Newberry on youtube

[Jonathan]

Peeking in over at RoR, I see that Michael Newberry now has a youtube clip of an older presentation of his:

It's put together well, and in it, Michael is generally positive, but he seems to be operating under a double standard.

In the clip, Michael says that one of his goals is to "bring forth shimmering passion, not to wallow in despair." He says, "Many times I think that the world is not nice, nor beautiful," and, "I see many artists express pain, discontent and anger, and, though I understand it, it is not my way."

Yet in the clip he also explains that he was wracked by the deaths of people who were close to him, that he was then "emotionally frozen," and that he decided to do a series of drawings based on mourning. The drawings are the first examples shown in the clip's "shimmering passion" segment.

So, apparently when he deals with subjects such as pain, numbness, or the loss of loved ones in his art, he is not "wallowing" in unenlightened states but "finding solutions," but when other artists try to emotionally unfreeze themselves through their art, or try to deal with confusion, anger or despair in their lives (or as a part of the lives of all of mankind), they are "wallowing."

J

[Newberry]

What a nasty little piece.

For years, you have virtually never acknowledged my skill, fortitude, dedication, integrity, knowledge, passion, soaring figures, inventiveness, generosity, or scope.

Instead you have looked for any petty, fragile angle, holding on to it, forgetting yourself, forgetting where you are, forgetting the big picture–just looking for anything, no matter how microscopic, hoping to prove I am wrong about something.

There could be several reasons for this malignant behavior, such as the misguided hope that by taking down your betters you will rise above them. But, I think there are other explanations. If as an artist, a critic, writer, teacher I am on the right path–then for you as an artist to match me, you would have your work cut out for you. Perhaps, you haven’t worked your way through any aesthetic ideas. Perhaps, you are uncertain, never sure if an idea or a pastel mark is right or wrong. Perhaps, you are slow, or mediocre. Or perhaps, you love me, and think what I am doing is great, but, then, realize you don’t have a vision of your own–so to fight for your independence by rejecting everything I do.

If I am right about you, then you prefer to open your heart to enviousness and evil–taking down the good because they are good. The only real solution is to embrace truth, knowledge, and the good even if you did not originate them.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Hi Michael!

Michael

PS: Wonderful 10 minute video. Also, your work speaks to me and Jonathan's work speaks to me.

[BaalChatzaf]

Hi Michael!

Michael

PS: Wonderful 10 minute video. Also, your work speaks to me and Jonathan's work speaks to me.

Amen! I am no art maven but I can see major wit in Newberry's paintings. Very intelligent!

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Jonathan]

What a nasty little piece.

I think what's amusing about you, Michael, is that you can be quite a sassy little bitch while ripping into other artists and their aesthetic theories, and you seem to think that such behavior is very grand and heroic, but when someone offers the slightest little criticism of your views, you cry like a little pussy.

For years, you have virtually never acknowledged my skill, fortitude, dedication, integrity, knowledge, passion, soaring figures, inventiveness, generosity, or scope.

Well, I've usually figured that you've done enough acknowledging of your own virtues for the both of us. But, even at that, I've both publicly and privately praised your work many times, and I've even specifically praised your dedication and your passion for art and ideas, even though I've frequently disagreed with you. So, apparently your view that I "virtually never" acknowledge your virtues actually means that I've been critical of some of your ideas instead of offering nothing but praise.

Instead you have looked for any petty, fragile angle, holding on to it, forgetting yourself, forgetting where you are, forgetting the big picture–just looking for anything, no matter how microscopic, hoping to prove I am wrong about something.

Actually, I think that's closer in spirit to what you've been doing for years in regard to other artists. You rarely offer anything but negative comments when it comes to your contemporaries' art. I've suggested to you in the past that you might be more convincing if you were to focus at least some of your efforts on highlighting contemporary artists whose work you admire. You've very rarely done so - almost never. Most of your time online has been spent promoting yourself (and, occasionally, some of your students, which is really just another way of promoting yourself) while tearing down other artists.

It's as if art is a competition to you, and saying anything good about great contemporary artists would mean that you might not get every ounce of attention and glory that you crave.

There are thousands of wonderful contemporary artists whose work is shown in galleries all over the nation. It's positive in content, realistic in style, it sells at good prices, it's collected by enthusiastic patrons, and it's featured in many of the art magazines that are available in almost any bookstore in America, yet you like to give the impression that there are hardly any good artists in the world today other than you. Above, you claimed that I virtually never acknowledge your skill, fortitude, dedication, integrity, knowledge and passion. Well, when will you acknowledge the same virtues in your fellow artists? I mean, if you're really interested in inspiring people to appreciate great realist art, and not just your art, I'd think it would occur to you to regularly praise people other than Newberry (especially after I've suggested it to you a few times over the years).

And I don't think that it's "petty" for me to point out that you appear to operate under a double standard. Your notion that it's "shimmering passion" when you create art which deals with loss, numbness, confusion, devastation, etc., but it's "wallowing" when others do it, echoes a profound lack of generosity of spirit that I've seen in many of your past comments about those allegedly inferior others whose existence and artistic expressions you find so contemptible. It's as if you fail to recognize that other human beings are indeed human -- that their agonies, struggles and "solutions" are just as real and as meaningful to them as yours are to you. That's not a "petty" or "microscopic" issue.

There could be several reasons for this malignant behavior, such as the misguided hope that by taking down your betters you will rise above them. But, I think there are other explanations.

Thanks for speculating, but some of the actual reasons are my distaste for hypocrisy, for overbearing self-importance, for lack of empathy, and for your apparent attempts to degrade other artists to make yourself look good.

I've praised your work in the past and congratulated you when you've announced that you were moving or taking advantage of new opportunities, and I've also praised or defended quite a lot of other contemporary art that I love -- for some quick examples, just look in OL's art gallery for a few of the threads that I've started about other artists -- so I think it's pretty clear that I'm not driven by a desire to "take down" my "betters." Unlike you, I don't look at all other artists as my evil competitors. I love a hell of lot of art, and I have never been bashful about pointing the spotlight at other artists.

If as an artist, a critic, writer, teacher I am on the right path–then for you as an artist to match me, you would have your work cut out for you.

Well, that's what I've been talking about: the typically Newberrian way of putting things as if life and art are a competition. Newberry's life and accomplishments are large and wonderful. All other artists are lesser, their ideas are vile, and they can't match Newberry. When Newberry paints subject X, it is evidence of his righteousness and grandeur. When others paint subject X, it is evidence of their evil. It is heroic of Newberry to criticize other artists and their ideas. It is devious and vicious of others to criticize Newberry and his ideas. It's "fortitude, dedication, integrity, knowledge and passion" when Newberry shares his views. It's "malignant behavior" when others question his views.

Perhaps, you haven’t worked your way through any aesthetic ideas. Perhaps, you are uncertain, never sure if an idea or a pastel mark is right or wrong. Perhaps, you are slow, or mediocre. Or perhaps, you love me, and think what I am doing is great, but, then, realize you don’t have a vision of your own–so to fight for your independence by rejecting everything I do.

I haven't rejected everything that you do. I've usually just challenged some of your frantic, hasty appraisals of others and their art, questioned what appeared to be your hypocrisy, or mocked your arrogance.

If I am right about you, then you prefer to open your heart to enviousness and evil–taking down the good because they are good. The only real solution is to embrace truth, knowledge, and the good even if you did not originate them.

Yeah, I'm Darth Jonathan because I disagree with or question some of your views. You know, I think this discussion might be more worthwhile if you were to at least try to address the substance of my initial comments rather than just having feelings about them and then guessing at my psychology and motives based on your feelings.

J

Edited July 16, 2007 by Jonathan

[Newberry]

Jonathan,

Let’s sum up your judgment: I am frantic, hasty in my appraisals, arrogant, withhold credit to other artists, am malicious to wonderful contemporary artists, and a hypocrite.

This is gleaned from the following of your grotesquely unjust statements:

“You rarely offer anything but negative comments when it comes to your contemporaries' art. I've suggested to you in the past that you might be more convincing if you were to focus at least some of your efforts on highlighting contemporary artists whose work you admire.”

“...I'd think it would occur to you to regularly praise someone other than Newberry (especially after I've suggested it to you a few times over the years).”

“...I've seen in many of your past comments about those allegedly inferior others whose existence and artistic expressions you find so contemptible.”

“...some of the actual reasons are my distaste for hypocrisy, for overbearing self-importance, for lack of empathy, and for your apparent attempts to degrade other artists to make yourself look good.”

“I've usually just challenged some of your frantic, hasty appraisals of others and their art, questioned what appeared to be your hypocrisy, or mocked your arrogance.”

I think a few facts are in order.

In all of my articles, lectures, and presentations I go to great lengths to quote original sources, show works in question, and give reasons for my views. I have never minded discussing aesthetics in depth online or otherwise. I read Kant’s Critique of Judgment for over 20 years before I commented professionally and publicly on his aesthetics. Hasty, indeed.

In 2003, taking time away from my own work, I raised over $25,000 to hold an aesthetic conference in New York. There, my topic was about contemporary innovations of living artists–included were artists like John Moore,

http://images.artnet.com/artwork_images_52..._john-moore.jpg ARI’s Brian Larson http://www.cordair.com/larsen/youngbuilder.php , and many others. I have lectured a few more times on variations of that theme. I have also lectured on Heroism in Sculpture and brought that up to contemporary artists. On www.michaelnewberry.com I have created over 25 art tutorials, many of which demonstrate how great artists have mastered some aspect of art. Included there is a new series about great innovations in visual art. That project is in conjunction with philosopher, Stephen Hicks. There will be about 8 more installments covering such things as the Impressionists view of light, and contemporary developments in composition and triangulation of proportions. At the height of Solo, the Pandora’s Box Series was their most read series. In the last installment I devoted 1,500 words to the great contemporary masterpiece, Future in Our Hands, by Stewart Mark Feldman. Another artist I have unreserved respect for and have commented on both online and professionally is Martine Vaugel. In all my praise of artists contemporary or otherwise I focus on their innovations or brilliance. You call that stingy of credit?

I have balanced my criticism of wonderful achievements with a critical look at the postmodernist anti-artists. Jonathan, are these the people you believe deserve my empathy because they are human like everyone else?

Canned meatballs cooked in the artist's liposuction fat.

That leaves us with two more of Jonathan’s accusations; that I am a hypocrite and arrogant. Once in awhile it is cool to quote the dictionary, hypocrite: a person who pretends to have virtues, moral or religious beliefs, principles, etc., that he or she does not actually possess, esp. a person whose actions belie stated beliefs.

That is a pretty amazing thing to call me. A hypocrite. Especially by someone, I presume, prides them self on their humanity and empathy for people. So somewhere in the barge of lectures, articles, teaching– Jonathan’s take–I am not matching my actions to my beliefs, I guess he doesn’t included the thousand + artworks I have made so far. I could see that criticism leveled at some online poster whose real life doesn’t match the pretentiousness of their forum comments but in my case it isn’t even a stretch. Quite literally it is wishful thinking. So, if the accusation is so far from the mark, the opposite in fact, where is it coming from?

My guess is an artistic one. I always look for people’s psychological motives–it may not hold up well in a court of law or in a philosophy class, but you can’t make good art without it. When someone is so wide of the mark, you have got to look at where they are coming from. I don’t think Jonathan has a spark of light at his core, but an acrid fizzle of smoke.

Lastly, we come to arrogance. Bravo, Jonathan, that has a ring of truth about it. The difference between us is that I look for the facts that support a confidently arrogant person–God, I love them! You, on the other hand, don’t.

Michael

P.S. Truth or falsehood matter to me, so does justice. In the arts all value is interpreted–so you can chalk up my post here is as another interpretation.

Edited July 16, 2007 by Newberry

[Jonathan]

In 2003, taking time away from my own work, I raised over $25,000 to hold an aesthetic conference in New York. There, my topic was about contemporary innovations of living artists–included were artists like John Moore,

http://images.artnet.com/artwork_images_52..._john-moore.jpg ARI’s Brian Larson http://www.cordair.com/larsen/youngbuilder.php , and many others. I have lectured a few more times on variations of that theme. I have also lectured on Heroism in Sculpture and brought that up to contemporary artists.

I haven't attended any of your lectures, so my only knowledge of you has come from online discussions. In the years that I've known of you, the only contemporary artists I remember you praising, other than yourself, were Vaugel and Feldman, both sculptors, and I can't recall your ever having mentioned a contemporary painter in a positive light, other than yourself and one of your former students and her husband.

On www.michaelnewberry.com I have created over 25 art tutorials, many of which demonstrate how great artists have mastered some aspect of art. Included there is a new series about great innovations in visual art. That project is in conjunction with philosopher, Stephen Hicks. There will be about 8 more installments covering such things as the Impressionists view of light, and contemporary developments in composition and triangulation of proportions.

I didn't see any tutorials which mentioned any of your contemporaries (which is what I thought we were discussing).

At the height of Solo, the Pandora’s Box Series was their most read series. In the last installment I devoted 1,500 words to the great contemporary masterpiece, Future in Our Hands, by Stewart Mark Feldman. Another artist I have unreserved respect for and have commented on both online and professionally is Martine Vaugel. In all my praise of artists contemporary or otherwise I focus on their innovations or brilliance. You call that stingy of credit?

Yes, I woud call it stingy when considering all of the other words you've written in conversations which have implied that you believe that there are practically no great contemporary artists. But, if I've misunderstood you -- if you haven't been trying to create the illusion that there's an art crisis and an absence of great representational talent, that you and a handful of your students, pals and O'ists are the only ones left -- I'll be happy to alter my opinion. Do you agree that there are many great contemporary representational artists? Hundreds, thousands, maybe tens of thousands in the world today?

I have balanced my criticism of wonderful achievements with a critical look at the postmodernist anti-artists. Jonathan, are these the people you believe deserve my empathy because they are human like everyone else?

If your artistic explorations of loss, pain or emptiness are to be categorized as "shimmering passion," and not "wallowing," then I think that every artist's explorations deserve the same generosity.

Btw, speaking of hastiness, how many of the five installments did you see before reviewing the Cremaster Cycle? You only saw Cremaster 3, correct?

That leaves us with two more of Jonathan’s accusations; that I am a hypocrite and arrogant. Once in awhile it is cool to quote the dictionary, hypocrite: a person who pretends to have virtues, moral or religious beliefs, principles, etc., that he or she does not actually possess, esp. a person whose actions belie stated beliefs.

That is a pretty amazing thing to call me. A hypocrite. Especially by someone, I presume, prides them self on their humanity and empathy for people. So somewhere in the barge of lectures, articles, teaching– Jonathan’s take–I am not matching my actions to my beliefs, I guess he doesn’t included the thousand + artworks I have made so far. I could see that criticism leveled at some online poster whose real life doesn’t match the pretentiousness of their forum comments but in my case it isn’t even a stretch. Quite literally it is wishful thinking. So, if the accusation is so far from the mark, the opposite in fact, where is it coming from?

Someone who says, "I see many artists express pain, discontent and anger, and, though I understand it, it is not my way," yet he expresses pain, loss, numbness, confusion or devastation in his art, sounds hypocritical to me, especially when he categorizes his own expressions as "shimmering passion" and others' expressions as "wallowing" simply because he's decided to interpret them that way.

My guess is an artistic one. I always look for people’s psychological motives–it may not hold up well in a court of law or in a philosophy class, but you can’t make good art without it. When someone is so wide of the mark, you have got to look at where they are coming from. I don’t think Jonathan has a spark of light at his core, but an acrid fizzle of smoke.

I'm not at all surprised that you'd feel that way. It's perfectly consistent with your arrogance.

Lastly, we come to arrogance. Bravo, Jonathan, that has a ring of truth about it. The difference between us is that I look for the facts that support a confidently arrogant person–God, I love them! You, on the other hand, don’t.

Jeez, let's not forget about the coolness of going to the dictionary. Arrogant: Having or displaying a sense of overbearing self-worth or self-importance; marked by or arising from a feeling or assumption of one's superiority toward others.

I'm glad that we can agree that the definition has a ring of truth when applied to you.

J

[Newberry]

Jonathan,

I posted here to reply to your cheap shots with some significant facts. That has been done. Your ethical ideals for me, that I should be humble and that I should love 10,000 contemporary artists, isn’t going to happen. But you are more than welcome to be humble and love every artist everywhere, accept, of course, for me. I have obviously taken up way too much of your time, especially if you plan on reviewing and praising 10,000 artists, it is a big job, what are you waiting for? Go get’em guy.

Michael

[Jonathan]

Jonathan,

I posted here to reply to your cheap shots with some significant facts. That has been done. Your ethical ideals for me, that I should be humble and that I should love 10,000 contemporary artists, isn’t going to happen.

I haven't said that you should be "humble." I've said that you seem to apply one standard to your own work and another to the art that you frantically and hastily judge to be bad or evil. (Btw, a belated thanks for posting the image of Matthew Barney, reminding me that your review of his Cremaster Cycle was a perfect example of your frantic haste in judging art. Good timing.)

Pointing out that someone appears to be arrogantly hypocritical about something isn't the same thing as expecting him to be humble. I think it would be nice if you were to be fair and consistent, but not humble.

But you are more than welcome to be humble and love every artist everywhere, accept, of course, for me.

I'm glad you put the smiley there, because you know that I enjoy some of your work.

I have obviously taken up way too much of your time, especially if you plan on reviewing and praising 10,000 artists, it is a big job, what are you waiting for? Go get’em guy.

I wasn't planning on reviewing and praising 10,000 artists, nor was I expecting you to do so. I was simply interested in seeing if you were capable yet of acknowledging that there are many great living representational artists, along the lines of hundreds, thousands or maybe tens of thousands in a population of 6,600,000,000. It seems that I was right that you actually believe -- and that you want others to believe it as well -- that you and a very short list of others are pretty much the only good representational artists in existence.

Would you mind narrowing it down further? How about "dozens"? Would you feel comfortable agreeing that there are dozens of representational artists living in the world whose work is as good or, in some ways, better (gasp!) than Newberry's? Or is that still too many?

J

[Newberry]

Jonathan,

You're just like my mom.

Michael

[Jonathan]

Michael,

If you're implying that I'm drunken and promiscuous, shame on you.

J

[Newberry]

No, not that, she is great and all, at least until her insecurity buttons are pushed.

[Brant Gaede]

I just discovered this thead. Newberry's a great talent! I'd pay serious money for this quality work and I probably will, eventually!

--Brant

[Jonathan]

Michael,

The fact that you posted the image of Matthew Barney in this discussion is perplexing to me. It has me curious again about why you would write an article about a work of art that you had only seen a part of. Would you mind explaining? I really don't get it.

I'm also wondering about the final paragraph of your article.

You wrote, "In a spirit of goodwill towards humanity, it would be fantastic if curators and critics would reevaluate the meaning of postmodern aesthetics in light of human values; and, then, perhaps, we would see more than “blarney” at the Guggenheim. But then, they didn't assume the position of mounting postmodern art by using reason and values."

The obvious question is, how would you know which values or meanings that curators should reevaluate when you haven't seen the art work that you're complaining about?

But I was actually interested in a less obvious question: Are you saying that you're a big fan of Kandinsky, and that the Guggenheim's curators dishonor his memory by showing films in a museum whose original purpose was to display his non-objective paintings?

Also, do you go to hip-hop clubs and get upset that hip-hop is performed there? Do you visit Chinese restaurants and expect to be able to order Mexican food?

J

[Newberry]

Dear Jonathan,

I wonder how far a field you will go and refuse to see. You are not interested in the truth, falsehood, value, or benevolence. You are not interested in understanding how romanticism works in the arts. You are not interested in questioning your motives. You are not interested in being transparent. You are not interested in embracing substance. And, I don’t think that you are interested in being good.

Perhaps you are engaging me in the hope that I will save you from yourself? I know you are not interested in the substance of my replies. I know that none of your continued queries are in good faith. Perhaps, you don’t know what good faith is, or how it works? But, I know you have no wish to understand.

I think that you have opened your heart to envy. And that is something you share with postmodernists. Envy is the psychological expression of an anti-value mentality.

If so, I don’t know what you can do about it, especially if you do not like being that way. And, I guess if you like being that way, embrace it for everything it is worth. I know the exact value of that.

Michael

Edited July 20, 2007 by Newberry

[Jonathan]

I wonder how far a field you will go and refuse to see. You are not interested in the truth, falsehood, value, or benevolence. You are not interested in understanding how romanticism works in the arts. You are not interested in questioning your motives. You are not interested in being transparent. You are not interested in embracing substance. And, I don’t think that you are interested in being good.

You're dodging the questions. Do you think that you were being good, truthful, benevolent, open to questioning your motives, and interested in embracing substance by judging a work of art without having seen it?

Perhaps you are engaging me in the hope that I will save you from yourself?

Um, no. I usually don't hope to be saved by a person who writes articles in which he tries to deceive his readers into believing that he's seen a work of art that he hasn't.

I know you are not interested in the substance of my replies.

I'm still waiting for some substance in your replies -- something which actually supports your position instead of helping to support mine, and something which focuses on the questions that I've asked rather than on how evil and envious I must be for asking them. I'm eager to hear the substance of your explanation as to how your reviewing a work of art without having seen it is virtuous.

I know that none of your continued queries are in good faith. Perhaps, you don’t know what good faith is, or how it works? But, I know you have no wish to understand.

But I really do want to understand. That's why I'm asking. I'm trying to give you the benefit of the doubt. I don't grasp how your attacking a work of art which you're only seen a part of is an act of "good faith."

I think that you have opened your heart to envy. And that is something you share with postmodernists. Envy is the psychological expression of an anti-value mentality.

I'm not so envious of anything that I'd write an attack review of it without having seen it.

If so, I don’t know what you can do about it, especially if you do not like being that way. And, I guess if you like being that way, embrace it for everything it is worth. I know the exact value of that.

Man, I hate to say it, but your entire last post just sounds like crazy-talk to me. If you're going to end up in a straight jacket drooling on yourself and swallowing your own tongue, I'll withdraw my questions.

J

Edited July 21, 2007 by Jonathan

[Newberry]

I do have a s[r]teak of black humor and, Jonathan, you amuse me.

I did, indeed, view in person the Barney exhibition at the Guggenheim, and spent about 2 1/2 hours there reviewing everything exhibited in the Museum’s galleries, and I saw the entire video I specifically commented on. There were four other videos not shown at the time I was there.

All of the Museum reviews I have written have been based on first hand observation of the exhibitions.

Again, this leaves me simply thinking about your motives. Why do you care so much about what I think about art? What is it to you that I am proud about my life and work? Why do you wrongly attack me, and consequently put yourself into such a silly position?

One thing I find kind of fun and interesting is how you have responded to my manifesto. Why don’t you create one your own? You are an artist, aren’t you? Or is it only a hobby? You don’t mind putting your deepest wishes and desires out there? And you won’t mind backing them up with a body of work? The idea doesn’t scare you, does it? After all, it is not about me, it is all about you. You can put yourself out there, alone and naked–just between you and the Universe. Perhaps, I am rushing you too much? You might care what 10,000 artists think about? You may not be sure of yourself? You might have already tried it without success? You might be weighed down with non-art responsibilities?

That is okay Jonathan, art is not easy...but, I would get along better with you if you showed respect, and if that is not possible, perhaps you could create a little earthwork out of mud and sit in it?

Michael

Edited July 21, 2007 by Newberry

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

(Humorous interlude.)

I do have a steak of black humor...

I have had Black Angus, but not Humor...

I wonder what whine goes with it.

Michael

(PS. Oops... I just saw something... No criticism to anyone is implied here. Just horsing around with the typo and pun.)

[Roger Bissell]

(Humorous interlude.)

I do have a steak of black humor...

I have had Black Angus, but not Humor...

I wonder what whine goes with it.

Michael

(PS. Oops... I just saw something... No criticism to anyone is implied here. Just horsing around with the typo and pun.)

So now it's horse meat, Michael? Does this mean you're done eating crow?

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Roger,

LOL...

Nope. Still scarfing crow. It's a big mother to choke down.

Michael

[Newberry]

typos can be so annoying, especially when one is being serious.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Michael,

Just out of curiosity (and this is a serious question), what on earth are you and Jonathan doing?

A postmodern play or something?

(OK. That last question was a wisecrack.)

I don't think anyone reading all this can take sides. I know I love the work of you both and I have learned a lot from you both.

EDIT: I direct this same post to Jonathan.

Michael

[Jonathan]

I did, indeed, view in person the Barney exhibition at the Guggenheim, and spent about 2 1/2 hours there reviewing everything exhibited in the Museum’s galleries, and I saw the entire video I specifically commented on. There were four other videos not shown at the time I was there.

All of the Museum reviews I have written have been based on first hand observation of the exhibitions.

The point is that you didn't view the Cremaster Cycle as a complete work of art -- as a whole -- and apparently you didn't think that you needed to before trashing it. God, I can't even begin to imagine what a shrill drama queen and a deeply wounded victim of envious evil-doers you'd be if someone were to do the same thing to you.

Again, this leaves me simply thinking about your motives.

You want motives? We've had conversations in the past where you've asserted that if something is included in a work of art, it takes on metaphysical significance; if an artist includes pain, deformity, unhappiness, emptiness, ugliness, etc., in his art, then that's his view of existence, he's saying that mankind will never be whole, and that he was put on earth to suffer, etc.; that's the artist's sense of life, his view of the essence of existence.

With that in mind, can you understand why I would question why your inclusion of pain or emptiness in works of art is categorized as "shimmering passion"?

Why do you care so much about what I think about art?

I'm commenting on art and ideas just as you do. That I sometimes comment on your views is no different from the fact that you comment on someone else's views. It's rather precious that you would assume that I'm fixated on you, or cyber-stalking you or whatever, but the truth is that I'm interested in ideas about art, and I think yours are often confused, which means that I'm going to comment on them when I think they're particularly goofy or seemingly self-contradictory.

Why do you care so much about what others think about art? Why do you go to a museum that everyone knows was established for the purpose of displaying a type of art that you hate, and then, after viewing a part of a very large, complex work of art, you offer up an article griping that the art, the curators, critics and the museum are not what you want them to be? I mean, seriously, why not go to a hip-hop club, listen to a part of a song, and then write an article complaining that, if you had listened to it in its entirety, you're sure that the song would have been incomprehensible or evil, and, damn it, the club should be putting string quartets on stage instead of hip-hop artists?

Is the idea that it's heroic for you to do such things, and to do them very arrogantly and publicly, but it's incomprehensible to you that someone else (like me) would comment on it?

You comment on art and others' views on art. Why is it surprising to you that I would comment on art and others' views on art, including yours?

One thing I find kind of fun and interesting is how you have responded to my manifesto.

I responded positively to your manifesto. I said that it was put together well and that you were generally positive in the clip, even though my primary purpose in starting this thread was not to comment on your manifesto, but on your apparent hypocrisy. That the hypocrisy was included in the manifesto doesn't mean that I was going after your manifesto.

J

Edited July 22, 2007 by Jonathan

[Jonathan]

I don't think anyone reading all this can take sides.

What? Not take sides? How un-Objectivist!!

J

[Newberry]

Michael,

Just out of curiosity (and this is a serious question), what on earth are you and Jonathan doing?

I have just now seen your response.

"What am I doing?" ...telling a pretentious amateur to take a hike?

I don't think anyone reading all this can take sides.

Michael, that is a very strange conclusion. You have an anonymous poster, who you don't know anything about other than what they post. And you have someone who is open, transparent, and acts on his ideas for all to see-- a fundamental difference. But, perhaps, your inability to judge lies in that you might equate the values of posting and acts? For example, a known scholar, philosopher, or professional writer or novelist is not the same as a anonymous forum poster. A professional artist is not a hobbiest with his finger on the "send" button.

The best course of action when one has trouble choosing and judging people and events is to collect relevant facts. But, if one only thinks that ideas are all what matters they will then have a great deal of trouble giving value to actions. Though, especially with objectivists, I would think they would tip the hat to the one that integrates ideas and actions--consequently, it would pretty much leave an anonymous poster out of meaningful consideration.

And I guarantee you that doers that take ideas seriously don't take armchair posters as serious.

Michael