Hudgins on Stossel Show (Jan. 28, 2010)

[Jonathan]

As for "Turandot" at the Met:

Wow. It looks like your savage propaganda was loaded with fresh, eye-popping imagery. I guess that for you, the pretty music and scenery justifies the torture? Like your fictional "hero" Calàf, you're enthralled by beauty divorced from spiritual values?

Show me a man who despises himself enough to admire a work of art about a character who goes gaga over a depraved torturer and murderess, and I'll tell you his entire philosophy of life.

J

[9thdoctor]

Show me a man who despises himself enough to admire a work of art about a character who goes gaga over a depraved torturer and murderess, and I'll tell you his entire philosophy of life.

I’m tempted to dig out my copy of The Romantic Manifesto and transcribe the material about opera, just to pull rank a bit, but don’t have time. You’re applying the standards she used for literature to opera. Besides, I’m convinced you’re just kidding. I’ve had no less eminent a contributor than Phillip Coates chide me for not recognizing when someone’s kidding, so once bitten twice shy.

Nevertheless, could you name an opera or five that you do enjoy or at least approve of? Particularly any Puccini, where characters fall madly in love for no good reason as a matter of course. If it’s a matter of what Rand liked (and seriously, I don’t give a damn, but I’ve read all about her so I know), she loved La Boheme, where the lovers are cooing “Io t’amo”s at each other by the time the curtain falls on Act 1, 10 minutes after first meeting. To call that biological determinism is awfully silly.

Looks like the Met is still using the production from the ‘80’s that you can get on DVD. Great stuff, and I think Netflix carries it too. This YouTube upload lacks the subtitles, too bad. Or better, Jonathan would probably prefer if you didn’t know what they were saying, it’s such evil and your little minds might be corrupted.

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kPZR6Y8te2w&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param'>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kPZR6Y8te2w&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kPZR6Y8te2w&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

[anonrobt]

Show me a man who despises himself enough to admire a work of art about a character who goes gaga over a depraved torturer and murderess, and I'll tell you his entire philosophy of life.

I’m tempted to dig out my copy of The Romantic Manifesto and transcribe the material about opera, just to pull rank a bit, but don’t have time. You’re applying the standards she used for literature to opera. Besides, I’m convinced you’re just kidding. I’ve had no less eminent a contributor than Phillip Coates chide me for not recognizing when someone’s kidding, so once bitten twice shy.

Nevertheless, could you name an opera or five that you do enjoy or at least approve of? Particularly any Puccini, where characters fall madly in love for no good reason as a matter of course. If it’s a matter of what Rand liked (and seriously, I don’t give a damn, but I’ve read all about her so I know), she loved La Boheme, where the lovers are cooing “Io t’amo”s at each other by the time the curtain falls on Act 1, 10 minutes after first meeting. To call that biological determinism is awfully silly.

Looks like the Met is still using the production from the ‘80’s that you can get on DVD. Great stuff, and I think Netflix carries it too. This YouTube upload lacks the subtitles, too bad. Or better, Jonathan would probably prefer if you didn’t know what they were saying, it’s such evil and your little minds might be corrupted.

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kPZR6Y8te2w&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param'>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kPZR6Y8te2w&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kPZR6Y8te2w&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

I've always enjoyed 'The Marriage of Figaro' and 'The Barber of Seville'...

[Jonathan]

I’m tempted to dig out my copy of The Romantic Manifesto and transcribe the material about opera, just to pull rank a bit, but don’t have time.

Go ahead and dig out Rand's comments on opera. And then I'll "pull rank" by digging out her definition and criteria for all art, and I'll cite the fact that she was often inconsistent in applying her definitions and criteria.

Basically, I think that Rand would have considered any unfavorable material contained in an opera to be morally or aesthetically important if she wanted to use it to condemn the opera, and she would have considered it morally or aesthetically unimportant if she wanted to overlook it in order to continue enjoying and praising the opera.

You’re applying the standards she used for literature to opera.

Yes, I am. Rand's entire Objectivist philosophy of aesthetics is the act of applying her standards of literature to the other arts, so why should opera be any different? For example, narrative is not the essence of visual art, but Rand often treated it as if it were. She didn't give the visual equivalent of the libretto a pass, but instead judged painters as "Naturalists" based on what she took to he their paintings' "subjects."

Regarding the Objectivist Esthetics and the nature of opera, I think there are a couple of options:

1) The story line is a significant, integrated part of opera, so it cannot be arbitrarily dismissed by those who want to enjoy an opera despite the fact that it contains a "message" which they would condemn other art forms for containing. Therefore, those who praise Turandot are existence-haters who are promoting evil propaganda.

2) The story is not an important, integrated part of the art form of opera. It has no moral or aesthetic relevance. When evaluating an opera as art, the plot is to be disregarded. Therefore opera isn't a valid art form according to the Objectivist Esthetics, since, without its story line, it doesn't objectively "re-create reality" or present an objectively "intelligible subject," and allows no objective criteria by which to judge it. Therefore those who praise opera as if it were a legitimate art form are "charlatans" and "perpetrators" who have the goal of disintegrating man's consciousness and lowering it to the anti-conceptual level of perceiving meaningless tones and "moods."

So, either way, you guys are monstrously vicious destroyers and haters of all that is good.

Btw, Rand is said to have once thrown a fit over a scene in a performance of Tchaikovsky’s Eugene Onegin. She physically and vocally expressed her disapproval to the point of disturbing those in the audience seated around her. She had to be told by her companions to stop. She was upset that members of the female chorus did a little can-can-like dance and wiggled their butts at the audience. She is reported to have felt that it was a shockingly deliberate undercutting of the values of the scene, and a slap in the face of Romanticsim. Now, to me, that doesn't sound like someone who consistently believes that the libretto, the plot and the actions of the characters are morally and aesthetically irrelevant or neutral, and that they're not a basis on which to make harsh judgments.

Besides, I’m convinced you’re just kidding. I’ve had no less eminent a contributor than Phillip Coates chide me for not recognizing when someone’s kidding, so once bitten twice shy.

The fact that you've needed to be chided about humor by a monstrously, viciously depraved, humorless schoolmarm like Phil says a lot about you. If I wanted to, I could tell you your entire philosophy of life based on just that fact alone.

Nevertheless, could you name an opera or five that you do enjoy or at least approve of?

It's not an issue of my enjoyment or approval, but of consistently applying the principles of the Objectivist Esthetics, and harshly condemning all art accordingly.

Particularly any Puccini, where characters fall madly in love for no good reason as a matter of course.

It's not just an issue of characters falling in love for no good reason, but of their falling in love with torturers/murderers whom they've witnessed torture and murder. It's a matter of characters overlooking the vile nature of the objects of their affection. I figure that if a performance of an opera can be judged to be a vicious attack on all values because some ladies in the chorus cutely wiggled their butts, then allegedly heroic characters overlooking torture and murder (which in my book is worse that cute butt-wiggling) can also be judged to be an attack on all values.

If it’s a matter of what Rand liked (and seriously, I don’t give a damn, but I’ve read all about her so I know), she loved La Boheme, where the lovers are cooing “Io t’amo”s at each other by the time the curtain falls on Act 1, 10 minutes after first meeting. To call that biological determinism is awfully silly.

My judging Turandot to be Naturalism by Rand's criteria is much less silly than her claiming that certain other artworks were Naturalism, and I think that Turandot is a much more Objectivistically Offensive work of art than Avatar.

J

Edited January 31, 2010 by Jonathan

[9thdoctor]

The fact that you've needed to be chided about humor by a monstrously, viciously depraved, humorless schoolmarm like Phil says a lot about you. If I wanted to, I could tell you your entire philosophy of life based on just that fact alone.

Oh please do. Here’s the relevant thread. I must say, you’re cracking me up. Bring it on.

http://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=7682&pid=81398&st=0entry81398

Nevertheless, could you name an opera or five that you do enjoy or at least approve of?

It's not an issue of my enjoyment or approval, but of consistently applying the principles of the Objectivist Esthetics, and harshly condemning all art accordingly.

Ah, there’s the rub, I believe you recognize that just about any opera you could name could be condemned according to the criteria you’re applying to Turandot. Maybe opera's just not for you. By "you", I mean this Randroid you're channeling to great comic effect.

Particularly any Puccini, where characters fall madly in love for no good reason as a matter of course.

It's not just an issue of characters falling in love for no good reason, but of their falling in love with torturers/murderers whom they've witnessed torture and murder. It's a matter of characters overlooking the vile nature of the objects of their affection. I figure that if a performance of an opera can be judged to be a vicious attack on all values because some ladies in the chorus cutely wiggled their butts, then allegedly heroic characters overlooking torture and murder (which in my book is worse that cute butt-wiggling) can also be judged to be an attack on all values.

If you really want to fight this out you’re going to need to find someone willing to defend Rand’s esthetics, and particularly her applications of it, stubbornly. I find her approach illuminating, particularly to literature, but that’s as far as it goes. You need a Randroid to beat up on, and you’ve come to the wrong place.

If it’s a matter of what Rand liked (and seriously, I don’t give a damn, but I’ve read all about her so I know), she loved La Boheme, where the lovers are cooing “Io t’amo”s at each other by the time the curtain falls on Act 1, 10 minutes after first meeting. To call that biological determinism is awfully silly.

My judging Turandot to be Naturalism by Rand's criteria is much less silly than her claiming that certain other artworks were Naturalism, and I think that Turandot is a much more Objectivistically Offensive work of art than Avatar.

J

Again, I haven’t seen Avatar. Didn’t Ed’s review praise it’s entertainment value? He then used it as a springboard for some intelligent cultural commentary. Sounds like fair game to me. Phil took him to task on it, Dear Lord (!) are the two of you in agreement?

[Chris Grieb]

Ed is reporting the show's date is Feb. 11th.

[Selene]

Ed is reporting the show's date is Feb. 11th.

Thanks Chris:

Ed:

If your appearance has not been recorded yet, that will be the same day that Scott Brown ® Senator from the State of Massachusetts will finally be seated.

Nice confluences that he could tie in with individualism on the rise in every town, hamlet and neighborhood in America. People are re-reading Rand and righteously demanding their personal freedom to pursue their own self interest by their own standards. Stuff like that.

The last time the "Kennedy Seat" changed was when it became the Kennedy seat. He was seated in 48 hours because the Congress was going to adjourn sine die["without assigning a day for a further meeting or hearing"'^[1] to adjourn an assembly sine die is to adjourn it for an indefinite period].

Adam

[Jonathan]

You need a Randroid to beat up on, and you’ve come to the wrong place.

No, I think I came to the right place. I was "beating up" a Randroid (or at least a person who can have Randroid tendencies when it comes to reviewing the arts), but then you stepped in front of him and started whining that you were getting Randroid-slapped.

Again, I haven’t seen Avatar. Didn’t Ed’s review praise it’s entertainment value? He then used it as a springboard for some intelligent cultural commentary.

I think he used it as a springboard for Randroidery.

J

[9thdoctor]

You need a Randroid to beat up on, and you’ve come to the wrong place.

No, I think I came to the right place. I was "beating up" a Randroid (or at least a person who can have Randroid tendencies when it comes to reviewing the arts), but then you stepped in front of him and started whining that you were getting Randroid-slapped.

Do you feel that my replying to you blocked Ed from replying also? If he were so inclined? Puhleeze.

Again, I haven’t seen Avatar. Didn’t Ed’s review praise it’s entertainment value? He then used it as a springboard for some intelligent cultural commentary.

I think he used it as a springboard for Randroidery.

J

Then make your case on the appropriate thread. You pick on Giacomo and someone's liable to stand up to defend him. Surprise!

Bringing it over here is like something Xray would do.

The fact that you've needed to be chided about humor by a monstrously, viciously depraved, humorless schoolmarm like Phil says a lot about you. If I wanted to, I could tell you your entire philosophy of life based on just that fact alone.

Oh please do. Here’s the relevant thread. I must say, you’re cracking me up. Bring it on.

http://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=7682&pid=81398&st=0entry81398

I have a theory which explains your outbursts, and I think I can back it up better than whatever you have on offer here: You need to get laid, dude. It’s been a while, hasn’t it? Get ‘er done, then you won’t be so damn grumpy. There’s no shame in going to Amsterdam, Nevada, or trying one of the escort service ads in your local yellow pages. A little Wham-Bam, you’ll be good as new, I’ll bet my objective value system on it.

Edited February 6, 2010 by Ninth Doctor

[Jonathan]

Then make your case on the appropriate thread. You pick on Giacomo and someone's liable to stand up to defend him. Surprise!

But this is the appropriate thread. It's the thread on which Ed has been promoting art with a "savage message."

I have a theory which explains your outbursts, and I think I can back it up better than whatever you have on offer here: You need to get laid, dude. It’s been a while, hasn’t it? Get ‘er done, then you won’t be so damn grumpy. There’s no shame in going to Amsterdam, Nevada, or trying one of the escort service ads in your local yellow pages. A little Wham-Bam, you’ll be good as new, I’ll bet my objective value system on it.

Well, there's a women's prison a few miles from where I live, so I could probably go there and find someone to "love" who would reflect the "objective value system" that you and Ed would suggest that I follow. The odds are that I'll be able to find a hot-looking torturer and/or murderess. I'll just have to remember to check to make sure that she's not into anything bad, like enjoying nature when she could be enjoying the latest technology, or questioning the wisdom of any American military actions.

J