Biddle in Battle!


Victor Pross

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 88
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Okay, so Victor is giving Hsieh the impression that he is creepily obsessed with her, and now we learn that not only did Victor plagiarize the piles-of-skulls idea, but he probably burglarized the Cox & Forkum studio to do so. Plus he's Canadian, and as we all know, Objectivism holds that the safety and rights of any one American outweigh the rights of all foreigners combined. So I think this all adds up to Victor's behavior meeting the Biddle Standard ("anything that we so much as feel might conceivably pose even a remote threat"). Clearly the Proper Objectivist thing to do is to advocate destroying Toronto with nuclear weapons.

J

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Since nudity became such an issue with this caricature, I found a very interesting article on nudity at another forum that deals with Objectivism. It appears that total nudity has strong biological benefits. And males find it very becoming for females.

If you look at the issue through this lens, Victor actually paid a compliment to his lampooned subject.

Here is the link:

Of Love, Nakedness, and Long Life

WARNING:

Marilyn is shown completely in the nude!

This article might not be judged suitable for an Objectivist site!

Not for all readers!

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don’t laugh, Jonathan...some of the more pointed headed “intellectuals” would be able to construct such a justification to do just exactly that—attack Canada--from their assemble-Lego intellects by mixing and connecting obtuse abstractions and finally affixing the name “Objectivism” onto it…you know…for a moral sanction and presto! You have the green-light to vent whatever junk-heap ugly baggage psychology in the name of “justice.” Never underestimate the degree for rationalizations, my friend. There is a lot of things one can justify in the name of morality...or Objectivism. Murder is one of them.

edit: There are some who have chosen to be “offended” at the nudity in the rendering and are, very strangely, completely missing out on what IS truly ugly and offensive: killing.

Edited by Victor Pross
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have become aware of the fact that my previous post could be misunderstood.

The link given in it is to a satirical article by Reginald Firehammer and the photo in the article is given below. I have no doubt Firehammer would not approve of the caricature, given the harsh anti-Muslim stance promoted on his site, so this was not done with his knowledge or participation. (I haven't had any contact with him for a long time.)

The photo is of an animal called a Naked Mole-Rat. The rat's name is Marylin. This was a joke. I apologize to anyone who did not click on the link and discover this, thinking that I was endorsing pornography.

mole_rat_02.jpg

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh yeah, I would rather see this picture than Jessica Simpson in the buff! Oh, baby! :hyper:

People’s value systems are out of whack. It must be a puritan element that is still ingrained in the American spirit—Objectivists included. Take a lesson from the ancient Greeks, folks, on the subject of nudity.

Edited by Victor Pross
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like the idea that there's an Objectivist caricaturist out there hard at work. Of course, I don't much see the justice of the current one.

Still, bring'em on! :devil: And when is it my turn?! I must've done something to piss off Victor. :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mike,

Oh, it's so adorable for a naked mole rat that is. Yikes. Don't laugh, Mike, I clicked on the link way earlier while I was eating and almost spit my food out. Not the prettiest thing to be looking at when you're eating and it quite surprised me and my tummy. :blink: :sick:

I'm quite surprised that so many would be offended by a little nudity as in comparison to what is depicted in Victor's caricature and that is death. They took more offense to nudity than to death. Quite amazing and their reaction to it I've found to be quite interesting to say the least.

Andre, you gotta wait in line, man. I got dibs next but something cute I hope. hehehehehehe !!

Victor, honey, when will you do mine? I think you have enough of me and know me well enough to get a pretty good idea by now, don't you think?

Angie

Edited by CNA
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm just making a general statement here. In regards to passing judgment on someone *I* do not know *personally*, I do not need to refute or even attack anyone's ideas. If they believe that I have to know them *personally*, I've got news for you: I do not need to know you personally. You've put yourself out there enough over the years for anyone to pass judgment on you. All I have to do is read your posts, your blog, your behavior, and how you ultimately conduct yourself, and the ideas that you hold in order to pass judgment on you or any other individual out there.

Angie

Edited by CNA
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Victor, honey, when will you do mine? I think you have enough of me and know me well enough to get a pretty good idea by now, don't you think?

You see, this is why I became an artist. I wanted to be able to say to beautiful women, 'hey, would you like to see my etchings?' :cool:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Victor, honey, when will you do mine? I think you have enough of me and know me well enough to get a pretty good idea by now, don't you think?

Sweetie, I would be happy to paint or draw your portrait…something tasteful and beautiful. I could do something just a little alluring…maybe looking over a bare shoulder coyly at the viewer—but nothing dirty. This is a God fearing-church going family site now…don’t want any of that pagan filth around here. :ike:

Edited by Victor Pross
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have just spent the better part of two days worth of posting on SOLO Passion [see text below] objecting to (and defending myself for having objected to) what I saw as the needless reference on that list to "Wading over to the cesspool of Objectivist Lying." The post listed there could have addressed the topic with which it dealt on its own merits, without the gratuitous abuse. Now I find this "caricature" and so much effort and so many words expended on it posted here. I have my own disagreements with the principals pictured in this juvenile picture. I will gladly challenge Diana Hsieh, but don't see the point of mocking her looks. I understand philosophical disagreement, and even personal animosity, although I find the latter tragic (when no coercion is involved) and not in itself a sign of virtue. Since I would be a hypocrite to witness this wasted effort here, and not object in the same way that I did on SOLO, I am making this post. I must ask, is not this cliquish behavior and this "caricature" (which has none of redeeming values of the graffiti one finds in urban ghettos) not beneath people who have reached puberty? So the posters to these two lists have reason to despise each other. I wasn't here, and so do not have basis upon which to take sides. But wasting one's time attacking those who are supposedly below one's contempt seems a bit second-handed to me. So long as I am welcome, I will post my own original ideas wherever they find an audience. I must say that I do not sanction so much effort spent attacking someone whom one can simply ignore.

And I happen to love mole-rats, and think they're cute.

Ted Keer, 12 October, 2006, NYC

FROM SOLO:

What a Difference a Decade makes...

Submitted by Ted Keer on Tue, 2006-10-10 23:29.

Less than years ten ago many of the people posting on this list, or Rebirth of Reason, or Objectivist Living were all posting on Kirez Korgan's Objectivism list out of Cornell University. The list was moderated yet still very animated. I do understand that certain people have fallings out, and that having more than one list up on the internet is not only understandable, but to be expected. But posting criticisms here about comments made there, and vice versa, seems so much like the cattish behavior of 12 year olds. Merely signing up on another list is not the same as donating money to that list, or to al q*ida. One need not agree with anything on that list in order to be allowed to post there, just be civil. So-called objectivists refusing to walk on the same side of the street as other so-called objectivists reminds me of the behavior of middle-school cliques, trotskites vs leninist marxists, and certain messianic Jewish sects found in Brooklyn. I belong to all three lists, and annoy and am annoyed by, and enjoy and am enjoyed by just as many on each.

Ted

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quotes regarding my caricature work. :)

“I must ask, is not this cliquish behavior and this 'caricature' (which has none of redeeming values of the graffiti one finds in urban ghettos) not beneath people who have reached puberty?”

Ted Kerr

“Renderings of a Disturbed Mind. Both movies A Beautiful Mind and Suspect Zero featured creative people with disturbed brains sketching even more disturbing works of art as their interpretations of reality. This sketch from Pross brought the film events to mind for me. Whether he is actually a paranoid schizophrenic I will leave to a medical expert to diagnose.”

Luke Setzer

“The caricature of Craig is revoltingly dishonest, but expected. I wasn't even surprised to see myself in the drawing... but naked?!? Victor is looking more like an scary obsessed creep with every passing month. Bravo! You really should be mighty proud of such an accomplishment.”

Diana Hsieh

“I'm slightly embarrassed to look at it. I seriously feel like I've seen a drawing from a therapy session. It makes me cringe.”

William N. Green

“It's not as if Linz [Lindsay Perigo] was drawn by Al Hirschfeld, THAT would have been an honor.”

Joe Maurone

“Linz [Lindsay Perigo] should be flattered. It's probably a good general rule that you are not anybody until you've been caricatured.”

Fred Weiss

"Victor is a psycho."

Lindsay Perigo

"The caricature portrayed Diana, one of Pross' plagiarees, whose good opinion Pross not so long ago avidly sought in a manner that verged on stalking, in the nude. Nudity doesn't bother me at all, but in this context it was super-creepy."

Lindsay Perigo

"I don't really care that Victor portrayed Diana in the nude. He's definitely not a psychopath and he really isn't obsessed with Diana…a cheap shot at Diana and I can understand if she is somewhat offended.

I completely disagree with his attacks on Linz, Biddle, Diana and SOLO. Victor has always been controversial…”

Wayne Simmons

** :turned: keep em' coming!

Edited by Victor Pross
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ted,

For your information, I don't post on SOLOP because I am banned there (my swan song if you are interested) and so is Kat, although Perigo is not banned here. (I would not want him to show up, ever, but he is not banned.) Kat and I do post on RoR from time to time (me more than her right now).

My real problem has been with bowing to authority, especially to big frogs in tiny, tiny ponds. I find it hard to let someone important arbitrarily tell me what to think, so imagine how I am with the less expressive. Those who insist on trying to control my thinking go crazy with me after a while.

For some darn reason, that always happens well before the disrespect sets in.

I'll get to the other stuff later.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I find it interesting that I as well as many others on here are being criticized for our statements when SOLO and others are guilty as hell of a lot worse and this has been well documented over a long period of time. SOLO does not have a favorable reputation not only on this site but on many others. It is only obvious that SOLO does not care for OL and vice versa. I am not using this as an excuse for my remarks. I take full responsibility for it. But the huge difference with me is I really don't care how others on SOLO view me or if anyone else talks trash for that matter. I think it is utterly hilarious. Why? Because they think they can do some type of damage to me either by talking their own trash and saying I'm soooo immature and desparately need to grow up to downright bashing someone over the head as if my *self-esteem* depends on *their* view of me. I really couldn't give a shit as to what others say about me. So with that said, I find it very interesting that my remarks have been taken so personally by others.

Angie

I also wanted to make a note of something that Ted has made known his *objection* to throwing insults at people and is against it but in the same breathe and same paragraph he himself throws his own insults. Hmmm....I found that very interesting.

Edited by CNA
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I’m with you, honey, that’s why I posted those quotes above.

I suppose these words were designed to cut me—as if I have thin skin—and make me walk away licking my wounds. Lordy, lordy. I have been a professional ‘parody painter’ who has lampooned many worthy targets and every time one of them bitched, I knew I hit my target. I did my job and I did it well. I am proud--proud as Howard Roark--and just as indifferent to those who trashed his work and him personally. Really I am.

Little do my quivering lip tissue-thin subjects realize is that, in this case, I actually held back in those caricature renderings seen here at OL. You should see me when I’m actually angry!

You may find yourself one day the subject of an actual acerbic caricature...instead of the child’s play here. :devil:

Victor

Edited by Victor Pross
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ted, I agree with you that much too much time is spent posting and discussing comments made on other forums. Once in a long while, it may be quite reasonable to do so, as when another forum that is read by many Objectivists misrepresents the views or actions of a member of Objectivist Living or presents a purportedly Objectivist view that is important enough to be discussed and perhaps refuted.. But -- Victor -- I see no point whatever in listing the insults against you on another forum; you merely grant importance to those insults. Nor do I see the point in anyone barraging this list with insults directed against other lists.; to say that "they" do it to us is not a reason..

On another subject, some of you have completely misunderstood why some people-- myself included -- have objected to the portrayal of Diana Hsieh as nude. It has nothing to do with an artist's right to do as he wishes; it is really necessary to say to Objectivists that this is not being contested? Nor has it anything to do with prudishness or any sort of animus against nudity per se. It has to do with the offensiveness of attempting to satirize someone's ideas by removing their clothes. What possible valid purpose can that serve? It may embarrass or humiliate the person so portrayed, but it surely will not convince anyone of anything. The portrayal of Biddle and his book title amid a sea of corpses communicates something; the portryal of a naked Hseih communicates nothing.

Barbara

Because this issue of nudity is discussed in "The Lepers of Objectivism" thread, I'll also post my last paragraph there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you treat your fellow posters as fellow human beings you'll avoid the trap I fell into last Fall when I animadverted on Barbara on SOLOP. People are not words upon a computer screen. Barbara knew Ayn Rand as a human being. James Valliant knew her--?? Really, not at all. Barbara Branden gives us Ayn Rand the human being, however it might be an imperfect rendition--and it had to be, everything considered, for anybody--and that simple but powerful message transcends all the thinking about how Ayn Rand was without the hard grounding from those who actually knew and interacted with this genius. My interaction was minor compared to Barbara's, but her rendition essentially rings true considering what I too knew first hand. And I want to share with you all what I know about Ayn Rand from first-hand interaction: Ayn Rand created a great philosophy and tried with all her might to make it work to the point of personal sacrifice, but she didn't know it wasn't enough for she didn't know enough about a human's human being, including her own. The imbalance that can happen to genius.

The essential reason I fell out with Barbara is I reduced her to the words I read on my computer screen. The essential reason certain people can idolize Ayn Rand is to make her a caricature reflection of what they imagine her philosophy was by reading her books: perfect. They won't succeed, thanks to Barbara.

--Brant

Edited by Brant Gaede
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Barbara,

I do understand your objection. And I respect you for speaking your mind on the issue. And judging the work purely from the basis of “selectivity” you may very well have a point: Biddle is the focus of the rendering. If you wish to discuss the principles of aesthetics and selectivity and theme and such, I’m game. I would benefit greatly as an artist from such a conversation. But I disagree with the issue of any objections regarding “obscenity” --which is merely a subjective term in this context. Let’s leave that rubber term at the door, please. It’s a nothing word to me when it comes to art.

Looking at it from the artist’s perspective, if I worried about who might be offended [or who may not be offended] by one of my caricatures—meant to satirize in the first place—then I would be paralyzed before the blank sheet of paper or canvas. I can’t create wondering if the viewing audience has the thin skin of a suburban Shriner or the roughness of a tattooed sailor. I don’t care.

Listen, if the issue of so-called “obscenity” where the focus to move forward or not, I wouldn’t be in business at all--and I hardly think that Biddle himself is pleased as pink punch being portrayed as a murderous bigot! And I’m sure that he and his defenders consider the caricature obscene, don’t you think? But I don’t care. Obscenity is simply not an issue to me when caricaturing --and it never will be. It is the death of a caricature artist.

What’s more, I need to be brutally honest: I don’t care if Diana was offended or humiliated by the rendering. I am as indifferent to her feelings as she was to mine when hurling her insults—prior to this caricature. There, I have said it. I don’t care. In fact, her remarks regarding it actually made my insides warm like a hot toddy. However, it is true that I find her abhorrent—and I may very well do a caricature of her that speaks to that, but fully clothed, and it will be such that she'll prefer the Biddle caricature. If I am inspired to render a “dark caricature”—you best believe that I sincerely consider them deserved targets. I also happen to believe that any objections to my caricatures come from a minority. It’s the silent majority that is getting a blast out of it.

But if you are concerned about the issue of obscenity: My caricature is exposing the actual obscenity, which happens to be, by the way, um, the topic of this thread: genocide. Let’s all get back to that, shall we? In the realm of ideas, there are things I consider obscene--and I will express myself as *I* see fit to expose it.

Victor

Edited by Victor Pross
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Since I laid the claim towards Ted of what I saw as a hypocrisy, I figured I needed to back it up so I am making this post of the insults being thrown that I noted from him, although he was objecting to this type of behavior by others.

I put in asterisks areas that are obvious to me. I will do this with certain words where he is objecting and then also doing this with the areas where he is throwing insults himself.

Ted states:

I have just spent the better part of two days worth of posting on SOLO Passion [see text below] **objecting** to (and defending myself for having objected to) what I saw as the **needless** reference on that list to **"Wading over to the cesspool of Objectivist Lying."** The post listed there could have addressed the topic with which it dealt on its own merits, without the **gratuitous abuse.** Now I find this "caricature" and so much effort and so many words expended on it posted here. I have **my own disagreements** with the principals pictured in this **juvenile picture.** (The latter words in asterisks is the first mild insult.)

Ted then states:

Since I would be a hypocrite to witness this wasted effort here, and not object in the same way that I did on SOLO, I am making this post.

Ted then states:

I must ask, is not this cliquish behavior and this **"caricature"** (Victor's professional work, yes, he is considered a Professional) (which has none of redeeming **values of the graffiti one finds in urban ghettos)** (second insult but a little more boldly) **not beneath people who have reached puberty?** (third insult more boldly put)

Ted then states:

But wasting one's time attacking those who are supposedly below one's contempt **seems a bit second-handed to me.** (another insult thrown towards myself, Michael, Victor, and anyone else who has expressed their dislike. But Ted is complaining that it is a waste of time to do this; ie, throw insults but then Ted himself at the end of that sentence calls myself, Victor, Mike, and anyone else who has expressed their dislike as being second handers.)

Ted then states:

I must say that I **do not sanction** so much effort spent **attacking** someone whom one can simply ignore. (Ted doesn't sanction attacking someone and throwing insults but he himself has just attacked all of us but it is done in a more subtle way.)

Aslo take note what I've posted here and Ted's objecting to throwing insults and then read Barbara's post. Barbara is OBJECTING but no insults are thrown in any way towards anyone at all.

Ted should keep his own house in order before pointing fingers.

Angie

Just defending myself, Victor, Mike, and anyone else that has expressed their views sometimes harshly for Diana and Company.

Edited by CNA
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ted,

I said I would get to the other stuff later. With that in mind, I just reread your post here - but on another forum first. I'm not complaining, though. Please feel free to post wherever you wish. I have no objection at all.

If you have a subject someday you would like to discuss with me, I will be glad to hear it. As for this post, I don't know how to respond to it because I don't know what to make of it.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Michael, Kat -- help! Victor and I are leaping from thread to thread because a discussion of his caricature is going on in more than one thread. I suppose I must post here what I just posted on "The Lepers of Objectivism" in response to Victor.

Victor, your post, which supposedly is a response to me, is extremely confusing. I don''t know who you're defending yourself against, beause it is not directed at anything I said.

You wrote:"But I disagree with the issue of any objections regarding 'obscenity' --which is merely a subjective term in this context. Let's leave that rubber term at the door, please." You then proceed to discuss obscenity as if you hadn't said it, and if you were responding to something I said. But I was very careful to say that my objection had "nothing to do with prudishness or any sort of animus against nudity per se."

Nor did I say that you shoold not humiliate or rembarrass Hsieh. or That you ought to care about her feelings, or that she doesn't deserve to be caricatured. I wrote "It has to do with the offensiveness of attempting to satirize someone's ideas by removing their clothes. What possible valid purpose can that serve?"

You wrote that if you worried about who might be offended by one of your caricatures, you'd be paralyzed. But I did not say you should be concerned with that.

You wrote that criticisms of your caricatures come from a minority. What has that to do with my criticism? Are you suggesting that I should I be concerned with whether or not a majority will agree wiuth me?

You imply that I am attempting to censor you when you write, in a post directed to me, "I will express myself as 'I' see fit."

I have no idea how to answer your post, nor little inclination to do so, since it does not address anything I wrote.

And please, do not now suggest that I consider you a monster for creating a caricature that I believe was in part a mistake -- or that I am denouncing you as an artist -- or that I have appointed myself the editor of your work.

Barbara

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now