Victor Pross Posted October 9, 2006 Share Posted October 9, 2006 (edited) "The spiritual center of Islamism is Iran, and the spiritual heads of Iran are the mullahs, imams, and teachers who call for strict adherence to the Koran and thus for the submission or murder of infidels (especially Israelis and Americans). These leaders should be our primary human targets; we should aim to kill as many of them as possible (all would be best) by bombing their mosques, madrassahs, and homes when they are most likely to be there. The unfortunate deaths of innocents (such as children) who would be killed in such an attack are the moral responsibility of those who embrace, advocate, or apologize for Islamism."Craig Biddle, The Objective Standard - "Principles in Practice" (October 7, 2006)This caricature is copyright © 2006, by Victor Pross. Permission is hereby granted to reproduce and distribute it electronically provided that mention of the link http://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/in...?showtopic=1661 is included. (Email notification at artpross@hotmail.com is requested.) All other rights reserved. A number of pertinent Biddle quotes are given here for easy inclusion.(Note from Administrator: This caricature originally included a cartoon nude which provoked some discussion. The artist decided to remove the image as it was detracting from the main message.) Edited October 19, 2006 by Michael Stuart Kelly Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CNA Posted October 9, 2006 Share Posted October 9, 2006 Oh, this is too much. LOL Victor, Honey, you got it all wrong. It's not Loving Life. It's Loving Death. I hope in his Objective Standard it will also include the mention of the other Ayn Rands that he will kill, the other John Galts that he will kill, the other Howard Roarks that he will kill, as well as the hundreds of thousands of kids he would love to whack, the ones where it is OBVIOUS they're not the aggressors. Also can't forget the evasion of reason, evasion of perception, evasion of reality when he is actually confronted with individual people that are running for their lives to safety but they're shot in the back because he believes in collectivism and his paranoia that every single one of them is out to get him. I'm trying to find a name suitable for those eyes and will eventually. But what comes to mind now and I agree that the few pictures I've seen of him that his eyes, in this caricature as well as actual photos I've seen of him, are very empty, evil, ulterior motives that he himself wouldn't name or admit to.You did a very good job of capturing the true nature of it.Angie Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Victor Pross Posted October 9, 2006 Author Share Posted October 9, 2006 (edited) Thanks, baby, I really enjoyed rendering this caricature. By the way, just to let you know--and others, Biddle did author a book called ‘Loving Life.’ Yeah, I shit you not. How’s that for a kick in the head? Hey, as a caricaturist, its part of my artistic mission to instill humorous juxtapositions and twisted irony in the work, so all the intellectual eggheads can have a field day cataloguing the meaning behind it all. This can be a challenge to me. But, you see, Biddle is such a real life caricature he made my job immensely easier. I don’t want him to think that I don’t appreciate it. Victor Edited October 9, 2006 by Victor Pross Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted October 9, 2006 Share Posted October 9, 2006 Here is a rose garden of Craig Biddle quotes to accompany the caricature. The long and short of it is he is arguing for using lethal force against intellectuals qua intellectuals.How to Solve America's Terrorism Problem in 5 Easy Steps - August 31, 2006Obliterate, from high altitude and long distance, all known Iranian military assets, all Iranian government buildings, all Iranian mosques and madrassahs, and the residences of all Iranian leaders, imams, clerics, and government officials. Hit these targets when they are most likely to be occupied (e.g., mosques during the day and residences at night).(...)(As to innocent non-Americans, such as Iranian children, who would be killed in such a campaign, they are not properly the concern of our government. Nor would their deaths be the fault of our government. Such deaths are always the fault of the force-initiating regime—and of those who in any way support or enable it—whose actions necessitate such retaliatory measures.)(...)Airdrop leaflets across the Middle East explaining: "From now on, this is how America will respond to any and all threats to her citizens or allies. (...) ... we will be watching you from way up in the sky—higher even than Allah, by means of technology He cannot fathom—and if we see anything that we so much as feel might conceivably pose even a remote threat either to America or to our allies, we will annihilate it and everything in its proximity without further warning."(...)Notify the regime in Saudi Arabia that it got lucky and has the option of not being obliterated; that we are prepared instead to seize "its" oil fields and sell them to private industry, in part to pay for the campaign against Iran, and in part to return the fields to private industry where they belong; that it has 24 hours to turn the fields over to our agents; and that if it fails to comply or ignites the fields or does anything to thwart our program, its leaders, like those of Iran, will meet Allah sooner than later.Relativism and Religion vs. the Lives of Americans - September 07, 2006What should we do with captured Islamic terrorists? We should torture them to extract any useful information they might have and then shoot them.Military 'Solutions' Don't Work; Try Suicide! - September 12, 2006No, Mr. Kristof, we should not—as the neoconservatives would have it, and as President Bush will probably do—engage in "a few air raids" to "make the Iranian nuclear menace disappear." You're right; that won't work. Rather, we should engage in a massive and sustained air assault on Iran until all the Islamists there are dead. Yes, all of them. You see, dead Islamists can't make bombs. Or will you evade that too?Why Our (Long-Overdue) Retaliation Against Iran Should Include Bombing Mosques and Madrassahs - September 19, 2006America is not being attacked by bombs or hijacked airplanes or government buildings or military installations. We are being attacked by people—specifically, by Islamists: people who believe the Koran is true, take its precepts seriously, and thus actively seek the submission or destruction of non-believers. Where are Islamists being produced? Primarily in the mosques and madrassahs (colleges in which students are trained to be Islamists) of the states that sponsor terrorism—especially Iran and Saudi Arabia. Who is producing them? The imams and teachers are. Accordingly, we cannot put an end to this assault merely by taking out government buildings and military installations in enemy states. To put an end to it, we must eliminate those who preach or teach the idea that infidels must die. We must demonstrate that to spout such evil is to ensure personal destruction.(...)The basic principle of a proper American foreign policy is that the U.S. government must hold the life and rights of each and every American—whether civilian or soldier—as of greater value than the lives and rights of all non-Americans in the world combined.(...)In conjunction with the other elements in this 5-step plan, we should kill the Iranian preachers and teachers who chant and spout "Kill the disbelievers" and "Death to America." We should aim to kill all of them. And the best way to do this is to bomb the Iranian mosques and madrassahs when they are most likely to be occupied. (...)(As always, the deaths of all innocents in such a campaign are the sole responsibility of those who necessitate such retaliatory measures—and those apologists who evade the facts, drop context, and attempt to muddy the waters on such issues, thus delaying justice and necessitating the deaths of even more innocents.)Reply to a Question about Targeting Non-Combatants in War - October 07, 2006The spiritual center of Islamism is Iran, and the spiritual heads of Iran are the mullahs, imams, and teachers who call for strict adherence to the Koran and thus for the submission or murder of infidels (especially Israelis and Americans). These leaders should be our primary human targets; we should aim to kill as many of them as possible (all would be best) by bombing their mosques, madrassahs, and homes when they are most likely to be there. The unfortunate deaths of innocents (such as children) who would be killed in such an attack are the moral responsibility of those who embrace, advocate, or apologize for Islamism.(...)The preachers and teachers of Islamism are not innocent; they are guilty. And they are not merely legitimate targets; they are mandatory targets.(...)Today's military strategists do not understand the role of ideas in human life; if they did, they would realize that, in order to achieve our security, we must destroy (not pacify) those who call for death to America. The question of which people must be killed to put an end to the current assault on the West is a philosophic question, and the answer to it is: those who preach or teach the idea that infidels must submit or be killed.(...)In today's context, given the nature of the enemy, we need specifically to target, among other things, the intellectual leaders of the Islamist movement.As is abundantly clear, killing intellectuals (instead of refuting and debunking them) is a specific policy advocated by Biddle over several articles, so it cannot be alleged that this was a single instance of overreaction. Also, in addition to advocating killing intellectuals qua intellectuals, he advocates that blame for any deaths of innocent people that occur in killing these intellectuals is the fault of the intellectuals.Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Victor Pross Posted October 9, 2006 Author Share Posted October 9, 2006 (edited) Artist statement: I have been a pop [or commercial artist] for years now, and many times my "selectivity" is chosen by the client or art-director. However, I have developed a personal philosophy when it comes to my non-commissioned work. It is this: In my two articles—the lighter and dark side of caricature—I pointed out how I come to select subjects to be rendered in caricature. They could be people I esteem [light side of caricaturing] or detest [the dark side of caricature]. I am just as soon willing to caricature director Ron Howard as I would Hitler. I respect the first and abhor the other. Light and dark caricaturing here. But perhaps there is a third category: indifference. If you are not the subject of a caricature—by this artist—it may be attributable to a few reasons: 1. I don’t know you. 2. You didn’t commission me. 3. Or you are beneath contempt—totally insignificant to me. [“But I don’t think of you.”]If you are the subject of a dark satirical caricature—you are contemptuous, but you simply have a higher profile. Bit there are some people so unworthy of caricaturing, so utterly insignificant, that they are not worth the time or ink. That’s why I’ll never take the time to draw the New Kids on the Block. They are a big zero. VictorP.S. Dan, that’s not you in the picture. Don’t flatter yourself. Edited October 10, 2006 by Victor Pross Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Russell Posted October 10, 2006 Share Posted October 10, 2006 (edited) Victor, apparently the friendly folks at SLOP are obsessed with you. And, at least in the case of Mr Edge, suffer from delusions of grandeur. I must say that I'm more interested in the "lighter side" of your art. Why waste your creativity and talent on the likes of Perigo, Biddle and Hsieh? I'd like to see a caricature of someone you respect and admire. Ayn Rand? Mick Edited October 12, 2006 by Michael Russell Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Victor Pross Posted October 10, 2006 Author Share Posted October 10, 2006 Hi Mick,The folks at SLOP are obsessed with me? Apparently I’m obsessed with Hsieh, and that’s why I drew her in the buff. I have the hots for her, you know. I dream of her. But just don’t tell my girlfriend or it’ll be the permanent doghouse for me. She tends to look down on stuff like that. Yikes! Really, as to your question: I most certainly have a multitude of lighthearted caricatures. I have sent a batch to our very own Kat for posting, and they are, for the most part, purely for entertainment value and are not “ideology based”. This includes both graphite art and actual paintings. Victor Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Russell Posted October 10, 2006 Share Posted October 10, 2006 Victor: "I most certainly have a multitude of lighthearted caricatures. I have sent a batch to our very own Kat for posting, and they are, for the most part, purely for entertainment value and are not “ideology based”. This includes both graphite art and actual paintings."I'll look forward to viewing those caricatures when they are posted. I see from your website that you've done a caricature of one of my favorite writers, Charles Bukowski.Mick Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Victor Pross Posted October 10, 2006 Author Share Posted October 10, 2006 (edited) Mick, Yes, that’s right. In fact, I have completed two paintings of Buckowski. I am fascinated by the man—as both a ‘face’ and as an artist. One of my favorite films is Barfly. As you know, the one painting I have of him is clearly a caricature while the other is more “realistic”. You know, there are many people who feel that I am wasting my talent by painting caricatures—dark or light! [beside the people at SLOP;] They feel that I should only paint realistically. Of course, I disagree. When I am asked why I don’t paint “real people” my stock answer has always been “because I’m not a photographer.” This means that a painting should be representational, yes, but based on the artist’s interpretation and presented stylistically. By the way, the paintings are for sale: 2,750.00 [American]-- and that’s dirt cheap. Edited October 10, 2006 by Victor Pross Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CNA Posted October 10, 2006 Share Posted October 10, 2006 Oh, yeah, Diana is a real catch for any man, ain't she? She has so much to offer. She's just an absolute beauty and look at that body. Wow. Any other woman should be jealous. She's got so many men drooling all over her. WHATEVER. :sick: I think NOT. She only wishes. Be careful not to have kids with her, honey, as she might eat the young after birthing. YIKES Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Victor Pross Posted October 10, 2006 Author Share Posted October 10, 2006 Busted! It's the dog house! :puppeh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peri Posted October 10, 2006 Share Posted October 10, 2006 (edited) You two are too much. Victor, what's the obsession w/ Diana? I've never met her, or Angie for that matter, but if their photos are anything to go by.... Besides, Diana seems to have had her sense of humor surgically removed. Perhaps she never had one. Your latest artistic effort here is chilling and funny at the same time. Which makes sense, since Biddle's blather is aboslutely chilling as well. Question: is "Edge" Dan's real last name? Sounds like it's some sort of nickname, like he's a follower of U2, or something. This strikes me as odd, since U2 are certainly not Objectivists. Still, the name does not sound real. Then again, maybe my name doesn't sound real either. Bukowski: Have you seen "Factotum?" Has it played in Canada yet, and if it did, was it only in town for five minutes? Matt Dillon does a wonderful job. Don't know what it means philosophically to enjoy the kinds of characters Bukowski lived with, and was...No John Galts in Bukowski's milieu.I'd like to see more of your work--of people you actually like. Edited October 10, 2006 by Peri Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CNA Posted October 10, 2006 Share Posted October 10, 2006 Hi, Peri. I'm Angie. You can say now that we've met. I'm glad to see you here at OL as I think I've seen you over at Objectivism Online Forum, one of the sites I frequent but don't post. Are you on that site as well? You look familiar.I agree that it is pretty chilling and disturbing to say the least what Biddle and any "followers" are proposing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Victor Pross Posted October 10, 2006 Author Share Posted October 10, 2006 (edited) Peri, Funny that you should say Angie and I are too much—that’s the type of thing we say of each other! Angie mostly, but in a good way…I hope. Angie is a living doll, an absolutely beautiful creature --whereas Hiseh, as you can see, is merely a naked cartoon showering in a mushroom like bomb. I think the differences are very clear between the two women. Thank you for your remarks about the Biddle caricature. Funny and chilling is exactly the effect I was aiming for. But, as you have duly noted, the real chill is to be found in Biddle’s own words and you'll find that there is very little humor to be had. That's where I come in. I have no idea if Dan’s real last name is ‘Edge’ or not, but you make an interesting observation. It may be contrived, I don’t know. His assumption that I rendered him in the hell hole near a rat—his hope, even, that it was him—should say something of his psychology. Perhaps a few people at SLOP should look into it. No, I haven’t seen ‘Factotum’ yet. Do you recommend it? The posting of famous faces of people I mostly like [and a few I don’t] are in Kat’s hands. In many cases, it’s hard to tell the difference! Thanks! -Victor- Edited October 10, 2006 by Victor Pross Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CNA Posted October 10, 2006 Share Posted October 10, 2006 Thank you, Honey, yes, it is said in a very good way with the cute little giggles that go along with it. hehehehehehehe !! You know these giggles already I'm sure. Yeah, Diana is the nuclear fallout afterwards. LOL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rich Engle Posted October 10, 2006 Share Posted October 10, 2006 Interesting (not really) over on the SOLOP thread in question, long-timer "Marnee" posted this linkhttp://www.coxandforkum.com/archives/000953.html under the title "Coincidence." I guess the logic here is that since she found another caricature with skulls piled up in the background, she could work the Victor-as-plagiarist thing one mo' time, yes indeedy! Now, Victor-- have you been bad again? I don't suppose anyone other than Victor and I know that there are untold numbers of drawings, etchings, paintings, whatnot that use the sea of skulls thing as a background, right? But here's a caricature piece with a sea of skulls, therefore Victor has one too, therefore he lifted it. Hardly a smoking gun. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted October 10, 2006 Share Posted October 10, 2006 Rich,For the record, the date on the link you gave is October 8, 2006.I have an e-mail on file from September 30, 2006, from Victor with a preliminary version of the caricature with the sea of skulls.Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dragonfly Posted October 10, 2006 Share Posted October 10, 2006 I don't suppose anyone other than Victor and I know that there are untold numbers of drawings, etchings, paintings, whatnot that use the sea of skulls thing as a background, right? But here's a caricature piece with a sea of skulls, therefore Victor has one too, therefore he lifted it. Hardly a smoking gun.That Marnee character mustn't be too bright... Some 40 years ago I made already as a schoolboy a drawing with a sea of skulls as a background (perhaps I may find it somewhere in the attic, but that will be a Herculean task), so everyone who did something similar later has been plagiarizing me! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Victor Pross Posted October 10, 2006 Author Share Posted October 10, 2006 Whew! My ass is saved! Wow. It is a coincidence indeed. Golly, truly and honestly! Don't hunt me down! I'm not an advocate of murder! The use of skulls—especially a sea of them--is a universal trait indicating mass death and destruction. I am unaware of the drawing that has been posted, but certainly the use of skeletons has been used time and again to indicate a person calling for mass death. Come on, really. I was a little confused as to what the point was suppose to be when I saw the post--now it clicks. Talk about reaching for the bottom of the barrel to strike back. They’ll have to do better than that. It is an idea that comes easily to mind, but this is the first time I’m seeing this one. Putting a Hitler mustache on Biddle would have been another idea that comes to mind too, but I decided against that. Victor Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Victor Pross Posted October 10, 2006 Author Share Posted October 10, 2006 I hope nobody finds out that I can’t really draw, and that I actually trace my caricatures. Hee-hee!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dan_edge Posted October 10, 2006 Share Posted October 10, 2006 Question: is "Edge" Dan's real last name? Sounds like it's some sort of nickname, like he's a follower of U2, or something. This strikes me as odd, since U2 are certainly not Objectivists. Still, the name does not sound real. Then again, maybe my name doesn't sound real either.My god-given name is, in fact, Daniel Edge. "Edge" is an English name, I think, though I'm unsure of the origin.--Dan Edge Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rich Engle Posted October 10, 2006 Share Posted October 10, 2006 (edited) MSK- Oh yeah... Oct. 8. taken and noted!Victor- So, you obviously found where this guy lived and tumbled his studio to get that thing and steal off it. Now we can add "cat burglar" to your rap sheet! Tracing... blast it all! And here I was about to ask you if you wanted to do my album cover. Even though I wasn't going to pay you much or anything, I'm afraid I have to reconsider... Marnee (if this ever gets to you): Nyuk nyuk nyuk nyuk... you little knucklehead, you. rdeI'm watching you, sporty-pants-- oh, yes. Edited October 10, 2006 by Rich Engle Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Victor Pross Posted October 10, 2006 Author Share Posted October 10, 2006 Rich, All I can say is that I'm glad Marnee is not on my side. :angel: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Victor Pross Posted October 11, 2006 Author Share Posted October 11, 2006 Rich, I ran out of tracing paper. It’s time to learn how to paint and draw so I can do your CD cover. Any man who quotes Curley from the Three Stooges is my kind of guy. Victor Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peri Posted October 11, 2006 Share Posted October 11, 2006 Question: is "Edge" Dan's real last name? Sounds like it's some sort of nickname, like he's a follower of U2, or something. This strikes me as odd, since U2 are certainly not Objectivists. Still, the name does not sound real. Then again, maybe my name doesn't sound real either.My god-given name is, in fact, Daniel Edge. "Edge" is an English name, I think, though I'm unsure of the origin.--Dan EdgeOk, thanks! I'm sorry, I thought it was a monniker, or nom de guerre B) And I can't help thinking of U2's "The Edge" when I read it. Bet you get that a lot.Just like I've gotten crank calls and jokes about my name all my life. "Hey, sharp name, ha ha ha," as if they are the wittiest people in the world and I've never heard that joke before. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now