Schipperheyn's Thus Spoke Zarathustra

[Wolf DeVoon]

5. I happen to agree with Wolf on one point: despite the fact that there are many gay Objectivists (and Objectivism-friendly people), Rand's express opinion was strongly against homosexuality. To pretend otherwise is not accurate.

6. I disagree with Wolf on his opinion of gay people, which I discern between the lines—and please correct me if I am wrong...

8. I believe Wolf likewise goes beyond a simple bias or homophobia. Rand took the metaphysical idea of male being biologically stronger than female, the penetrator, etc., as a premise and extended it to justify her view that a woman president would by necessity have a flawed, therefore suspect, psychology. In this sense, Rand thought that men and women had a different metaphysical nature.

I have seen this approach extended in Wolf's work to the point of him claiming that men and women have different moral natures. It's novel and something to think about. Since ethics rests on metaphysics and epistemology, if the different metaphysical nature premise is accepted, his conclusion about different moral natures is a perfectly logical extension. This inevitably, by a logical extension from the premise, falls off into objecting to homosexuality on philosophical grounds. I think the issue is more complex and such a conclusions rests on an oversimplified view of human nature, but this is also for another discussion...

10. I get the impression (and please correct me if I am wrong) that Wolf's real objection in this discussion is not against homosexuals per se, not even against Michael as a person or artist, but against the idea of presenting Romantic art in a form that might display homoerotic nuances and claiming intellectual root or influence in Objectivism. And I get the impression that this goes beyond a personal opinion—that his objection is that this does not reflect Rand's vision, nor the vision he responded to in his youth when he first picked up a Rand novel—and that the heroic as Rand conceived it is not being accurately portrayed.

I know it's repugnant to Newberry that I'm taking up space on this thread -- again! -- but MSK's comments invite reply for clarification. One of my first film projects in 1973 was written by and starred a gay friend. I am currently in discussion with a gay songwriter-composer on production and distribution of his latest work in progress, which is excellent. During the intervening 30+ years, I've worked with countless gays and lesbians. They are more numerous in show business than most other professions, except hair styling and fashion, which are retail 'entertainment.'

I am personally and professionally interested in art. I've commissioned paintings, sketches, production designs, costumes, miniatures, and about 50 hours of screen images, including some romantic and sexually provocative work. Personally I know a great deal about sexuality of every kind from experience. Sophomores are young. I am not young.

If Zarathustra had appeared in any publication other than TNI, there would be no Objectivist import. If Newberry hadn't brought it here and shoved it in my face, I wouldn't be in this jam -- looking stupid for speaking up and saying the obvious. 'Spirit clothed in flesh' is dangerous crap. Follow the money.

Another time we can talk at length about the metaphysical difference between (healthy) men and (healthy) women.

W.

[Newberry]

Jonathan wrote: "I don't think that speculating about an artist's possible sexual orientation and the influence that it may have had on his art is any less valid, or any more sophomoric, than speculating about his "sense of life," or trying to detect his "metaphysical value-judgments." I think it's odd that anyone who believes that we can know something as complex and personal as an artist's "world view" or "essential view of existence" by looking at one of his paintings believes that we wouldn't also be able to recognize clues about the his sexual orientation."

That is an excellent point.

But I think with paintings like the Scream, you know there some horror to it. But the more subtle you go, the less obvious things are.

But in any case, there lots that needs to be pointed out in the work to confirm any point you want to make about it, hard work. But one's guesses and opinions just tossed out there is a disservice, without confirmation in the work.

Michael

[Ellen Stuttle]

3. I have tried and I simply cannot conceive of a eureka moment or one of ecstatic worship (which this pose transmits to me) causing an erection. I see nothing sexual in the pose at all. The emotions I capture are from a different side of the human spirit. I really like this work.

A comment about whether the statue is projecting "a eureka moment." My immediate reaction on the earlier thread was to see it as attempting to do that (and not quite succeeding), but on further examination of the details, and taking into account things others, especially Jonathan, were saying, I re-considered and came to see the posture as one which might result from a feeling of emphatic relief-release, as in "Oh-KAY!! Life can go on!"

In one of my posts (#136)* on the original thread, I wrote:

I now think that there is an aspect of supplication -- or rather of, well, yes, something to do with forces greater than oneself -- in the pose. Actually, at this moment, I think I know very well from direct experience, something which has happened in the last few days, what the emotional state is. But I don't want to say yet, until I hear further news. So I'll provocatively leave it at that...

By the time I heard the referenced "further news," talk on the thread had died down and I didn't want to restart it, so I never came back with a report. Jonathan, however, asked off-list, so I told him. What I was waiting to find out was the results of a biopsy. I'd been landed with a cancer scare and I was faced with two weeks of waiting for the test results, my life in abeyance meanwhile, not knowing if I was going to have to have an operation, etc. I told Jonathan that if the result came back negative, the posture of the statue would match just the emotional state I'd feel -- emphatic relief-release, Oh-KAY, life could go on!!

The lab result was negative, I'll add. ;-)

Ellen

* When I test the link, it goes to #136, but then immediately jumps down to #137, don't know why.

___

[Jonathan]

Ellen,

Here's the image with the background cleaned up:

You can click here for a larger version.

J

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Wolf,

Thanks for clarifying. One problem with Internet forums is that they often can cause inaccurate impressions of what a person intends.

I did not understand your objection to the "spirit clothed in flesh" comment, but some questions did pop into my mind when you mentioned it:

Whose spirit?

In that particular flesh?

And this naughty noggin of mine still keeps banging around plays on the phrase, like spiritual schlong garb...

I'm glad Jonathan posted the link to other views of the statue. As regards the genitals, I just noticed that this is the first time I have ever seen male pubic hair enshrined in bronze. I'm not saying it hasn't been done before, just that I have never seen it. That is probably one other reason for the feeling of emphasis on the penis people get.

In getting down to bare Objectivist bones, I admit that this work prompts a lot of feelings in me, but heroism is not one of them. Especially not the triumph kind of heroism Rand portrayed. I see it as deeply introspective. Qua introspection, it comes across authentic and rings true inside me.

btw - Why on earth is the dude pigeon-toed? This is one of the things I almost have to force myself to overlook. The effect is comic and comedy is out of place in that setting.

Michael

[Ellen Stuttle]

Sure, when I get a little time later, I'll isolate the figure. But keep in mind that my opinion that the genitals are emphasized is also based on some of the other views that are available online:

http://www.users.bigpond.com/schip/zarathu.htm

(scroll to the bottom of the page)

If it were a painting showing only the angle that we see in the photo that Michael included in this thread's initial post, I'd agree that there would be less emphasis on the bits than there appears to be when viewed in the round. But since it's a sculpture, I can't help viewing it as one.

J

Thanks much for posting the image with the background cleaned up. I wonder if folks will still see the genitals as overemphasized without the background "pointers," as it were, in the original photo. Seems to me, as Brant said somewhere above, that the figure is simply anatomically correct. And it's not even as if the figure were notably generously endowed; the proportions are "normal."

Re your comments about viewing the image in the round. I don't see any overemphasis in the other pictures either.

I wonder, if you think there's overemphasis, how would you suggest the figure should have been done? A figure standing in that pose is going to have the genitals protuberant. Would you want a loin cloth? or a fig-leaf? Or just a whole different statue, not that pose?

Ellen

___

Edited April 30, 2008 by Ellen Stuttle

[Wolf DeVoon]

A figure standing in that pose is going to have the genitals protuberant.

Exactly.

[Ellen Stuttle]

A figure standing in that pose is going to have the genitals protuberant.

Exactly.

A figure standing in this pose would have the genitals protuberant also:

The Early Ayn Rand

NAL

copyright © 1983, 1984 by Leonard Peikoff, Paul Gitlin, Eugene Winick,

Executors of Estate of Ayn Rand

Quote is from Ideal, pg. 241,

elipses in original.

Kay Gonda: I saw a man once, when I was very young. He stood on a rock, high in the mountains. His arms were spread out and his body bent backward, and I could see him as an arc against the sky. He stood still and tense, like a string trembling to a note of ecstasy no man had ever heard....I have never known who he was. I knew only that this was what life should be....

___

[Newberry]

Ellen wrote: "What I was waiting to find out was the results of a biopsy. I'd been landed with a cancer scare and I was faced with two weeks of waiting for the test results, my life in abeyance meanwhile, not knowing if I was going to have to have an operation, etc. I told Jonathan that if the result came back negative, the posture of the statue would match just the emotional state I'd feel -- emphatic relief-release, Oh-KAY, life could go on!!"

Welcome back!!

I had a scary rush of feeling and a big sigh as I read this.

Best wishes for no more scares for many years to come.

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

A figure standing in that pose is going to have the genitals protuberant.

Exactly.

A figure standing in this pose would have the genitals protuberant also:

The Early Ayn Rand

NAL

copyright © 1983, 1984 by Leonard Peikoff, Paul Gitlin, Eugene Winick,

Executors of Estate of Ayn Rand

Quote is from Ideal, pg. 241,

elipses in original.

Kay Gonda: I saw a man once, when I was very young. He stood on a rock, high in the mountains. His arms were spread out and his body bent backward, and I could see him as an arc against the sky. He stood still and tense, like a string trembling to a note of ecstasy no man had ever heard....I have never known who he was. I knew only that this was what life should be....

___

Kay Gonda: I saw a man once .... Penis .... I knew only that this ....

--Brant

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

OK folks. I have been biting my tongue, but I can't hold it in any longer. If tasteless comments offend, please skip this post because the tasteless comment of the year is about to be presented:

Ellen,

I am very glad for you about your biopsy result. (That's deeply felt, too.) About the statue reflecting your state of spirit, please don't grow a penis...

That would make a mess out of everything I have ever learned...

(You can groan now...)

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

Look, the statue is literally and esthetically vulgar. It seems you'd need a helicopter even to make out the face. It's horrible ego kitsch. I know no one reading my posts here will understand or believe that I'm an aesthete and that's why this thing makes me want to barf.

--Brant

[Newberry]

Brant: "Kay Gonda: I saw a man once .... Penis .... I knew only that this .... "

Brant, do you or have you ever made art of any kind? I guess you haven't. Maybe as a kid you wanted to? Regardless, I don't comprehend your bitter nastiness. You suggested that you have posted drunk. Or maybe some soldiers take a special gratification in blowing up buildings, bridges, people, and values under a justification that they are fighting for the right side?

You write in your profile:"I am in love with human ability and expertness and intensely admire creative achievement..." Whether or not you don't like the Zarathustra piece, has nothing to do with this sculptor's ability, expertness, and his passion for what he does.

I wonder, if actually you really feel the opposite? That it is ability, expertise, and achievement that you so vehemently hate? Now, I could understand not contemplating that too deeply.

Could please resolve this contradiction for me? Until then, I lean toward the view that you are a destroyer.

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

Brant: "Kay Gonda: I saw a man once .... Penis .... I knew only that this .... "

Brant, do you or have you ever made art of any kind? I guess you haven't. Maybe as a kid you wanted to? Regardless, I don't comprehend your bitter nastiness. You suggested that you have posted drunk. Or maybe some soldiers take a special gratification in blowing up buildings, bridges, people, and values under a justification that they are fighting for the right side?

You write in your profile:"I am in love with human ability and expertness and intensely admire creative achievement..." Whether or not you don't like the Zarathustra piece, has nothing to do with this sculptor's ability, expertness, and his passion for what he does.

I wonder, if actually you really feel the opposite? That it is ability, expertise, and achievement that you so vehemently hate? Now, I could understand not contemplating that too deeply.

Could please resolve this contradiction for me? Until then, I lean toward the view that you are a destroyer.

Michael

All this attacking the person. I'm only attacking (to me) a horrible statue that appears to have been executed with great technical skill. The sculptor sees his work from all angles and perspectives and knows/thinks he knows what he's conveying, but seems to have avoided asking himself what someone walking through the park would see and experience coming upon his work. Covering the thrown back face with the hands actually dehumanizes the subject. If I can't see and experience the face all I can see is a pile of meat in bronze. Great sculpture depicts repose implying action done or to be done. Even the Discus Thrower does this. This thing is just action, but isn't moving of course.

For two or three good reasons I stopped drinking. As you can see it makes my comments no different.

I have never made art of any kind, but have always enjoyed my trips to the Metropolitan Museum of Art in NYC, the first time in 1962 on a high school field trip. I want to go back and see more and more again of what I have.

Thanks for the above out of context quote.

I have a positive reaction to this guy's other work. I've had positive reactions to your own work. So he made something I hate with the same intensity and passion as his own for it. Isn't that indicative of great artistic success? Go ask him. Tell him you found somebody who absolutely hates his statue. If he's half the man I think he is he'll say, "Tell me about it! Tell me about it!"

--Brant

[Ellen Stuttle]

Welcome back!!

I had a scary rush of feeling and a big sigh as I read this.

Best wishes for no more scares for many years to come.

Michael

Thanks. I hope it will be many years -- or better, never -- before I get another of those. The incident was last fall, btw, at the time of the first thread about this statue, not in the immediate past.

Ellen

___

[Ellen Stuttle]

Look, the statue is literally and esthetically vulgar. It seems you'd need a helicopter even to make out the face. It's horrible ego kitsch. I know no one reading my posts here will understand or believe that I'm an aesthete and that's why this thing makes me want to barf.

--Brant

People might be more likely to understand or believe that you're reacting on a basis of aesthetics if you'd bothered to explain instead of just basically posting imprecations. I hate it...I'd use it for target practice, etc. doesn't provide material for discussing. Your post quoted below, however, gives some idea of why you dislike the statue.

All this attacking the person. I'm only attacking (to me) a horrible statue that appears to have been executed with great technical skill. The sculptor sees his work from all angles and perspectives and knows/thinks he knows what he's conveying, but seems to have avoided asking himself what someone walking through the park would see and experience coming upon his work. Covering the thrown back face with the hands actually dehumanizes the subject. If I can't see and experience the face all I can see is a pile of meat in bronze. Great sculpture depicts repose implying action done or to be done. Even the Discus Thrower does this. This thing is just action, but isn't moving of course.

[....]

I have a positive reaction to this guy's other work. I've had positive reactions to your own work. So he made something I hate with the same intensity and passion as his own for it. Isn't that indicative of great artistic success? Go ask him. Tell him you found somebody who absolutely hates his statue. If he's half the man I think he is he'll say, "Tell me about it! Tell me about it!"

You're far from the only one who's hated the statue, judging from what the artist says about the responses of numerous people who wrote to him. Apparently the statue caused a huge flap amongst modern Zoroastrians.

Ellen

Edit: My comment is misleading, since it sounds as if it was Zoroastrians who wrote to Schipperheyn objecting to the statue. Maybe some of them did object; Schipperheyn doesn't specifiy what particular Zoroastrians said. However, the persons he was talking about who were enraged weren't Zoroastrians. Here's the quote from his webpage description:

http://www.users.bigpond.com/schip/zarathu.htm

[The square brackets are in the original.]

I wonder why I did not consult with Zoroastrians beforehand, perhaps because I didn't know any [well at least that’s changed] now after hundreds of emails and countless telephone conversations I have learnt from my communication with many Zoroastrian people it is very obvious that there is a great debate burning within the Zoroastrian Community itself, and there is a tremendous divergence of opinion regarding the interpretation of the teachings of Zarathustra, this is not only a matter for the Zoroastrian Community it is a matter for the whole world! I came to this as an Artist from the western world [and precarious as it is at the moment] the idea of freedom of expression has proved itself as essential to the advancement of the human animal. My sculpture was made with a certain identity it cannot be erased.

I say this because as well as receiving hundreds of emails from people who were enraged by my sculpture I also received hundreds of emails from Zoroastrians who were really intrigued, interested and supportive that someone from Australia would even think to make a sculpture with a Zarathustrian connection. Western culture celebrates the Ancient Greeks and their achievements, but who was living right next door across the Bosporus? I started with Nietzsche, and his meditation on the spiritual odyssey of the west whose beginnings can be traced back through time to Zarathustra. Calling my sculpture "Zarathustra" telescopes you to the historical origins of that timeless inner searching.

___

Edited May 3, 2008 by Ellen Stuttle

[Brant Gaede]

Here's how this statue might actually work for me: If it were down in a deep depression and were observed more from the top down in the round instead of bottom up or ground observer's eye level. Or maybe even better: In a descending round. I'd have to actually see it that way. Photos wouldn't do.

--Brant

Edited April 30, 2008 by Brant Gaede

[Ellen Stuttle]

Here's how this statue might actually work for me: If it were down in a deep depression and were observed more from the top down in the round instead of bottom up or ground observer's eye level. Or maybe even better: In a descending round. I'd have to actually see it that way. Photos wouldn't do.

--Brant

Actually, I agree that a problem with the statue is the perspective from which a person has to see it as it's situated now. My first view of it was scrolling down the page from the top when the original thread appeared -- thus I was impressed by the hands right off.

I think the best way for it to be displayed would be in a descending round.

Ellen

___

[Wolf DeVoon]

How to display. Wrap leather around his wrists, hook to rusty chain suspended from ceiling of dungeon motif.

DAME ELISABETH MURDOCH: "Once or twice Rupert was rude to his governess and it was on the stairs in Heathfield, I remember exactly, about the third stair up. I applied a slipper to him, or my fist on that occasion. I would not allow them to be rude, you know." Inside Business Feb 2005

Edited May 1, 2008 by Wolf DeVoon

[Ellen Stuttle]

I increasingly wonder just what stories are lurking in your past, Wolf.

Ellen

___

[Wolf DeVoon]

I increasingly wonder just what stories are lurking in your past, Wolf.

Ellen

___

My life is an open book, ma'am. Not hard to find.

Wolf

[merjet]

Warning!

From today's WSJ: Copper Caper: Thieves Nab Art To Sell for Scrap

Per the article, copper is the main ingredient of bronze.

[Jonathan]

I wonder, if you think there's overemphasis, how would you suggest the figure should have been done? A figure standing in that pose is going to have the genitals protuberant.

Exactly. The protuberance is the issue. As I said on the original Zarathustra thread, the hips thrust forward and the convergence of the figure's lines, which center on the genitals from every angle, cause the genitals to be emphasized. It's even more apparent in the frontal views where, with the near-absence of the head and face, all roads lead to Rome.

Would you want a loin cloth? or a fig-leaf? Or just a whole different statue, not that pose?

If I were creating a statue with a similar theme in mind, I'd sculpt something completely different, but that's not what I think you're asking. I mentioned on the original thread that I think I'd have a more positive response to the statue if I were to view it by walking around it from slightly above. I was thinking that it would probably work well to place it in the center of an atrium or cloistered courtyard and view it from a second or third floor balcony.

On his website, Schipperheyn says that Dame Elisabeth had visited him in his studio and, while discussing another sculpture, she "out of the blue" turned to the original 1-meter version of Zarathustra and asked if it would be possible to make a large version. It's likely that she viewed it from above, or at least not from below as one views it in the final version. I might have been more enthusiastic about the piece if I had seen it from her perspective.

J

Edited May 1, 2008 by Jonathan

[Jonathan]

Jonathan wrote: "I don't think that speculating about an artist's possible sexual orientation and the influence that it may have had on his art is any less valid, or any more sophomoric, than speculating about his "sense of life," or trying to detect his "metaphysical value-judgments." I think it's odd that anyone who believes that we can know something as complex and personal as an artist's "world view" or "essential view of existence" by looking at one of his paintings believes that we wouldn't also be able to recognize clues about the his sexual orientation."

That is an excellent point.

But I think with paintings like the Scream, you know there some horror to it. But the more subtle you go, the less obvious things are.

I agree that we can feel horror while viewing a painting. That doesn't mean that we can know the artist's "sense of life" or his "metaphysical value-judgments" just because we can point to visual evidence which explains why we've experienced an emotion while looking at one of his artworks. I don't see any benefit in the Objectivish habit of focusing so much attention on trying to judge the artist through his art, as opposed to simply experiencing the art and contemplating our own reactions to it.

But in any case, there lots that needs to be pointed out in the work to confirm any point you want to make about it, hard work. But one's guesses and opinions just tossed out there is a disservice, without confirmation in the work.

Even with what one believes is "confirmation" in the work, one is still speculating when it comes to "detecting" anything about the artist. Wolf seems to have an agenda, and he's insinuating things way beyond any evidence that he's gleaned from the artwork. But his speculations are no more "guesses and opinions just tossed out there" than many of the judgments that you and others frequently make about other artists and their works. The fact that his wild speculations are sexually themed doesn't make them less of a disservice than others' morally or psychologically themed speculations about other artists.

J

[Wolf DeVoon]

Wolf seems to have an agenda, and he's insinuating things way beyond any evidence that he's gleaned from the artwork. But his speculations are no more "guesses and opinions just tossed out there" than many of the judgments that you and others frequently make about other artists and their works. The fact that his wild speculations are sexually themed doesn't make them less of a disservice than others' morally or psychologically themed speculations about other artists.

J

What is the purpose of speculation (on any topic)? Form a hypothesis, test it. Basic detective work. Nobody else sees this figure as tortured? I certainly do. Go ahead. Stand like Zarathustra for five minutes and feel what happens to your back and neck. Why sculpt such a figure, claiming that it's heroic and admirable, beyond good and evil, a spirit clothed in flesh and please ignore the flesh?

Forget about me. What's the artistic agenda?