The context–dropping open–immigration pronouncements from ARI and its shills which would result in the hastened demise of the West. May be accompanied by celebration at having voted for Hillary Clinton, promoting the destruction of the freer world and its invasion by savages.

Related terms: obleftivism, obleftivist.

UIN.

The flight of the conchords failed here first time round. They made it big overseas and then we accepted them with open arms when they came back.

In my experience I can count on one hand the amount of times I have seen kiwi reflect on thier own actions, behaviour or character and laugh at themselves. They can't seem to move past the humiliation, pride or respectableness.

...if NZers cannot laugh at themselves?

Don't forget that the first break TFOC got was with the BBC, as a radio show.

Funny thing is (not ha, ha funny), nearly all NZers I spoke to when I was there recently said that they hadn't watched it because, I believe, it was played on the wrong TV channel (for them).

My sister and sister-in-law tell me that NZers don't really get 'British' humour anymore. They prefer the US 'brain-dead' variety (excluding cable channels, like HBO).

British humour is famously self-deprecating, so there may be something in what you say.

It is true that NZers due have quite a honed inferiority complex whereby they secretly believe that NZ is insignificant. They try to compensate for that by telling themselves it is 'Godzone' and no wonder they dislike laughing at themselves.

...FOTC is a wonderful little show written by and starring two talented Kiwis.

But they couldn't get it done in NZ. They were turned down, repeatedly.

From Wikipedia:

"Surprisingly, given their success outside New Zealand, Bret and Jemaine are rumoured to have had project proposals continually denied funding by New Zealand public television. As Brannavan Gnanalingam notes in The Lumiere Reader, rumour has it that NZ TV3 denied funding because Bret and Jemaine's humour was deemed "too Wellington", meaning their humour would not work with the average New Zealander outside of Wellington."

Too Wellington? My ass. Too sharp-witted for the average TV exec, methinks.

But Americans know a good thing when they see it and HBO gave them a series. The show was very popular in the US and *extremely* popular in... NZ! And, oh, how it was celebrated as a uniquely Kiwi show. The collective delusion was stunning. Fact is, those boys couldn't done better than finding a home at HBO.

And that's my point.

The Flight of the Conchords disproves that notion.

I happened to watch an episode on my flight over to NZ from series two and I laughed my ass off.

In the episode the NZ primeminister travels to NY (g'day name's Brian). He wants to get a picture of himself shaking Obama's hand to show his kids.

The yanks are clearly trying to avoid him, so Murray gets an Obama double to meet him.

"I don't think New Zealanders like laughing at themselves."

Your post below is spot on.

...be fucking joking, Marcus.

John Clarke grew a new comedy brain when he moved to Australia. He finally found a culture where wickedly intelligent humor is appreciated. He embraced Australia--as many Kiwis do--because it embraced him**.

[Christ, I'm getting moist...]

New Zealanders don't do comedy. There's something not right in our thinking. I blame state-funded television for killing it. Frankly, the much-lauded Billy T James wasn't that funny. He did a lot of recycled jokes which in pre-internet times you could still get away with. Except for their early satirical days, McPhail and Gadsby were an embarrassment. And Gary McCormick? Jeee-sus! Just shoot me now.

Despite the myth, I don't think New Zealanders like laughing at themselves. We can be quite anal about it. There's no doubt that political correctness has a bit to do with it, but as a people we are quite insular and somewhat xenophobic.

Fact is, when you've got the likes of Helen Clark, John Key, Keith Locke and Peter Dunne strutting their stuff, you don't need real comedians. There may be a thesis in that.

**the parallel with Canadian comedians finding their true expression in the US is exact.

... now updated to include events and personalities since the Linzisms were first assembled in 2006. If there's anyone I still haven't insulted, I apologise.

...that clip is on the DVD too. I didn't know that Thatcher was already of such interest in NZ in 1975.

Linz,

The clip is of you questioning Dagg about the level of corruption in NZ politics.

Dagg claims there is no corruption in NZ politics and you are countering with the charge, 'You must be blind to it.'

Apparently at that time John Clarke (aka Fred Dagg) never wrote anything down and improvised his jokes.

Later when he went to Australia he began to write down his material and unfortunately became less funny as a result.

... made his debut on Tonight at 9 in 1975. I was the impossibly young frontman/interviewer for that programme. We'd have Dagg on at least once a week. He was quite the sensation at that time—folk weren't used to such irreverence. My job was to maintain my usual demeanour as a serious interviewer while he gave totally outrageous answers, deadpan. What is the one you've seen?

...I'd never known you had partaken of those forbidden fruit (fish).

I'm assuming you must have been 'up close and personal' to have come to that conclusion.

And I'm not talking about your birth

You interviewed Dagg more than once? Great!

I hope they send you a royalty from his latest DVD, 'the Fred Dagg all-purpose DVD'.

I forgot "anchovies." It's very, very bad, but I just added it anyway.

Ah, the Fred Dagg interviews. I used to love doing those. The challenge always was to keep a straight face.

...that could have come straight out of the annals of Oscar Wilde.

"Solitude: "The most edifying thing about solitude is the company."

You must have picked up something from your interview of Fred Dagg in 1975 (the one you won't admit to)

Some new ones added at the end, reflecting my ongoing ascent into Grumpy Old Farthood, beginning at "Going out."

MN: "Do you really want to imply that I hold mass murders in high regard because of their faultless execution?"

Tim: "No."

Good.

MN: "Are your saying because I think that artists should follow through on their visions that has repulsive implications? Would you prefer to control them with your dictates? You prefer artists that dont' have an id, an ego, and take lip from inferiors?"

MM: "No..."

Good.

Not saying that at all. I trust when you say that you are following "pro-enlightenment" values you know what that is and you are true to it. But I don't judge JUST on consistency, but also on the fact it is "pro-enlightenment".

Let me translate to my own field--the law. Some historians have suggested that Madison waffled in his convictions when he turned away from former allies like Hamilton, for instance. I agree with other historians that he was remarkably consistent and turned away when he saw their vision corrupt. Now, I don't judge him as having integrity just because he was consistent, but also because his vision was "pro-enlightenment".

I could also say that Justice Holmes was consistent, at least in certain philosophical aspects of the law. But his was not one of "integrity" precisely because it was not "pro-enlightenment"--that title is reserved for the good, not Holmes or Lenin or Cage. It makes all the difference in the world what one is consistent about.

Do you really want to imply that I hold mass murders in high regard because of their faultless execution?

I picked an extreme analogy to illustrate an obvious point. My question is whether you hold the likes of Cage et al in high regard because of their faultless execution.

MM: "As to your last sentence, I am, Mr. Newberry, I am."

Great.

"...that you are narrowing to one aspect of integrity and trying to remake the concept (with repulsive implications)."

Are your saying because I think that artists should follow through on their visions that has repulsive implications? Would you prefer to control them with your dictates? You prefer artists that dont' have an id, an ego, and take lip from inferiors?

Let me know if that is not what you meant.

 Michael

http://www.MichaelNewberry.com

Tim: "I'm finding it difficult to understand your position."

 Okay.

"For me it would be another thing altogether to describe Lenin's consistency using a term like "integrity", given its normative connotations, or to state that one holds Lenin in "higher regard" than less consistent communists."

Do you really want to imply that I hold mass murders in high regard because of their faultless execution?

You are sinking rapidly in my already low estimation of you. Clean up your act quick if you want to engage me.

Michael

http://www.MichaelNewberry.com

Mr. Newberry, I did not imply that you endorsed their art, you clearly stated you didn't. And yes, I realize that you are talking about consistency to their vision, which you stated umpteen times. But the point Linz, I, and Tim (with a great follow-up post) have tried emphasize is that you cannot divorce virtues from values, ie. that you are narrowing to one aspect of integrity and trying to remake the concept (with repulsive implications). But alas, you are rigidly wedded to this conception and there isn't much point for further argument.

As to your last sentence, I am, Mr. Newberry, I am.

MM: "You are asking people to place Cage next to Roark and unite them under this same concept--a virtue."

I have been clear, all along, in one specific context: artists being true to their vision.

"They stand for completely different things."

Of course.

"Don't you see why people have trouble coming to grips with that?"

I don't see why that would be difficult for an intelligent person that knows anything about art. You are welcome to explain to me the critical success in the music and art world of Cage, Duchamp in your own words. My claim is that they are critically successful, in a large part, because of their consistency of their vision. A another aspect is that their aesthetics dovetail well each other. But to imply that I endorse them is incorrect. I simply recognise this phenomenon and see it is a lesson in how important aesthetic consistency is in ones art and career.

"You are asking them to ignore value judgments when handing out virtues..."

By all means engage your value judgments and by all means itemise them and give solid reasons for them. I am sure if you do a thorough job we will have not have disagreements.

"I hope you can see why this would be unseemly to some people, myself included."

Perhaps, it is the other way around? I rejected postmodernism on intellectual, and emotional grounds in my early years as an artist. Since then, my work, thought, actions, and writings have been pro-enlightenment, with an anti-postmodernist secondary theme. Perhaps, you should look into why I insist on the importance of artistic integrity in the arts, as a key ingredient for a flourishing future. I recommend that you try to comprehend my stance first. Then, if you don't agree, keep your mouth shut, and show me through your actions over the next five or ten years what you believe is the right path.

Michael

http://www.MichaelNewberry.com

Michael

I'm finding it difficult to understand your position. Are you using the term "artistic integrity" in a purely descriptive way (in which case I think the problem here is only semantic), or do you mean to isolate a particular attribute that you want to make a normative judgement about?

It's the latter I would have a problem with. To go back to my political analogy, it would be fine to state that "Lenin was consistent in implementing his murderous ideology", since this is simply an identification of fact. For me it would be another thing altogether to describe Lenin's consistency using a term like "integrity", given its normative connotations, or to state that one holds Lenin in "higher regard" than less consistent communists. Any normative judgement about Lenin or his consistency should be one of revulsion, if one is to show integrity towards our beliefs. Likewise for Cage et al.

Tim, I don't know you nor know what you do. Right now I think you are a fucking punk--run along like a good little twerp.
Michael

Very persuasive, I'm sure, Michael. But it's not your place to tell someone to run along. Tim's as free to post here as you are.

Linz

Tim: "Really? So pure evil is better than inconsistent evil?"

That is not the question or the context. Pure evil will win over inconsistent good. That has been my point all along. That PM artists have risen, in a big part, because the good artists out there where not consistently pure. Another point is that to change the culture we need good artists that are both good and don't compromise their art or careers.

 "The trouble with Mr Newberry's formulation is that it isolates one aspect of behaviour (the consistency or efficacy of it) while dropping the ethical context altogether..."

It's good you write this, as it will help clarify things further. I didn't drop the context in the least. Artistic integrity is a tool, or type a process about being truth to the artist's expression--it is not about right or wrong in content. Check the Dostoyevsky below.

"That's the real either/or nature of the beast and it's where Newberry himself falls down."

Tim, I don't know you nor know what you do. Right now I think you are a fucking punk--run along like a good little twerp.

Michael

http://www.MichaelNewberry.com

... about "artistic integrity," not about the relative status of composer and performer.

One can listen to Che Gelida Manina sung by Lanza and say, "Thank you, Puccini! And thank you, Mario!" One can and one should. One might even say it the other way round. The integrity of neither is affected by the fact that one wrote the song and the other sang it. Sheesh!

But to say that the performer in this instance had way less "artistic integrity" than a verminous destroyer like Cage is ... well, that's maggotry.

Instead of using Cage as an example, look at what Beethoven* did and then look at what Lanza did. They are a universe apart. There is a great difference (artistically speaking) in the way they approached their work.

In some sense, what the performing artist does is lesser. Not necessarily less valuable to the audience; but lesser as a personal experience and a lesser achievement. Beethoven (probably by way of introspection) put an intensity of soul into his work that Lanza did not. Of course, Lanza did throw himself passionately into his work. But Lanza's work is less ambitious than Beethoven's. What Beethoven did required far more conceptual effort. My sense is that Lanza discovered that he had a great voice and went along for the ride. Beethoven, on the other hand, created the ride.

In this sense, my concept of artistic integrity would not apply to Lanza. He is coming at art from a different angle. It's not a criticism of Lanza (or whoever) that he is "merely" a great performer. It is what it is. But it is, I think, an injustice to equate what a great performing artist does with what a great creative artist does. And, for practical purposes, to equate the two would make the artistic experience itself a lesser experience because it would show that the listener doesn't know the difference.

* Or Hugo, or Dostoevsky or...

You should post a poll, though. Which will be America's future:
Mashmallow Mobocracy vs. Christian Theocracy
Dr. Phil/Oprah vs. Augustine

Yes!! I shall attend to it directly.

HA! Actually, she tells me that you are the Drooling Beast. I am starting to believe her. And no, I don't buy the excuse that those bottles were used for mixing paints.

Me at KASSless? I thought you read my last post that said I was tapping in the "rational elements" of the culture.

You should post a poll, though. Which will be America's future:
Mashmallow Mobocracy vs. Christian Theocracy
Dr. Phil/Oprah vs. Augustine

Cage was neither creative nor an artist. And I didn't compare his artistic integrity to Lanza's. La Newberry did. In a way that was beyond obscene.

Boy did you just whiff on the point. You are making a value-judgment about Cage there. You can feel secure that I understand that you don't care for Cage's work. I also think the guy is a total failure as an artist.

But Cage was attempting to do creative art. That's an obvious fact. He devoted his life to it.

It doesn't matter what particular artists we choose to make the point. The idea is that there are creative artists and there are performing artists. And there are some artists(usually giants) that do both.

Please note: I am interested in marrying a sweet, attractive, blonde female. Tho I think Joe M is terrific he is not blonde.

Linz, you are certainly correct in identifying that America, that once great country, is on life-support. I am by nature an optimist and, on the long-term view, I see nothing to be optimistic about. The ideas that are driving America today are against everything that once made this country great. Two screaming examples from this week:

- The subprime bailout. Some people have to live by the contracts they volunteer for. Others live in a world where their agreements can be manipulated at anytime by the government. Who is who? Ours is not to reason why.

- This week, the Iranian theocracy is not so bad. Since our spies couldn't find an A-bomb in Iran, everything is cool over there. We don't need to worry about them any longer. Whew!

All that one can do is live life as well as he can and hope to make a few friends along the way. Encourage the children to develop virtues and to live by them. Maybe inspire them to read a book once in a while.

Lance, you should marry Joe Maurone! What with the pending Moeller/Babs nuptials, it's going to be quite festive.

Cage was neither creative nor an artist. And I didn't compare his artistic integrity to Lanza's. La Newberry did. In a way that was beyond obscene.

The Cage 4'33" thing is a creative effort. It's stupid. It's bad. It's pointless for a rational egoist but I think you will agree that it comes from the creative artist category rather than the performing artist category

No, Lance, I think you will find there are some of us who do not agree.

Nonsense is nonsense.

All rather simple, really

"I create nothing. I own"

Linz,

What Michael Newberry wrote suggests an interesting point that I haven't seen anyone else mention here:

Mario Lanza is a performing artist. He doesn't write his own material. What Lanza offers as an artist is his voice, his passion, and yes, integrity toward his values as a performer. But he is not a creative artist; Beethoven is. Victor Hugo is. Ayn Rand is. Michaelangelo is.

The Cage 4'33" thing is a creative effort. It's stupid. It's bad. It's pointless for a rational egoist but I think you will agree that it comes from the creative artist category rather than the performing artist category.

The arts today are overrun with (mostly bad) performing artists. The music industry, for example, is corrupt by way of performers who literally do not know how to play a musical instrument (rap and hip-hop performers rely on "synthesizers" to do whatever it is they do and even most rock musicians today are mediocre at best). But, largely, it is not about creating great art today. It is mostly about looking sexy. To compromise on the creative effort is practically a given.

Now, there is nothing at all wrong with being a performing artist like Lanza. But if there is no creative artist, what then? That's what the world is coming to.

I'd forgotten about books in caves, though I remember now our discussing it privately. This was Peikoff's idea of burying copies of Atlas in caves for survivors of the Apocalypse to find.

I think it's a good idea. If there isn't an Apocalypse, nothing is lost. I think there will be. "Frighteningly, within our lifetimes," to quote Peikoff. Only it won't be the Christian theocracy of his fevered imagining, it'll come in some form from the lobotomising and de-KASSing of America, which is the effect of the Drooling Beast. De-KASSed Objectivism ain't no antidote.

Not going over to KASSless on me are you Michael? Wot next? Marry Barbara?

You know exactly who I was referring to ("Let's bury books in caves!!"). And I'm not the only one who has noticed it. If you have been gripped by the "Drooling Beast" too, well, that's too bad for you.

Yeah, those elements exist, so what? Don't tell me that you are going to obsess about them and let them dictate your actions. Rand certainly didn't, and gave the admonishment that "you should never help your destroyers" whose goal is "to defeat the mind".

No, Linz, America is not going down to marshmallows. It has survived, and like Trascinki, maybe its time to start asking "What Went Right". Partly because of the rational elements--those who value success--and they exist too. I know, I've been around it and I've tapped into it.

I still believe, dear Linz, I still believe.

I was referring to a rank pessimism and cynicism that I see pervading many Objectivist circles.

Well, that's an interesting one. I am generally pessimistic on Tuesday and Thursday afternoons; cynical, never. But today's Sunday, and I'm pessimistic. The pervasiveness of the Drooling Beast has got to me again. I just saw something about Oprah and Obama. America is going down not to a theocracy but a mindless marshmallow mobocracy, a cacophony of cool. Is it unduly pessimistic to recognise that?

Michael Moeller has indeed nailed it.

Michael Newberry wrote: "[Artistic integrity] simply means to follow through with your whole spirit, with whatever premises and directions you set." By that standard, one could just as well talk of the 'intellectual integrity' of Lenin, as he carried his beliefs to their murderous ends, or as Mr Moeller suggested, the 'religious integrity' of a suicide bomber.

But the issue is not just about semantics, because as Mr Moeller notes, Mr Newberry goes on to say that he actually holds Cage's artistic 'integrity' in "high regard":

"If you are an anti-artist, wipe art off the face of the planet. Obviously, I hold that in higher regard than I do hedging, ass licking, tiny compromises that increase with your income, etc. I like either/or choices."

Really? So pure evil is better than inconsistent evil?

The trouble with Mr Newberry's formulation is that it isolates one aspect of behaviour (the consistency or efficacy of it) while dropping the ethical context altogether - precisely the Tooheyism that Mr Newberry accuses Linz of. It is entirely right and proper that one should feel such monstrous distaste for the likes of Lenin and Cage that it would be impossible to have "high regard" for any aspect of their behaviour. That's the real either/or nature of the beast and it's where Newberry himself falls down.

"... I don't own any work by either..."

With regards to Cage's 4' 33", is it metaphysically possible to own a 'nothing'?

As a follow-up, I am surprised that you do not understand why people do not connect with your version of "artistic integrity". I think people get your idea that it involves "no comprise" and you see this as "either-or", at least I get it. But you might want to stop at that point.

Its not about people being "Philistines". Concepts have referents in reality. Under the concept 'integrity' IS the actions of a Howard Roark. You are asking people to place Cage next to Roark and unite them under this same concept--a virtue. They stand for completely different things. Don't you see why people have trouble coming to grips with that? You are asking them to ignore value judgments when handing out virtues, the effect of which is to drag Roark down into the gutter with Cage. I hope you can see why this would be unseemly to some people, myself included.

The "true believer" part was not about Objectivists. That part was in response Mr. Newberry's observation of the popularity of PM and why it happens. After reading Hoffer's anatomy of the "true believer" and popular movements, I asked myself a similar question about popular movements. What are the moral and psychological elements that make such movements attractive and popular? I wasn't speaking about Objectivists being "true believers".

And the other part about Objectivists was not about Mr. Newberry as he seems dedicated to his standards, which I applaud. And if you are asking me if I was referring to you, no, I wasn't. I was referring to a rank pessimism and cynicism that I see pervading many Objectivist circles.

Early on here I realized I was hijacking the thread, but I am not a total pig head--in the back of my mind I was thinking up and introducing my own isms.

Philis-tinism= a Coated philistine, the meaning should be obvious to people who been around here.

Tooheyism= the particular manner of dropping context to manipulate arguments--like what Lindsay does when people disagree with him and when they are right.

Twerpism: not seeing the big picture.

Michael

http://www.MichaelNewberry.com

http://www.MichaelNewberry.com

...you do not describe the means of achieving a fraud or destruction in terms of virtue--and integrity, in any field, is a virtue.

Well done!

La Newberry's statement re Cage vs Lanza/Rozsa, made two or three years ago on the old SOLOHQ, was an obscenity. Interestingly, it's he who has chosen to revisit it here, like a crim who can't resist revisiting the scene of his crime.

Personally, I think Objectivists obsess over illustrating what is wrong with the wrong path, and not enough time illustrating the real, concrete fullfillment of achieving those spiritual values through rational pursuits.

I don't know at whom that is directed. It can't be directed at La Newberry, obviously, since I'd be the first to agree that he gets on and does what he talks about. So, at whom? Who are the "true believers" in your sights?

Linz

If I understand your argument correctly, it is basically that P.Modernists like Cage are showing you the emptiness in their souls and thus have integrity to who and what they are... nothing. You’re taking them at their word.

But if there is no art involved, like the “composition” with no music in it, how can that seriously be called “artistic integrity” when there is no art form?

I appreciate the fuller explanation. The problem is, though, I do not think that it is JUST a matter of consistency or congruence between what one says and what one does. Integrity, as a virtue, is inextricably linked to rational standards and values, which is antithesis of nihilism. Virtues are the means to achieving the good. One might say a suicide bomber is consistent with his convictions and acts in accordance, but that is by no means to call it "integrity" because it is the wiping out of values. In other words, you do not describe the means of achieving a fraud or destruction in terms of virtue--and integrity, in any field, is a virtue.

You do raise a very good point, and one I wholeheartedly agree with. Namely, the need to understand why and how such things as PM become popular. I think a lot of Objectivists just write it off as broad-based irrationality in the culture. I don't think the answer is that simple.

Without going fully into my own views, I often think these things give a pretense of fulfilling spiritual values. For instance, an engineer might concern himself with his dreams and goals of building a bridge or building, whereas a "true believer" might seek his own version of "production" not by a rational pursuit, but by foregoing a rational pursuit in favor of immersing himself in some "cause". Such a path is, of course, the abnegation of rational self-interest, but does offer that person a pretense at making their mark on the world. Personally, I think Objectivists obsess over illustrating what is wrong with the wrong path, and not enough time illustrating the real, concrete fullfillment of achieving those spiritual values through rational pursuits.

La Newberry wrote:

Lindsay is engaging in a little variation of Tooheyism. He wants you to believe that craftspeople who don't dictate their own standards are interchangeable with great creators. He also wants you to believe that the standard set by M and da Vinci are impossibly platonic and that I am obscene and and a maggot because I am maintaining those high standards for myself.

Ah, yes, I guess that's it.

Though I have this pesky lingering impression that "obscene" and "maggot" pertained to, "Cage had way more artistic integrity than Lanza or Rozsa."

Cage had none at all; the other two gentlemen had loads of it. What Cage did should not even be considered art.

Setting one's own standards? Ever read about the time Mario walked out of a movie because the director demanded he re-record a particular song less emotionally, Michael?

What I do think is Platonic is the view that integrity is contaminated by context; by any kind of collaboration or patronage or accommodation of market forces. Of course, it can be tainted by those things, but isn't necessarily. That's why I asked Michael if he thought Cage had more integrity than Beethoven. Question still unanswered.

Hell, think of all those years Michelangelo spent on his back. Did that make him a whore for the pope?

Linz Toohey

That's beautiful! how much is it going for?....sorry, couldn't help myself

"interested in how, why, and in what forms PM art rose to prominence"

You show that you are familiar with Rand. The motivations of such types she describes pretty well. There's no mystery to this. Talk about an easy subject.

If a real artist appears then the opposition begins. Usually by character assassination. And no government grant of course.

should point out, Michael, that I love visiting art galleries! ..find it great fun, and have no problem looking at things I dislike...(in the same way I read 99% of posts on solopassion.com to ascertain views other than my own at times)...and there are some very talented chaps out there.

You are correct about self portraits...really does show you what sort of a chap a chap is when he does a self portrait.

"I create nothing. I own"

Elijah,

Oh. No, I am not upset at all. I literally post for my enjoyment.

The misconception that you and many people have is that PM artists don't really mean it. But the best of them are really showing you self-portraits of who they are deep down. For many of you it is inconceivable that people could live and work like that.

Michael

http://www.MichaelNewberry.com

Michael,

 This issue really shouldn't be too difficult for Objectivists to get. Michelangelo and da Vinci catapulted the status of artist from craft-person to creator. You couldn't tell da Vinci or the big M what to do: they set the their personal standard of how they would make their art.

In fiction Rand's Roark is an embodiment of artistic integrity--he sets his own standards of the aesthetics of the building and choice of projects.

In the 20th and 21st centuries we have the bizarre phenomenon of PM art. None of you here seem to be interested in why. But I am interested in how, why, and in what forms PM art rose to prominence world-wide.

Most of the leading PM artists have kept the Renaissance concept of artists as creator and combined that with nihilistic ends. Their visual statements work nicely with PM philosophy, in which the nihilistic concept is what counts and the simply match the means to their ends--meaning fuck method as well. Once the critics and museums commit to this ideology, then comes the marketing and merchandising--in which, they can make huge profits with very little time and effort put into the artwork.

In contrast to PM artists we have tons of craftsmen, many talented artists, that didn't go for fine arts degrees, didn't go for the concert hall, or Opera house. None, none of those people, are working with the artistic integrity of Michelangelo or da Vinci.

It is my belief that a key ingredient to changing the cultural landscape is to recall the artist as creator, which ruthlessly set their own standards for their art and careers.

Lindsay is engaging in a little variation of Tooheyism. He wants you to believe that craftspeople who don't dictate their own standards are interchangeable with great creators. He also wants you to believe that the standard set by M and da Vinci are impossibly platonic and that I am obscene and and a maggot because I am maintaining those high standards for myself.

Michael

http://www.MichaelNewberry.com

you seem a bit upset with your previous posts.

I do not want to upset you, but...you talk about artistic integrity.

If I were to get some canvas and a paint brush, dip it in some paint and then flick it at the canvas so it was a series of blots...did 30 of these (taking all of about 10 minutes to do)...gave them rinky dink names like "Sirocco Sunset" and "Mt Everest General Store"...rented an art gallery to host an 'exhibition' ...and started flogging the 'paintings' off for $20,000 each to Auckland Art World Promo-wankers (who are stupid enough to purchase them)....is that 'integrity'? (taking into account my intention is to 'take the piss')...or is it bordering on fraudulent?

"I create nothing. I own"

One of Hirst's pieces - a pill cabinet - fetched nearly $20 million this year. Now he's giving it away as Damien and Bono the clown hold a charity auction.

"For a relatively small amount of effort on each artist's part we can actually save many lives," Hirst continued. "It's great to be able to give something back and make a difference."

You mean Hirst actually puts ANY effort in???

You do not seem to have laid out much explanation or arguments for your view of "artistic integrity", unless and Argument from Authority can be considered a valid argument. The best I can make of the argument is that it centers around "consistency" but does not consider the ends achieved. The ultimate result in such a conception is to sever virtue from value. Not good.

Besides, you seem to have some basic epistemological problems. When one further narrows a concept (like "integrity" to "artistic integrity") it does NOT contradict the wider concept of "integrity". It is a subdivision of the concept applied to a narrower range of facts. In this case, it would be applied to art.

For instance, I may have the wider concept of "ethics" as general philosophical concept of consciousness. When I narrow it to "legal ethics", I do not invalidate the concept of "ethics". Rather, it is ethics applied to specific legal problems, such as truth to the court, the attorney-client relationship, etc. And I would most certainly not hold up a shyster who "consistently" defrauds and embezzles money from his clients as a pillar of "legal ethics".

Michael, this sort of thing is nonsense...and I am at a loss as to what you are expecting chaps on here to say

You get the same reply as Matty. You won't find me commenting on politics, economics, or things out of my field--simply because I wouldn't know enough to talk about them.

There is a great line from Rand about the good letting evil win because they didn't stand up to it. I am not accusing you philis-tines, of not doing your part--you don't have the knowledge to do so--so you are better off keeping your mouths shut.

But, I am standing up to it: in action, thought, articles, my work. (Lindsay will confirm this.) If you are not behind me on that, take a hike.

Are you seriously expecting [me] to say "Gosh, this Cage fellow is splendid!

Of course not. I never implied such a thing, here or anywhere, ever. This is Lindsay's idee fixe on what that he thinks identifying artistic integrity equals approbation--all I am trying to do is explain why these people are leaders in arts right now--I thought fucking ostriches were in Australia, I didn't know New Zealand was rife with all these birds with there heads up their arses.

Michael

Matty: I would feel silly even dignifying this subject with debate. Done.

If every cultural institution in the world were controlled by Muslims would you feel the same way? My guess is that you might out of being a chicken shit.

Michael

http://www.MichaelNewberry.com

"... the Cage music didn't consist of a single note: it consisted of complete silence."

I read a fabulous pomowanking critique lauding the genius of his 'movement', referring to the music you hear when the pianist isn't playing: the restrained coughs and the clenched shifting among the members of the mesmerised audience.

ha...opps...yes, sorry, I missed out the word 'not'

Should have read "..wrote a piece of music consisting of NOT a single note.."

Jolly keyboard!

"I create nothing. I own"

... was Jenny Gibbs (wife of Alan) , whom I called Dame Juniper Damp-Squibs because of her gin-sodden patronage of poseurs. Billy Apple hung framed, used toilet tissue in the galleries. Michael says he has more artistic integrity than Mario Lanza. Go figure.

And Eli, get it right—the Cage music didn't consist of a single note: it consisted of complete silence.

remember Lindsay on Radio Liberty (I think it was)...or was it the Politically Incorrect Show on Radio Pacific? ...hmmmmm

Anyway, Lindsay was strongly critical of that monstrous old fraud, Billy Apple, who had conned some silly female in Remmers into sponsoring a cup of coffee as being 'art'.

Michael, this sort of thing is nonsense...and I am at a loss as to what you are expecting chaps on here to say

Are you seriously expecting [me] to say "Gosh, this Cage fellow is splendid! he once wrote some music consisting of a single note, where can I purchase the Compact Disc?"

"I create nothing. I own"

John Cage and all 'artists' like him are full of shit. No explanation needed, not even going to bother. I would feel silly even dignifying this subject with debate. Done.

EDIT: Just listined to 4'33. It sucked.

I'll see you in a few years then. Though I'm not sure we should go on meeting this way.

Lindsay,

I know you are confused if you think I am a Platonist--one look at my site should inform you that I do not think in a vacuum, but do everything I say. And, I do not think you are a good judge of people, one good look at your past relationships spells that out clearly.

You still don't indicate to me that you have a clue about artistic integrity--you confuse that with your aesthetic taste. You also confuse that I am in support of Cage, Duchamp, and the PM gang--You think that recognizing their artistic integrity is some kind of sanction of their aims and objectives--A good suicidal terrorists is one that blows up several people and himself--it doesn't mean he is good or right.

But I can see you don't have the conceptual faculty to get your mind around that concept. Its fine with me. I will get in touch with you in a few years and see if you have learned anything along these lines.

Michael

http://www.MichaelNewberry.com

I do not know the reason why you refuse to see that the issue in the arts is "no compromise."

That's because I don't refuse to see it. But you make absurd allegations as to what constitutes compromise, and obscene comparisons between non-compromisers and those who have nothing to compromise. You have a Platonic view of "artistic integrity" whereby it is somehow removed from human endeavour. Composers soil themselves by writing for movies, singers by singing in movies (or on opera stages presumably), etc., and render their integrity far below that of fart-recorders, in this ... er ... idiosyncratic view of yours.

I ask again: who in your view had greater artistic integrity: Beethoven or Cage?

I do not know the reason why you refuse to see that the issue in the arts is "no compromise."

http://www.MichaelNewberry.com

.... win because of Emperor's New Clothes, not because they are displaying "artistic integrity."

Why? Because film composers, no matter how talented, are not composers in the sense of Beethoven--he sets his own standard. Until we have a shit load of artists that do that...PM wins. But you do not comprehend this point. I am not asking for agreement I am asking for your comprehension.

This is a joke, right? Beethoven was commissioned and patronised by princes and dukes. What's the difference between that and Hollywood, other than that Hollywood makes the money it dispenses to the likes of composers non-coercively?

So, according to you, Michael, who had greater "artistic integrity"—Beethoven or Cage?

And what of Roark's "I have clients in order to build"?

Perfect silence is perfect nihilism from a man who is a total cynic. What's your beef with that? hahahahah. Come on Lindsay, you wouldn't be so stupid in politics.

An idiot projects his stupidity--a nihilistic their cynicism--a composer writes jingles...hmmm, what is wrong with this picture? Who is winning? Guys that tape record farts at the Tate Modern. Why? Because film composers, no matter how talented, are not composers in the sense of Beethoven--he sets his own standard. Until we have a shit load of artists that do that...PM wins. But you do not comprehend this point. I am not asking for agreement I am asking for your comprehension.

But one thing that is very amusing in this--you want to make it out that I am a bad guy. And that is just one of your fetishes, you drop context far too easily, when someone flicks your weakness. I have no sympathy for that kind of twearphood.

Michael

http://www.MichaelNewberry.com

It is the "composition" 4' 33'' by that great exemplar of artistic integrity, John Cage, consisting of nothing.

He also liked to stick things, usually metal, in pianos so as to alter the "ambience" of the sound. An unspeakable charlatan on a par with Lois Cook in The Fountainhead. I don't think you'd have found Ayn singing the praises of Lois's "artistic integrity"—or Cage's.

Most of it is nowadays as is evident from this

I admit that reason is a small and feeble flame, a flickering torch by stumblers carried in the starless night, -- blown and flared by passion's storm, -- and yet, it is the only light. Extinguish that, and nought remains.- - Robert Green Ingersoll

'musical work of total silence'

Presumably this is some sort of hoax?

"I create nothing. I own"

Your answer to my previous question is? Here it is again:

Please explain the artistic integrity of a "musical" work consisting of total silence, meaning, a musical work that contains no music.

And if you recall, I didn't "hold up Lanza and Rozsa." YOU raised them as people whose artistic integrity was vastly superseded by that of John Cage, knowing that that would rattle my... er ... cage. I'm proud to be so predictable.

Arguing with you on this is like arguing with the Hsiekovians on the fatwa. "If you don't agree with me you don't understand the Objectivist view of the role of ideas in history" becomes "If you don't agree with me you don't understand what artistic integrity is." Well, I say to you as I said to them—shove it up your ass.

Linz

 Nope you still don't understand it.

 No, it is not amusing. You do not want to see the glaring obvious point: that for cultural change towards a flourishing arts an absolutely no compromise stance is essential. And this is where postmodernists have the upper hand--they stick to their freakish guns no matter what. Holding up Rozsa and Lanza to combat them is simply feeding the postmodern fire. I am only pointing out why that is so. It would behoove you to comprehend what artistic integrity is. 

http://www.MichaelNewberry.com

I understand what you are trying to argue. It's fine to cite Dostoevsky, Tolstoy and the like. But you argued John Cage, who cannot even be counted as an artist, let alone one with integrity. Please explain the artistic integrity of a "musical" work consisting of total silence, meaning, a musical work that contains no music.

Rand said such charlatans should be consigned to the ash-can, and I agree with her. You said one of their number had greater artistic integrity than Lanza or Rozsa, picking your examples very deliberately no doubt. That I did not and will not countenance. You no doubt find it amusing. I call it treason.

Just checking in wit ya. You know you talk about being a straight shooter--but, in this case, you are like J over at OL. You should know that integrity and artistic integrity are not the same concepts--yet you misleadingly quote Rand to imply she is talking about artistic integrity, when she isn't.

"It is significant that according to Dostoevsky's preliminary notes for The Possessed, his original intention was to create Stavrogin as an ideal man--an embodiment of the Russian-Christian-altruist soul. As the notes progressed, that intention changed gradually, in logically inexorable steps dictated by Dostoevsky's artistic integrity. In the final, in the actual novel, Stavrogin is on of the Dostoesvsky's most repulsively evil characters."

Its okay if you don't know what artistic integrity is, not many people do.

http://www.MichaelNewberry.com

... is a term I might use of someone who claimed that John Cage had more artistic integrity than Miklos Rozsa or Mario Lanza, in light of the Objectivist esthetics and the Objectivist view that "integrity does not consist of loyalty to one's subjective whims, but of loyalty to rational principles." I say "might." In the cold light of day I'd possibly reconsider, and look for a stronger word.

Thanks, that was useful, I needed reminding on "pomowankery"

 Lindsay,

 Is "maggot" only reserved for me and not a prinicpled concept?

 ;) Michael

http://www.MichaelNewberry.com

of the definitions are most amusing.

It is splendid we have a glossary here...when the site is being worked on later this morning, perhaps William can put it up the top in easy reach?

"I create nothing. I own"

Finally, a glossary. I didn't realise this was here. Since I joined I've been trying to figure out the derivation of pomowanker.

Bookmarked.

It's one of the main reasons I don't post there anymore.

---Landon

Inking is sexy.

http://www.angelfire.com/comics/wickedlakes

I loved the "Objectivist Monologuer" article and have one connection to add. While it is true other people sort of exist on the "periphery" for him, he still profoundly needs them. He needs them as an audience, he needs their applause to feed his sense of vanity--so it is still otherism, in that sense. Closely tied in is his need to constantly be right because being wrong before his audience would be a profound blow to his pseudo self-estem.

Oh, indeed! As I quoted Rand as saying, "Vanity is the most selfless of qualities."

At any rate, you will be happy to know, Linz, that during that whole NEM debacle one of the gripes against you was your use of these terms, such as Objectivist Lying and Saddamite. One of these warm and fuzzy creatures asked what use of these terms accomplished? He then admantly reaffirmed the psychological comparison being made (albeit in a "limited sense"--wink wink) between "Certain People" and the commissars and suicide bombers all under the heading of "learning". You figure that out.

How fucking vile can those KASSless creatures get? Ugh!

What I have figured out is that there are two kinds of folk in the world: those who are passionate valuers and those who are passionless poseurs, passionless ANTI-valuers. The lack of passion of those in the latter category derives from their lack of conviction, of course. See my Borders speech. Actually, of course, there are also evil PASSIONATE anti-valuers—Islamo-Fascists, for instance. Their passion makes them potent—but it's the KASSlessness of the passionless poseurs that enables the likes of Islamo-Fascists to be victorious.

Sounds as though the NEM discussion was illustrative.

I wasn't quite sure what "pusball" meant; therefore I was working off of description.

I loved the "Objectivist Monologuer" article and have one connection to add. While it is true other people sort of exist on the "periphery" for him, he still profoundly needs them. He needs them as an audience, he needs their applause to feed his sense of vanity--so it is still otherism, in that sense. Closely tied in is his need to constantly be right because being wrong before his audience would be a profound blow to his pseudo self-estem.

At any rate, you will be happy to know, Linz, that during that whole NEM debacle one of the gripes against you was your use of these terms, such as Objectivist Lying and Saddamite. One of these warm and fuzzy creatures asked what use of these terms accomplished? He then admantly reaffirmed the psychological comparison being made (albeit in a "limited sense"--wink wink) between "Certain People" and the commissars and suicide bombers all under the heading of "learning". You figure that out.

Michael

PS. Feel free to use Riggenba'ath at your leisure.

The crossover is with pomowanker. I've put in a brief entry for "pusball" to that effect. Thanks for reminding me. Also added several new entries, including Robert-Robert Badinutta, & tweaked several existing ones.

Incidentally, Michael, I love "Riggenba'ath" but can't include it as it's one of yours.

What happened to "pusball"? Too much crossover with "prissyholic"?
Michael

I only remember it because someone I knew played it all the time! Pure trash.

I'm a little partial to "The Prisoner" myself if we're talking Dickenson. Ok the whole Number of the Beast album (minus said 22 accadia avenue).

But if we're talking stage I can see why you dig Dickenson, guy has a very big "Broadway" feel.

---Landon

Inking is sexy.

http://www.angelfire.com/comics/wickedlakes

I was a little slow, a little, uh, KASSless if you will, in recognizing the origin of this strange capitalization for KASS. It's a headline for an article that begins with all-cap abbreviated names . . . so it fits in with the format. I dunno, doesn't that seem a bit of an obscure origin and justification for the all-caps?

(cower KASSlessly from Linz's coming tirade) ?

Best Maiden tune: Can I Play With Madness?

Glorious, propulsive riffing. Ludicrously theatrical lyrics. It deserves to be in a stage show.