge and respect artistic integrity (an artist's loyalty to his vision), if we don't like the philosophical (or sense of life) content of his work?

Do we have to qualify our answer to that question: Is it a matter of degrees, of how bad the philosophical content is?

If so, does anyone have a clue or criteria as to how or where to draw the line?

I haven't thought much about this, and would appreciate feedback.

Post 164

Thursday, April 21, 2005 - 1:10pm

To digress from the topic at hand for a moment, I would like to extend my appreciation to Robert Bidinotto for his input on this and other topics on the SOLO list. Not only do I agree with the great majority of what he has to say, I also resonate closely with the way he says it. Robert, you are an outstanding example of a first rate intellect coupled with wisdom and maturity that allows you to comfortably present your ideas and viewpoints while showing respect, sensitivity and understanding for others you engage - all the while maintaining a sense of humor. You are an excellent roll model for us all and I truly respect your accomplishments. I only wish we lived in the same geographic area so that we could interact in a more direct way.

Regards,
--
Jeffery Small

Post 165

Thursday, April 21, 2005 - 1:19pm

Ethan: You are exactly on track. Integrity isn't a virtue that can be sliced out of its context and regarded as a good thing. Hitler had "integrity" to his Nazi values, and deserves no admiration, whether it be from his irrational pseudo-integrity or anything else.

There is only one possible opening for excuse of Newberry: that he's an ignoramus when it comes to Objectivism. And this producer/consumer rationalization for him is pure BS.

Post 166

Thursday, April 21, 2005 - 1:24pm

Robert:

Can we acknowledge and respect artistic integrity (an artist's loyalty to his vision), if we don't like the philosophical (or sense of life) content of his work?

Can we get rid of the term artist and just say person's integrity? If we can then I would say what I said in my last post, that is I can acknowledge that integrity, but I can't say that I really respect it without the accompanying values. I suppose I could respect the consistency in the persons thought, but underlying most improper value system there is inconsistency. That inconsistency is often not understood by the person, or carefully evaded, but its still there. But, as I said earlier, at least they aren't blatantly inconsistent like many people I've met. So, to sum up my answer: I can acknowledge that integrity but not really respect it.

Do we have to qualify our answer to that question: Is it a matter of degrees, of how bad the philosophical content is?

Given my careful answer above, I think that this question is moot for me.

If so, does anyone have a clue or criteria as to how or where to draw the line?

Ditto

Ethan

Post 167

Thursday, April 21, 2005 - 1:37pm

Shayne,

First, thanks for the kind remark!

On to the rest of your post:

There is only one possible opening for excuse of Newberry: that he's an ignoramus when it comes to Objectivism. And this producer/consumer rationalization for him is pure BS.

Personally I try to avoid this type of conclusion. To be sure, I only just got involved in this topic and haven't read every post to see what has been hurled about, but I'm trying to restrain the use of my nasty words for those who really deserve them. I can assure you that I'm as good as anyone at applying justice, but I find that the written form of communication online leads to easy misunderstandings and too quickly resorting to harsh words is counter-productive. I have often found myself apologising for what I've said or reconsidering my remarks (justice towards myself there.)

I've found Michael's art quite inspiring and note that he said he is making his first tentative posts about his inspirations and the nature of his art. Given that I've often come to change my mind when I've contemplated reasoned argument, I attempt to proceed that way with others. The purpose of my posts here is to discuss and reason with others, even (and especially) those whom I have disagreed with. That is the value I pursue. Calling someone and ignoramus offers no value beyond stating my opinion and isn't likely to convince someone of my argument. That said, there is definitely a time for such proclamations, but this conversation hasn't gotten to that level for me yet.

Ethan

(Edited by Ethan Dawe on 4/21, 1:38pm)

Post 168

Thursday, April 21, 2005 - 2:30pm

Jeffrey,

Thanks so much. I'm not "perfect," though. (And in fact, I don't try!) But that's another thread...

Robert

Post 169

Thursday, April 21, 2005 - 2:54pm

Robert,

Sorry, I just can't resist.

I'm not "perfect," though. (And in fact, I don't try!)

Whazzat??! You said that??! What is it with this thread??!

I'm getting all kinds of laughs today...

LOL...

Time to get serious again - the carnage is on, the smell of blood is thick and I will stand up for my comrade.

He is a great artist.

Michael Stuart Kelly - Newberry Groupie

Post 170

Thursday, April 21, 2005 - 3:05pm

Robert: �Can we acknowledge and respect artistic integrity (an artist�s loyalty to his vision), if we don�t like the philosophical (or sense of life) content of his work?�

A fascinating question. I can give a tentative answer. I�ll be as clear as I can.

What do we mean by �vision�? (This isn�t a dictionary definition, but is it is how, I believe, we use the term when we speak about art.) We mean a world view, an overall concept of man and of life. One of the most notable aspects of Rand�s fiction is that she consistently presents such a world view; everything about her novels presents her view of man and of life � it�s in her characters, her literary style, her plots, her themes. Thus her work has integrity; it reflects and is loyal to her vision. I would say the same about such writers, for example, as Shakespeare, as Victor Hugo, as Thomas Hardy, as Thomas Wolfe, as Somerset Maugham, as Tennessee Williams, as William Styron. The same is true of music: there is a similar integrity, a similar consistency of world view, in the music of Bach, of Puccini, of Rachmaninov, of Cole Porter and Irving Berlin. It�s irrelevant whether we like such writers and composers; however much we may like or dislike one or more, we can recognize the integrity in their work.

But John Cage? There is no view of man and of life within his work. There is no view of man and of life in silence. There is no world view in meaningless noise.

This is about as far as I can take it at the moment. I�ll be interested in comments.

Post 171

Thursday, April 21, 2005 - 3:11pm

I don't know which is worse: Newberry's original obscenity or the unconscionable rationalisations for it from current & former members of TOC's Bureau of the Namby-Pamby. Reading Bidinotto's execrable effort on the consumer/producer "distinction" made me realise anew how I could never have operated in such an abysmal culture of appeasement, bloodless & spineless, as TOC's.

Let's cut to the chase. Newberry's obscenity was, apart from the various expressions of Saddamy one encounters here, the sickest thing anyone has ever said on SOLO. But no one leapt on him in a mad rush to judgement. Sciabarra remonstrated with him at length, in a way that offered mere intimations of disgust (I think we were all feeling disbelief rather than disgust at that point). In a spirit of benefit-of-the-doubt, I suggested it was the result of mere confusion, given that Michael had by then admitted he didn't know what "intrinsicism" was.

Shortly after, however, Newberry upped the ante, & repeated his original obscenity in a form so vile that I asked to be reassured that I was imagining things. Alas, it turned out I was not. At that point, I let him have it. Then the namby-pamby hand-wringers all said how disgusting *I* was (funny how they can rouse themselves to moral judgement when it *isn't* justified), & they would all leave.

Sundry attempts were made by the namby-pambies to explain what Michael *really* meant, since, evidently, he was doing a poor job of it himself.

Now we are told that it's different if you're looking at the matter from the vantage point of a producer. I can't even say "nice try" since there's nothing nice about it, other than that its very absurdity has given me a huge belly-laugh.

As Shayne says, it's complete bullshit.

"Integrity does not consist of loyalty to one's subjective whims, but of loyalty to rational principles."

- Ayn Rand

"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."

- Michael Newberry

I would remind people that this is SOLO. "Total passion for the total height." Not for the total pits.

Linz

Post 172

Thursday, April 21, 2005 - 3:51pm

I think that Robert has nailed the issue here in pointing out that there are two standards of value being applied to this topic. He writes:

> Can we acknowledge and respect artistic integrity (an artist's loyalty to his vision), if we don't like the philosophical (or sense of life) content of his work?

The general answer is yes, and the reason (as is so often the case) is context. As with most things in life, you can approach a work of art from many different angles, and the context of the approach taken determines the appropriateness of the response.

For example, in a philosophical analysis of movies, I would judge the theme, plot and character development to be the most important elements, just as I would in a work of literature. However, there are many movies that I greatly enjoy which, with regards to some of these characteristics, do not measure up. Sometimes I am willing to suspend judgement in these areas to allow myself to respond positively to other artistic elements such as the cinematic beauty of the film or the cleverness exhibited in the construction of the story. My life would be measurably poorer if I were to limit myself only to movies exhibiting an "exalted sense of life". This isn't context-dropping. When appropriate, you can always step back for a meta-view and evaluate the narrower context within the larger. But there is nothing intrinsically wrong with adopting the narrower view when it is called for. This is not a moral compromise.

Like Robert, I cannot speak for Michael, but it does seem to me that his main points were focused on the aspect of artistic integrity (which he admires) to the exclusion of artistic expression (which he has repeatedly disavowed). Whether you agree with him or not, I do think that this is a valid and very interesting issue to explore and one to which I have previously given little thought. So, to Michael, assuming that this was your intent, I extend my thanks for bringing up topic.

Shayne Wissler wrote:

> Hitler had "integrity" to his Nazi values, and deserves no admiration

OK, I get the point. Sometimes the moral transgressions of an individual are so great that they override all other considerations. But, in the arena of personal and/or professional integrity are we really comparing John Cage to Hitler? Is Cage a moral monster who deserves our outrage or is he a one-note joke that deserves to be ignored? I would suggest that the latter is the more appropriate response, and for me, the issue of *his* artistic integrity is not even worth contemplating. Maybe Michael would disagree - or maybe he was using Cage as an outrageous example simply to make a point.

However, instead of Cage, what if we were discussing composer Philip Glass or architects such as Frank Gehry, Robert Venturi, Michael Graves or Peter Eisenman? Is there more room for consideration here? What about Frank Lloyd Wright (or Ayn Rand) who exhibited unwavering professional/artistic integrity but had certain flaws that I would judge to be lapses of personal integrity? And then there is the entire range of human behavior between these poles. Do professional and personal integrity get treated differently in this type of assessment?

Robert writes:

> Can we acknowledge and respect artistic integrity (an artist's loyalty to his vision), if we don't like the philosophical (or sense of life) content of his work?

> Do we have to qualify our answer to that question: Is it a matter of degrees, of how bad the philosophical content is?

> If so, does anyone have a clue or criteria as to how or where to draw the line?

For me, there is a "line" that I use to categorize, but it is personal and determined by my overall value system. When I contemplate another person, a movie, a work of art, etc., I make a complex set of evaluations of all of the characteristics, giving weight to those judgements based upon my value hierarchy. The process results in an ordinal ranking that determines whether I am going to embrace that individual or experience, welcoming it into my life, or dismiss it. If the judgement is to dismiss, then there is little motivation to expend further energy exploring narrower contexts in search of enlightenment or pleasure. On the other hand, if my evaluation falls on the other side of this "line", then that will likely be a profitable activity. I dismiss Cage (and Hitler) and consequently have spent almost no time attempting to analyze his character or his work, while, for me, Wright clearly falls on the other side and I have learned a great deal from selectively contemplating various aspects of his architecture and personality, even though I do not agree with or admire certain aspects of the way he conducted his personal life.

Regards,
--
Jeff

Post 173

Thursday, April 21, 2005 - 4:09pm

Lindsey wrote:

>(funny how they can rouse themselves to moral judgement when it *isn't* justified)

Curious. Are you sure about that? Maybe the moral judgement (outrage) applies to a completely different area where you seem, to me, to have a blind spot.

It is one thing to be passionate (something I respect and applaud in you) and quite another to be unnecessarily abusive. There is a difference. You have crossed over that line a few times in recent weeks.

Let me make this more explicit. I'm not necessarily disagreeing with your ideas or observations so much as your method of presenting them. I think that is some cases, the methods are doing more harm than good.
--
Jeff

P.S.: I am pretty tired hearing about Sadamites and Namby-Pambies. You need a new routine.

Post 174

Thursday, April 21, 2005 - 4:28pm

�Can we acknowledge and respect artistic integrity (an artist�s loyalty to his vision), if we don�t like the philosophical (or sense of life) content of his work?�

Integrity, like all the virtues is contextual. Contextual as to whether or not you call it a virtue. And contextual as to whether or not consistency deserves the august and positive term "integrity".

Just as in Rand's point that "morality ends where the point of a gun begins" and Peikoff's illustration of this with lying to the raving knife-wielding lunatic asking whether your children are at home, there are contexts in which honesty, integrity, etc. are no longer virtues or admirable.

But don't go too far:

It is not always necessary that you agree with the end, the purpose, the 'sense of life' involved to judge integrity as a separate issue. It is possible to admire a person who displays integrity even when it serves a misguided end. One can imagine circumstances in which one admires the effort, the integrity, the dedication...as of monks in monasteries faithfully producing illuminated religious manuscripts - even thought there is little about the ends, the particular book or evangelism or christianization one admires or considers life-affirming. (The art itself one would admire. If the book is Aquinas, for example, one might admire even the end.)

There is the most extreme case of all in which Hitler displayed "integrity" in single-mindedly planning extermination. In that case, one neither admires the goal nor the consistency or effort or dedication of the means. One would not even use such a positive word as integrity to apply to it.

What about a postmodern artist's dedication and consistency? In order to grant respect or positive status to his 'integrity' I would have to know some non-Hiterian motive he might have.

Unless I know what is in the head of Cage or Foucault what he views his purpose to be, however mistaken, I would not draw a conclusion. Yet.

Post 175

Thursday, April 21, 2005 - 4:34pm

No time to argue for me now. I have a plane to catch for California & SOLOC 4. See y'all!!!!!!!

Linz

Post 176

Thursday, April 21, 2005 - 4:43pm

[me] "It is possible to admire a person who displays integrity even when it serves a misguided end."

Another example of this is admiring the many ways in which the generals Robert E. Lee and Erwin Rommel (the "desert fox" in World War II) were admirable and possessed many virtues ... one of which was integrity in executing the career and cause they were defending, even though the cause was wrong.

If you have to always agree with every aspect of the purpose or ends the integrity serves, then you can only admire few other than Objectivists or those who never act in contradiction to Objectivism.

Post 177

Thursday, April 21, 2005 - 7:03pm

It�s very apparent that some of you feel that your artistic preferences are being attacked by me. That is not my intent nor has it ever been my point. Recently in a private email Chris Sciabarra chimed �Eureka� when I commented that aesthetics is not about personal art appreciation, it is a science of the study of aesthetic ideas and how artists realized their visions or ideas. To inject one�s personal preferences is as unprofessional as for any scientist to inject their personal bias. Of course, few of you are professionals in the field of art�. But to be clear I have not been discussing any of my personal preferences i.e. what artists rock my world.

Artistic integrity is an indispensable ingredient for culture change in high art; for good or for bad. I would like to say that it would be great if artistic integrity combined with brilliance but, alas in the 20^th Century the one discernable element is that the postmodern artists have been �true� to their vision. (No matter how evil their work may be to anyone.)

To challenge postmodernism it is important to have fine artists that have pure artistic integrity. Sciabarra was lashing out at aesthetic �snobs� and I have been explaining that I am in agreement with them on one issue only the significance of artistic integrity. I should repeat that: ONE ISSUE ONLY.

Personally, my artistic role models are NOT, Cage, Duchamp Pollock, or Warhol, hahahah, and for sure not Hitler! I am fascinated by how they followed their paths but I equate them with Kant, who I am also fascinated with, and I would classify them as nihilistic monsters, as Adam so rightly understood. Many of you are perhaps justified in your anger that I choose the word �respect� for them being true to themselves. Ethan grasped this in a manner and so did Matthew and Robert. Perhaps a better word would be �identify� the single minded focus on following one�s art�but I do intensely identify with this one aspect�I have very good acquaintances who are postmodernists, I totally reject the nature and the roots of their art but I can see they are sincerely following their art.

I also think this why PM still as an appeal to younger people, not for any of the works of disgust but that these people follow their art like zealots. I connect with that too because I am a total zealot as well. Who was the guy in We the Living, the communist guy who followed it intensely? So these PM zealots have the youth appeal of artist integrity idealism� but I will never relate to them profoundly with my love of painting, reality, subject matter, beauty. Is this clear? Come on help me out here�

My role models are also not: Lanza, or Rozsa�nor Bernstein, Parish, or Rockwell. I can be terribly moved by all of them for different reasons but in total they don�t appeal and inspire me on all levels as do:

Pre-historic cave painters, Michelangelo, da Vinci, Rand, Beethoven, Puccini, Rachmaninoff, Leontyne Price�their careers are made up of the truth of their brilliant visions.

For the record let me state:

* I am anti-postmodernist, and am professionally one of its biggest critics.

* I believe in exaltation on earth through an integrated vision: my major artworks testify to that. Hahaha, well�they actually can�t speak for themselves if the audience in not listening�

* For high/fine art to change positively it is imperative to have brilliant artists that follow their vision and make career choices that support that vision.

* What ya think? That�s enough? I think it is enough for me for today.

So, thanks to all of you for the discussion�I enjoyed all the bantering, even though I was terribly surprised by the fireworks, they were�interesting�and for those of you who don�t empathize�well I guess�take what you like and move on�but I did my best to communicate about art issues that are important to me and I believe important for a flourishing art future.

Cheers,

Michael

Post 178

Friday, April 22, 2005 - 2:57am

Michael- I share with you a love of Leontyne Price ( among others you mention). I watched her sing " O Patria Mia" the other night from Aida - about 1965 I would say. It was bloody perfect- and moving. I must write about her in one of my singer rants, as I have loved her since her first two recordings) came on the scene in 1959.
Porgy and Bess - with William Warfield
Verdi's Requiem - wuth Reiner, Bjoerling, Hynes, and Elias. Talk about great recordings. This is one of a handful of the very greatest,

Post 179

Friday, April 22, 2005 - 5:51am