Jump to content

Talk:Aesthetic Realism/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

Archiving

For those who want to see the history of discussion, click on the history tab. This page at 31kb was getting too long. There is enough controversy on it to call for a fresh beginning.

It is hoped that the writers who contribute to this page are true critics. As Constantin von Hoffmeister writes--in the words of Matthew Arnold a true critic's job as "to see the object as in itself it really is."

--Aperey 20:16, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

As noted above, we do not eliminate talk content and tell the reader to rummage through the history for it. Standard practice is to archive it. Standard practice in archiving is to leave currently active discussions in place on the main talk page, but in this instance I simply archived everything you had deleted, partly because there's really no bright line setting off what should be kept here on the main talk page. JamesMLane 22:06, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Editing notes

Streamlining what had become an onerous article much appreciated--I removed a subjective passage that did not add to the understanding of Aesthetic Realism.


I removed the comment on Michael Bluejay's motives--the discussion should focus on the veracity of the issues raised, not on the person. Readers can draw their own conclusions about the state of mind of the various participants.

I added back the attack on me

I don't mind the attack on my motives in the article. I have no problem letting the other side air their complaints about their primary critic. Since the section in question covers how AR deals with its critics, this is a primary source of how they do so, and thus I believe adds much value to the article. So I'll add the attack on me back to the article.

If you really feel it's inappropriate for the article, let's talk about it. I doubt you'd change my mind, but I'm willing to listen. Michaelbluejay 03:15, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

Interesting point

Using the ad hominem attack from an AR supporter to demonstrate a modus operandi of the group is an interesting angle. I will leave it alone, then.

Actually it's not representative

Since each AR supporter has his own view, and the particular supporter you quote says things that most others don't, I will remove it.

Disagreement

Hello,

I have received a mail from Arnold Perey concerning this article. May I recommand that you seek help from the Wikipedia:Mediation Committee ? thanks Anthere

Request for Mediation

In looking at the procedures to initiate mediation, I see that it is necessary that both editing parties wish it. I do wish mediation. I hope that Michael Bluejay also does. I am hereby submitting my request and will message mediators about it. --66.114.86.135 21:42, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

Nearly immortal?

This is editorializing and is not supported by any AR text I've seen. Can the writer show a text? If not, it should be edited out, no?

Defense of edits

First of all, I welcome outside help with this article, so it's not just a war between AR supporters and their most vocal critic (me). I spent a lot of time reading the various methods of resolution on Wikipedia and I'm not sure which one(s) I should pursue. I would welcome mediation but I'm not certain whether we're allowed to go to that point before trying other methods. The documentation about resolution methods is verbose and I just spent a lot of time reading it and I'm having a hard time keeping it all in my head.

Oh, I see that another party has agreed to mediation. Great, let's go for it. I'm confident that third party help will result in a fair article.

Actually it's not representative
Since each AR supporter has his own view, and the particular supporter you quote says things that most others don't, I will remove it.

Whoa, wait a minute, here's why it's representative: It's on the Aesthetic Realists' _Countering the Lies_ website! They obviously feel it represents them well or they wouldn't have put it there. If they don't feel it's representative they're free to take it down, but so long as they hold this up as a good example of countering their critics, then I think it should be treated as such.

Also, obviously not everybody has the same exact opinion. That's not the point. This is simply an _example_ of such an opinion (and I think it's a pretty good example).

Nearly immortal?
This is editorializing and is not supported by any AR text I've seen. Can the writer show a text?

Um, how about in the article itself? :) The quote therein says:

"Eli Siegel, founder of the philosophy Aesthetic Realism, is, in my careful opinion and that of a growing number of people, the greatest human being ever to live. That means the person fairest to the world and most useful to it. This means the person kindest, most learned, most ethical, most imaginative, and most desirous of learning; the greatest fighter against ugliness in people, the greatest encourager of beauty; the person at once most unified and diverse, most serious and humorous, powerful and subtle, magnificent and democratic."

If that's not nearly immortal I don't know what is.

I think there was also another quote in the article about how _Self and World_ was supposedly greater than Shakespeare and the Bible, but if so then it's been edited out. It's from one of their books, and it's on my website. Finally, I published on my site the testimony of a former student who said, "While I was in AR, I did believe that Eli Siegel was greater than Christ...It would have been accurate to say I 'worshipped' him."

So I don't think this is 'editorializing', I think it's backed up by the facts.

Can't wait for the mediation. --Michael Bluejay

My understanding is that mediation can be an appropriate first step. In this particular instance, however, one alternative worth considering would be a Request for comment. That's easy for me to say, though, because I'm not willing to do the work to set it up. JamesMLane 07:18, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

Mediation

Anthere asked me to come by and see if everybody would agree to having me serve as a neutral mediator to help you come to a mutually-agreeable solution to your disagreement? I haven't thoroughly read over the talk pages or archives yet, so I'm not very familiar with the disagreement, but please feel free to contact me on my talk page or by email at clockworksoul AT optonline DOT net. – ClockworkSoul 05:45, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

Michael Bluejay agrees to mediation

Yes, yes, please help us mediate! I left a note on your Talk page. Michaelbluejay 07:34, 15 May 2005 (UTC)


Further editing notes

The current article has gotten a bit verbose, and, at times, off track. I deleted some redundant passages, and made other minor changes to tighten up the language.


The first paragraph needs a major reworking--the opening line does not tell us what AR is.

Moving the matter of controversy to another entry

In keeping with the way the controvery over John Kerry's military service was moved to a separate category--while there is a straightforward account of Kerry's life under his name--I have moved the whole "Criticisms / Objections" section to a new category, "Criticisms / Objections As to Aesthetic Realism." There, it can be dealt with a more length.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Kerry_military_service_controversy

The reason for creating the daughter article about John Kerry military service controversy was that there was so much detail about that point, but it was a minor aspect of Kerry's overall biography. Including all the detail in the main John Kerry article would have been clutter. Simply excising all the detail would lose information. Therefore, we created a daughter article and left behind a short summary in the main article. I don't think the AR article is in the same situation. The article isn't unusually long; furthermore, in an article about a set of beliefs, the criticisms and objections are central, not peripheral the way the Swift Boat ads were peripheral to Kerry's career. Presentation of the AR philosophy itself and of criticisms and objections could readily be accommodated in one article, if not for the problem of the constant POV editing. JamesMLane 21:06, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedians, please help me combat AR's censorship and POV rants

AR supporters have one opinion of AR and I, as a critic, have another. Fine. The difference is that I'd still like this article to be a legitimate encyclopaedia entry while AR prefers to excise criticism and insert ridiculous POV cheerleading. Here's an example of how Aperey described a link to the site which tries to rebut critics like me:

"Why those saying it is a cult are, in fact, lying"

This is SO RIDICULOUSLY POV it's not even funny. I call on the Wikipedia community to help me combat this nonsense. I can't do it alone. I've requested mediation but I don't know when that process will start. Thanks, Michaelbluejay 05:28, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

One possibility is to wait and see what happens through mediation, though I wouldn't be particularly optimistic.
Here's another possibility:
  1. You set up User:Michaelbluejay/Aesthetic Realism (draft). This is a subpage in your user space. You can set it up by clicking on the link I've created. On that subpage, you write the article the way you think it should look, leaving in reasonable pro-AR comments, restoring the criticism that you wrote that got promptly deleted, and NPOVing the whole thing. You can do this by cutting and pasting from past versions of the article and from the talk page, as well as writing new material.
  2. When you think it's ready, let me know. I'll look at it for NPOV and for Wikipedia style and format. I know I said I wasn't going to waste more time on this, but, as an experienced user here, I don't feel comfortable about just walking away from this festering dispute. I hope we can wrap it up so that everyone can spend time editing Perverted-Justice.com. (Pardon the in-joke; that's another ongoing edit war.)
  3. You can accept whichever of my suggestions you please. Arnold Perey can meanwhile be refining the article any way he wants to. When both of you have your preferred versions ready to go, we'll post a notice at Wikipedia:Requests for comment and invite Wikipedians to participate in a poll about which version is better.
As I mentioned earlier, the flaw in this plan is the danger that few or no people will respond to the RfC. All the work involved might end up being for naught. JamesMLane 08:47, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedians, let us look at the facts

It is not right for Mr. Bluejay to use Wikipedia as a platform to attack a legitimate philosophy and the professional people who study and teach it--doctors, artists, persons in the social sciences, teachers, homemakers, and more. I hope that anyone who wants to deal with this situation reads carefully and is not in a hurry.

Mr. Bluejay's attacks (take a look at the history of this page) are far too numerous for me create a legitimate article and hope it stays put. I have written and rewritten, only to find the saboteur at work again.

That is why mediation is necessary--at least to begin getting a just article.

I can rewrite till the end of time if need be to have the truth win out over obvious "bad-mouthing."

Apparently Mr. Bluejay wants to use Wikipedia's terms in his attack, such as the above "This is SO RIDICULOUSLY POV;" and in doing this he is ever so transparent. In fact, he is promoting his own, obviously NOT NEUTRAL, point of view.

Yes, as one Wikipedian wrote to me, everyone has the right to his opinion even if it is delusional. But no one has the right to suppress what another believes to be true, as Mr. Bluejay has tried to do to my writing.

He has censored me--unfortunately--and cried out that he was censored because I, hastily, deleted links that led to his libelous website. And later have tried to add paragraphs describing what I know to be true, often using legitimate and authoritiative sources. Further, I have tried to put what is unimportant in its proper place, and what is important and central in its place. But this is not allowed?

There has been no dialogue--just Mr. Bluejay's and a few others' peremptory comments, deletions, and substitutions. Democratic? No. Authoritarian? Yes.

This should change.

The "Big Lie" technique, in which you tell a lie so big that it intimidates people, and you tell it again and again, has been used in history. This is his technique and those who are sustaining lies about Aesthetic Realism.

Apparently Mr. Bluejay is afraid of mediation--writing "I've requested mediation but I don't know when that process will start"--and wants to do something else to preempt it.

There should be a real dialogue. Mr. Bluejay wants a fait accompli with his own version in place--badly misrepresenting a real history, an important philosophy, and honest people who teach it.

So I have set some facts before you.

--Aperey 15:32, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Mediation from Silversmith

The first thing I want both of you Michaelbluejay and Aperey to do is thoroughly read our NPOV policy. Then I want you to both make sure, every time you write something on a discussion page, to sign and also use : at the begining to indent. The more :'s you put, the greater the indentation. The best way to resolve disputes over article content is to back up your edits with sources. You copy and paste the URL from the site and put [ ] around it, as opposed to [[ ]] for internal wiki links. You need to discuss all this on the talk page before editing/reverting the article and reach a consensus. Making attacks on each other solves nothing. You need to carefully explain your edits, using sources, and maintain NPOV in the article. It is good to put the opinions from all sides in an article, as long as you point out that it is "their opinion", or "so and so has claimed." I don't personally know anything about this topic, so I can't help edit it, but hopefully my advice has helped. Do not break the 3 revert rule. If someone is a troll or a vandal then you can request to have them blocked, but it must be shown that they are. Write to me on my talk page if you want more help. --Silversmith 17:14, 20 May 2005 (UTC)


Editing notes

I deleted the part that argued that people angry with the philosophy itself have attacked Aesthetic Realism--the argument sets up a straw man, and does not add to the understanding of Aesthetic Realism.

  • Please respect the mediation process and do not modify this article. Edits shouldn't be done without permission.
Question: Are you sure you know enough about this history to say a "straw man" is involved? Please discuss this matter before going ahead with deletions or other modifications. It's only fair.
Since you haven't signed your editing, but are anonymous, are you aware that this decreases your credibility?
Again, please respect the Wikipedia spirit, rules, and ethics. I am sure that a fair article will result if Wikilove is adhered to. --Aperey 15:20, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Deletion requested

In Wikipedia "Words to Avoid" we have this instruction from the administration: don't say "X is a cult" See Words to Avoid. This phrase ought to be deleted from the article. It is a hideous lie.

More precisely, that guideline says:
The word 'cult' itself is very controversial, and has several different meanings and has very negative connotations. In general it should be avoided--don't say "X is a cult", say "so and so has called X a 'cult' because...".
This article shouldn't adopt the opinion that Aesthetic Realism is a cult, but it's perfectly acceptable to report that opinion. JamesMLane 18:09, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
What I refer to is the unacceptable link "Aesthetic Realism is a Cult (http://michaelbluejay.com/x/)" -- This is not reporting an opinion, is it? Looks to me like a violoation of don't say "X is a cult" and should be eliminated forthwith.
That's the title of the website, and we prefer to use descriptive titles instead of URLs where possible. I think our readers will understand that Wikipedia isn't stating Aesthetic Realism to be a cult, any more than we're stating it to be a new foundation for interdisciplinary musicology just because we report the title of your presentation on that subject. If you think that someone might conceivably miss this point, however, we could add a description, so that the entry would read something like:
I don't think that's necessary but I wouldn't consider it objectionable. For an example, torn from today's headlines, see Priscilla Owen#External links, where we give one website title on each side: The pro-Owen site refers to the blocking of her nomination as a "Four-Year Injustice", while the anti-Owen site says that its concern is to "Save our Courts". The inclusion of these POV website titles doesn't violate NPOV. JamesMLane 23:17, 23 May 2005 (UTC)


Last section deserves revision

The last section of the article states: "Meanwhile, the furtherance of these scientific and humanistic goals, which Aesthetic Realism stands for preeminently, has angered some individuals. These have worked to disparage this new education with pejoratives."

The anger described (if referring to Michael Bluejay's site) is erringly ascribed to the furtherance of the goals of AR. It's the method of furthering these goals that has angered some folks. Bluejay's site is clear on the distinction.

Last section is accurate

Meanwhile, the persons who now study and teach Aesthetic Realism have responded to Michael Bluejay by saying that the "methods" he attributes to Aesthetic Realism are, in fact, not true but exactly what the paragraph describes: "dispargement" and "pejoratives." Former students of Aesthetic Realism, who have had no connection with it for many years, have also written descriptions of their past study of Aesthetic Realism which take exception with Michael Bluejay and call into question his accuracy and impartiality.

A title can be somebody's slant on a subject

If somebody titled a website "The Polio Vaccine is a Fake" I think it is only fair to let people know it's an opinion, not a fact. They shouldn't have to find out the hard way.

P.S. removing the NPOV sign. Who is this James M. Lane to dictate what is and what isn't neutral voice? His own writing is remarkably non-neutral in tone as a rule.

I am nobody to "dictate" anything. Any Wikipedian can add that tag, subject to certain rules. In this instance, I raised specific issues on the talk page. My concerns weren't addressed here, and my changes to try to make the article more neutral were promptly reverted, so the article is still biased. For just a couple examples, so you won't have to go hunt them up: The assertion that people actually did change from being homosexuals is a claim made by Aesthetic Realism; we can report that that's what they say, but the current text accepts their statement (which is contested) as the truth. The last paragraph of the article talks about favorable opinions of Aesthetic Realism from unnamed "[p]ersons with broad knowledge in these scholarly and humanistic fields". If there are such persons, it shouldn't be too hard to find one and give a quotation attributed to that person, with a reference (online or paper). The comment in the last sentence about people working to "disparage" Aesthetic Realism with "pejoratives" is pure POV. JamesMLane 01:50, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
Indeed, the tag is needed. When I neutralized the "fact" that people had "changed" their sexual orientation by attributing it to Aesthetic Realism, it was promptly converted back to a "fact". I've now made an edit which fixes this once again, and addresses several other of James's quite proper concerns. - Outerlimits 03:37, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
I reverted another removal of the tag, since I don't see that the dispute has been resolved. In that same edit, I reverted a reference to "widely documented" claims which were not documented in this article. Jonathunder 20:11, 2005 May 27 (UTC)

Those "people with broad knowledge"

One of them, Elijah Cummings, is a politician from Baltimore, Siegel's birthplace. I'd guess he issued some sort of proclamation or official letter without giving it much thought, like the pols described in this link that keeps disappearing from the ext links even though it's a highly informative article about Aesthetic Realism that quotes people on both sides. Not that I'm suggesting we should link to it that way, but we should link to it. Meanwhile, what was the context of the Cummings quotation? Did a reporter ask him about his intellectual influences, and he volunteered Siegel's name? Or did constituents ask him to send a feel-good type letter about the subject, and he adopted language they suggested without doing much investigation? JamesMLane 04:41, 28 May 2005 (UTC)


  • I restored the link to the article from the Baltimore Jewish Times--among other things, it discusses the process in which some politicians have come to praise Siegel. It's an interesting read. It had been removed by Dr. Perey, not the mediator.

A Response

If I removed it, it was my clumsiness. I have no intention of doing so. It is a low point in tabloid journalism--constructed to give a false impression while having the appearance of "objectivity" to the unwary reader. Some of its techniques are pointed out in "Friends of Aesthetic Realism--Countering the Lies." I have written a paragraph by paragraph analysis but haven't posted it yet. It is, however, transparent enough in its bias to be unpersuasive.

I do not expect to engage much in these discussions, but I will be watching. --Aperey 15:01, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

Another Response

Interesting dispute. I read the Jewish Times article. It seemed to me it was written by a zealous reporter who had a point of view. She seemed to want to discredit Eli Siegel in order to embarrass city officials and burnish her credentials as a hotshot "investigative" reporter. While she quotes a very flippant remark made about Eli Siegel by Max Gordon, she doesn't balance that quote with any made by people like William Carlos Williams and other third-parties quoted in the Wikipedia entry about Aesthetic Realism that show a rather high regard for Siegel or at least some intellectual acknowledgement of him as a serious thinker. I find it hard to believe the thesis of this article that city officials just automatically issue proclamations without some basis in fact for it. The article also contains many quotes from ex-students of the group slamming Aesthetic Realism but almost none from ex-students with more positive points of view--though they clearly exist and have, in fact, written statements on Aesthetic Realism's "countering the lies" site. The members of Aesthetic Realism quoted in the article do sound quite gushing. But I wonder if they are being fairly quoted or only quoted selectively to make them sound that way. It shouldn't come as a surprise to anybody that the bias of a reporter can cause him or her to "tailor" a story in a way that might not be completely accurate. I'll look forward to the analysis from Aperey. I don't know too much about Aesthetic Realism but this dispute makes me curious and I think I'll try to find out more about it for myself without relying on filtered information from either its enthralled supporters or its axe-grinding detractors.

  • Some of us are neither. I was exposed to Aesthetic Realism through someone I respected. I read through a lot of the material, and while its an interesting way to look at life, it ultimately falls short. Taoism reflects a similar approach, though with a richer background. Your response seems rational--Eli Siegel posed an intriguing view of the world. My limited experience with Aesthetic Realists (and my experience here on Wiki), however, made an honest attempt at understanding the man Eli Siegel impossible.
  • While Taoism does speak about opposites that are in tension but not flatly opposed, it is too superficial to equate it too closely with Aesthetic Realism. Hegel also based his philosophic thought on opposites and again, while there are similarities to the approach of Eli Siegel, there are also important differences that make Eli Siegel's thought original. His thesis that the same opposites that compose the essential structure of reality are also the opposites that every human self is always dealiang with--and trying through the process of life itself to "make one"--and that people can learn how to do this from the study of all the arts and sciences as well as the "stuff" of everyday life, cannot be found in either Tao or Hegel and, I believe, constitutes a fresh and sound basis for further philosophic inquiry. Taoism also believes that the opposites cause all life to bend back in upon itself in coming full circle. This is illustrated in the yin/yang symbol with its outer containing circle. In my reading of Aesthetic Realism literature, which I admit has not been exhaustive but has been more than cursory, I see the opposites being used to advance the reverse theory: namely, that instead of life bending back in upon itself, it's motion is onward and upward, in an increasingly ethical direction. In an often quoted statement in Aesthetic Realism literature, Eli Siegel defines ethics as "giving other things what they deserve as the one means of giving yourself what you deserve" (opposites) and says: "Ethics is a force like steam, the atom, electricity--and will have its way." For myself, I prefer this way of understanding the role of opposites to the one found in Taoism, though I do think very highly of Taoism with its emphasis on simplicity and the natural. (Please note that the above quotes from Aesthetic Realism are approximate and offered from memory. I make my apologies to those who know the subject far better than I.)

various issues

  • "Ended his life" is a euphemism for "killed himself" or "committed suicide". This is an encyclopedia; such euphemisms are inappropriate.
  • "change from homosexuality" is a quote: it belongs in quotation marks, especially as it is an idiosyncratically AR way of talking about such things. - Outerlimits 17:43, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

unsourced quote

This quote has no cited source:

Huntington Cairns, Secretary of the National Gallery of Art, "I believe that Eli Siegel is a genius. He did for aesthetics what Spinoza did for ethics."

Can we please get one before adding it back? Also, I removed some unsourced assertions surrounding it. Thanks, -Willmcw 21:15, May 28, 2005 (UTC)

Nevermind - I found a source and added it back. Cheers, -Willmcw 21:19, May 28, 2005 (UTC)

"killed" is definitely the wrong word

While I don't intend to fiddle around with the entry on Aesthetic Realism, not knowing all that much about it, I do object to the use of the word "killed" in describing how Eli Siegel died. My father choose to end his life with dignity at an advanced age when his health had badly eroded and he was in fierce pain. I would be very angry if people went around describing that rational (and I believe wise) decision as him "killing" himself. It seems the persons involved in Aesthetic Realism feel likewise--and understandly so. The anti-Aesthetic Realism folk are the ones insisting on this language and that should tell you everything you need to know about how accurate or appropriate the use of this word is. "Ended his life" seems far more descriptive of what actually happened and is hardly a euphemism. That's how I would describe how my Dad passed away. We don't go around saying Jackie Kennedy "killed" herself, do we? I'd be pleased if somebody would fix this. (- not signed)

If someone committed suicide, that's generally how it's objectively stated. "Committed suicide" is a straightforward, truthful statement, and would be perfectly acceptable. Euphemisms, suchs as "died with dignity", as a previous version stated, hide information and are inappropriate. - Outerlimits 15:58, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
Sorry to press the point, but I don't think "suicide" works either. Although it is preferable to "killed", it doesn't really address the concerns of the person who made the first comment above. While it is true, as Webster's Seventh New Collegiate Dictionary states, that suicide is "the act or an instance of taking one's own life voluntarily and intentionally esp. by a person of years of discretion and of sound mind" it still has a stigma attacked to it that current thought on a person's right to die with dignity would challenge. I took a hand at making a suggested change that I hope will satisfy both parties above.
  • "Euthanasia" implies a third party was involved in taking Siegel's life. (- not signed)
Suicide is probably the correct, straightforward, and truthful term. Somewhere buried in the history of this article the assertion was made that followers/adherents/practitioners of Aesthetic Realism have a great deal of difficulty speaking of Eli Seigel's suicide in a truthful, strightforward manner. That assertion—so vehemently denied at the time—seems to have been proven by subsequent editing. I think we need to use the correct, frank, and true term here, and perhaps restore some mention of the fact that the circumstances of Siegel's death are dealt with in the publications of Aesthetic Realism with a great deal of euphemism, obfuscation, misdirection and denial. - Outerlimits 22:05, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

First two paragraphs are a little off. Some words used I think are POV.

"Aesthetic Realism is the philosophy founded by poet and critic Eli Siegel in 1941. Among the public it is best known for statements that some of its adherents had "changed from homosexuality" as a result of their study. In 1990, the Aesthetic Realism Foundation discontinued this aspect of the philosophy's study because of what it described as the "atmosphere of anger" surrounding the subject which made impartial, philosophic discussion of Aesthetic Realism itself difficult. [1] (http://www.counteringthelies.com/m_carpenter.html)

"Its adherents find the Aesthetic Realism point of view of art more significant: the Terrain Gallery was founded in 1955 with the publication of Eli Siegel's "Is Beauty the Making One of Opposites?" then reprinted in The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism and elsewhere. Among still others, including the critics Kenneth Rexroth and William Packard, Eli Siegel was best known for his poetry and his literary criticism."

The word "adherents" sounds off to me. We don't say "The adherents of Stanford University" when referring either to faculty or students.
The sentence "Its adherents find the Aesthetic Realism point of view of art more significant..." is hard to see the meaning of. It doesn't take into account the art critic Huntington Cairns who found the point of view to art as significant as Spinoza's to ethics. (Spinoza put ethics on an almost mathematical footing I believe--something I believe Siegel does for aesthetics, the branch of philosophy that studies beauty.) -- Artists have exhibited at the Terrain Gallery for about 50 years and the point of view to art was highly significant to them. They included a significant number of greats like Claes Oldenberg and Charles Magistro. (see terraingallery.org). And William Carlos Williams who found Siegel's poetry immensely important for American culture. None of these are "adherents" no matter how you define this term. Any comments? --66.147.179.246 17:07, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
The Williams letter refers solely to one of Siegel's poems, not to the philosophy. Regarding the word "adherents", it is often used to refer to a school of thought or a philosophy and so is appropriate in this context. -Willmcw 17:47, May 31, 2005 (UTC)
No, Williams explicitly is referring to MANY of Siegel's poems, sent to him by Martha Baird. That is why he begins: "I cannot adequately thank you for first writing me and then sending me the copies of Eli Siegel's poems. I am thrilled: your communications could not have come at a better time. I can't tell you how important Siegel's work is in the light of my present understanding of the modern poem. He belongs in the very first rank of our living artists. That he has not been placed there by our critics (what good are they?) is the inevitable result of their colonialism..."[1] Aperey
OK, so Williams is refering to several of Siegel's poems. That is not the same as referring to Siegel's philosophy, unless you are saying that it was contained in his 1925 poetry. So it is irrelevant to quote Williams about AR. -Willmcw 18:01, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)
The Williams-Siegel Documentary reports "two groups of poems"--probably over 50 poems I'd guess.
If Stanford University were a philosophy, it might well have adherents. It's not, and Aesthetic Realism is (and does). - Outerlimits 22:07, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
The Aesthetic Realism Foundation is a cultural and educational institute. Aesthetic Realism is the philosophy taught there. People who come to study in classes and consultations are students, not adherents. One cannot fairly say if a person comes to eight consultations and sees people and the world more accurately--and therefore is better able to appreciate art, to care for people, and to be kind--that person is an "adherent." No, he or she has learned something. There is an effect of knowledge one has gained, sometimes very quickly; sometimes over a longer period of study, which will be richer.

Take for example a person who doesn't like Chaucer but never read more than a few lines. Then that person comes to love Chaucer because a good teacher explained the poetry cogently, factually, and made its beauty felt. For "Chaucer" read "the world" and you have a sense of how Aesthetic Realism enables a person to care for the world more. It isn't "adherence" but study. --Aperey 17:35, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

============================

I added some documentation. There is more.

The fact is the Aesthetic Realism Foundation is not a philosophy but a school--this makes things a little different from the common way of thinking about a philosophy. Knowledge is transmitted, including about anthropology (which I teach), poetry, acting, and other subjects which are part of the curriculum. The education process is not really included in the term "adherent." It sounds more like geting glued to something than assimilating knowledge from it. (I say this with adequate awareness of the common usage of the term "adherent," I hope.) --

Cheers, --Aperey 22:47, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The Foundation is indeed an institution, not a philosophy. As Outerlimits pointed out, though, Stanford is also an institution. I assume that, at Stanford, a student can take classes about Marxism. It would seem odd to call someone an adherent of Stanford, but perfectly normal to call someone an adherent of Marxism (or of libertarianism, or of Christianity, or of the theory of evolution). "Adherent" seems to me to be a neutral word for someone who agrees with a particular point of view. "Proponent" goes beyond that to connote active advocacy, "follower" might have an implication that the person didn't exercise critical judgment, and "supporter" is too weak because in some contexts it would include someone who didn't agree with the doctrine but who defended the right of other people to teach it. JamesMLane 23:47, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Did the poem "Hot Afternoons Have Been in Montana" sweep America? Yes, it did. See below:

In a 1944 article in the Baltimore Sun, Donald Kirkley referred to the immense national popularity of "Hot Afternoons Have Been in Montana" in 1925 as "a flood of publicity." In fact, the title "Hot Afternoons Have Been in Montana" was so well known that it is quoted in Bartlett's Familiar Quotations (edition to follow if needed).

Donald Kirkley wrote this about Mr. Siegel--

He thought "all knowledge was connected — that geology was connected with music, and poetry with chemistry, and history with sports." ... He wished to find ... some principle, unifying all the various manifestations of reality.

That principle was, "The world, art, and self explain each other: each is the aesthetic oneness of opposites." It is the basis of Aesthetic Realism. And writing about Siegel in 1925, after the Nation Poetry Prize:

Baltimore friends close to him at the time will testify to a certain integrity and steadfastness of purpose that distinguished Mr. Siegel. . . . He refused to exploit a flood of publicity which was enough to float any man to financial comfort. . . . He took a job as a newspaper columnist at a respectable salary, and quit it when he found that he would not be allowed to say what he wanted at all times.

Cheers, Aperey (Arnold Perey)

"Sweeping the nation" implies a popularity on the order of hula hoops, the macarena, or pet rocks. A "flood of publicity" (as demonstrated by an article in the Baltimore Sun) and a quotation in Bartlett's do not add up to "sweeping the nation". - Outerlimits 20:26, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

BY THE WAY I believe something like that did happen. Across the country, as I understand it, people were writing in their local newspapers poems in imitation of "Hot Afternoons Have Been in Montana." People were stirred by the poem. You should read it out loud (it's online) to see some of the poetic quality that captured the imagination of Americans and simultaneously made the "authorities," the "establishement," so angry. It's a credit to Mr. Siegel's integrity that he didn't capitalize on this early fame but continued developing his philosophy and poetry regardless of what authorities "accepted" it or "criticized" it or ignored it. I admire his choice immensely. --Aperey 20:02, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Can someone please explain why this poem, and the fact that it won an award, is so important to the philosophy of Aesthetic Realism? I can understand that it was important in Siegel's career, but why is it in the introduction? And what is its relevance to the philosophy? Could we write a paragraph or two that answers those questions and put all the "Hot Afternoons" and poetry discussion there? That would give it some context. -Willmcw 21:29, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)

Criticism as to AR

After posting the merge tags some days ago I have now proceeded to merge back the "Criticism" section. We need to edit it all together or there will be too much duplication. We want to get one good comprehensive article. Cheers, -Willmcw 20:57, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)

Take a look at this new editing

I still think that the development of Aesthetic Realism as a philosophy ought to be taken chronologically. There are the 20s, then of course 1941, then 1955, and then the later events.

It is not correct to call Eli Siegel a "minor" poet. Fame does not make a poet major or minor. Southey was very famous in his day but seen as minor today. Van Gogh was major--but as an artist he did not sell any of his paintings. It is the power of Siegel's poetry that makes him major. And people who really know poetry saw this: a great poet himself, W.C. Williams; William Packard, the critic of poetry who founded The New York Review; NY Times reviewer Kenneth Rexroth, and others.

I cut some paragraphs I wrote much earlier because they no longer seemed relevant. I also trimmed some others' writing where it seemed to me either too awkward or really too "editorialized" to pass inspection.

As to the two sections on homosexuality, I tried to keep the first exactly as it was, and in the "Objections" section to interleave the Bluejay contribution with Margot Carpenter's response. Because of the Aesthetic Realism Foundation's desire not to be involved in an "atmosphere of anger" I changed nothing that seemed important to the writer. If something needs to be restored to its previous state, which I might have changed, go ahead.

The Marvin Mondlin statement seemed unnecessary in terms of sticking to the topic.

I think it is fairer to have a title "Objections to Aesthetic Realism and Some Responses to the Objections" -- because we need to have symmetry in these controversial matters. --Aperey 20:20, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

"Objections" is a very poor title to the section - you keep removing most of the criticisms and adding only rebuttal. It might be better renamed "testimonials in favor of AR". -Willmcw 20:36, Jun 7, 2005 (UTC)
I don't think I did remove "most" of the criticism--they're still there. I did remove some paragraphs from the "Friends of Aesthetic Realism--Countering the Lies" website. Put the criticisms back in, whatever you find. However much of that writing is POV pretty blatantly. "Claimed" instead of "stated" etc. etc. -- There is more opinion, I'd say, than fact. As I wrote to the Mediator, Bluejay et al are free to give what they call criticisms as long as the people who disagree with them are given "equal time" to express the disagreement.
Of course Eli Siegel is a minor poet. He doesn't appear in any critic's listing or anthology of major poets. Your inability to recognize that he has had no lasting impact on English literature suggests you are not looking at the question objectively. A few good reviews of a poem don't cause that poem to have any particular influence on literature: Siegal's influence as a poet is essentially nil. He would be completely forgotten today had he not founded Aesthetic Realism. I'll refrain from re-adding the (correct) information that Siegal was a minor poet if you tone down some of the paeans to his ineffability that makes that notation so necessary. - Outerlimits 20:40, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I am not for "peans" to "ineffability"--Bluejay made it necessary to show that the opinion stated by Ellen Reiss is one that has been felt for decades by the people who knew Siegel best. Because Bluejay quotes Ellen Reiss (out of context I might add) for the purpose of making her opinion seem isolated, so he can make the reader think he is right to say Aesthetic Realism is a cult (which it isn't). Bluejay wrote this:

One has described Siegel's Self and World: An Explanation of Aesthetic Realism (http://definitionpress.org/SAW-page.htm) as the greatest book ever written, and others have said Siegel is the greatest man who ever lived. In [i]Aesthetic Realism and the Change from Homosexuality[/i] (ISBN 0910492344), Ellen Reiss, the current (2005) Class Chairman of Aesthetic Realism says:
"Eli Siegel, founder of the philosophy Aesthetic Realism, is, in my careful opinion and that of a growing number of people, the greatest human being ever to live. That means the person fairest to the world and most useful to it. This means the person kindest, most learned, most ethical, most imaginative, and most desirous of learning; the greatest fighter against ugliness in people, the greatest encourager of beauty; the person at once most unified and diverse, most serious and humorous, powerful and subtle, magnificent and democratic."

It is necessary to quote others to show that, just possibly, Reiss is talking factually about a real person whom others saw the same qualities in. (There are more than those whom I quoted). If these two paragraphs by Bluejay are no longer in the article, it wouldn't be necessary to show Reiss is not in isolation. Maybe we could get on with the business of really saying what the Aesthetic Realism philosophy is.

Bluejay also wants to focus on the obvious fact that the press has largely ignored Aesthetic Realism, and use it to say I and others are "cultists" and are paranoid to say the press has been unfair. That's why it's necessary to give the reader a chance to understand why the press has put aside this philosophy (except for one or two tabloid-quality stories Bluejay's reprinting). It's a fact that there has been a fear of the size of Siegel's philosophy--including its uncompromising belief in human equality--and the respect that this philosophy engenders. The reader has a right to know why a philosophy thought great by a significant number of people is not well known.

The "belittlers" as Bready calls them want to say it's the fault of the philosophy and/or the people who care about it, that they aren't so good: they're deluded. Either the "belittlers" are right, or there is something wrong with how the majority of the press, the academic world, and even the critics see Aesthetic Realism. I think it's the latter. And all the facts--when they are presented, and not censored--will show that.

Ponder this -- (as to "major" and "minor" in art and poetry) -- If you told an Elizabethan that William Shakespeare was the greatest poet the English language had ever seen, you'd be pooh-poohed--the average academic didn't think that way during his lifetime. It took a couple of hundred years for his greatness to be recognized. If you were talking to a Bluejay you might be called a "cultist." I think it wasn't till Coleridge wrote about Shakespeare that the literary world began to get an inkling that he was really important. And Coleridge was a "nonconformist"(This can be verified).

Think of this too -- Vermeer was not recognized as a great artist--one of the greatest of all time, we think today--until several hundred years AFTER he died. The critics missed his value. He was seen as one of the minor Dutch masters by the best critics until, I think the time of Proust--who loved Vermeer. I can get exact references for this--it's real history.

To be a true critic of one's contemporaries is one of the hardest things going. Academic critics aren't so good at this. Williams was. We have to see Siegel as he will be seen historically. The tendency to make the value of an artist or scientist depend on contemporary "influence" is wrong. How many footnotes refer to him, etc. Mendel's discovery of the gene almost went into oblivion when he died. (Even though his paper on this discovery was published in his lifetime its importance wasn't recognized until much later -- I can get references for this too). Siegel is major -- very, very major. I've studied enough poetry, compared the musical power of his lines to enough poetry (major, minor, and bad) to be quite sure of this. Others have, too, and they represent the opinion that will be seen as true. Williams questioned the perception of the critics in his time....We should try to have as large a perspective as he had.

This matter of mayor and minor is not a "quickie" to be solved by the snap of a finger. Study is necessary. And if that's what it takes to make Wikipedia a really good encyclopedia--including fairness to Aesthetic Realism and its founder--isn't that what we should do? --Aperey 18:52, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Outerlimits Replies

Eli Siegel is certainly a minor poet. [N.B.: Although I don't like to engage in a debate like this, you are quite wrong. -- AP]If future ages come to esteem him as highly as we do Shakespeare, they can edit the article accordingly. Until that halcyon day, Siegel will have to be content to be what he is, rather than what he could be, if for some reason his importance is reevaluated. Your comparisons are symptomatic of the problem you have in coming to a realistic assessment of Siegel's literary importance - which is more-or-less none. He's not Shakespeare, he's not Coleridge, he's not Vermeer. He hasn't left behind him a corpus of literary works remotely comparable to the works of any of these. Our "fairness" here ought to be to the truth (and to those who wish to be informed), not to what Aesthetic Realism and its founder would wish to be the truth, and you should not distort the truth to your ends. The "issue" of whether Eli Siegel is a "major" poet doesn't require much study at all: he appears in no anthologies of major poets. [Again, quite wrong. -- AP][Quite right, actually] We need to report that. Meanwhile, if you want to continue to heap largely undeserved praise on your hero, claiming it is a response to Michael Bluejay, then that response belongs down in the article where it would actually be a response, rather than at the beginning, where it distorts Siegel's actual importance. - Outerlimits 21:00, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

HERE ARE MY NOTES IN REPLY AND OUTERLIMITS' REPLIES TO THEM:

Note 1: These are spurious arguments. Suggest you see Siegel in Selden Rodman's anthology 100 American Poems (a pretty distinguished work). And what is Siegel's actual importance? What is his corpus of literary contributions? Do you know of his Aesthetic Nature of the World? his Shakespeare's Hamlet: Revisited? his lectures (a few are online) on poetry? his Scribner's reviews in the 1930s? And much more? Until you do, I recommend a little more modesty in your sweeping negations. I hope that you are willing to learn from the way Williams wrote, and Rexroth, and Huntington Cairns, and others who knew poetry well and made the study of literature and art their lifework. Unless you stop asserting "facts" that you don't know you should not edit this article and I will call for your withdrawal. --Aperey 18:42, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Note 2: I didn't put these quotes at the beginning. Someone else moved them there (look at the history). I am actually offering to remove some of them if they no longer are necessary. Please don't accuse before you have exact knowledge--I mean this as a principle. --Aperey 18:42, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
==============

OUTERLIMITS REPLIES TO AP NOTES

Note 1: These are spurious arguments.
Your disagreement with an argument does not render it spurious. - 23:38, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
(Yes, Siegel is anthologized).
I said he didn't appear in anthologies of major poets, which is true.

(AP says: Again, although I do not want to engage in debete, Outerlimits, I don't want a reader to think you might be correct. Try Selden Rodman's 100 American poems; masterpieces of lyric, epic and ballad from pre-colonial times to the present. ISBN: B00005V9XN (1948 and 1972).

But that's an anthology, not an anthology of "major poets" - Outerlimits 20:02, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
It's an anthology of "masterpieces" -- i.e. major works. Siegel is here with many other true poets of America. (Including: Emerson, Holmes, Poe, Whitman, Dickinson, Stephen Crane, Hart Crane, Wallace Stevens, William Carlos Williams)

And there are more anthologies of major poets in which Siegel appears.

More? you have yet to name one! - Outerlimits 20:02, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
You should do some of the legwork.

However, as I said earlier, this is not the criterion for the value of either a critic or a poet. The compilers of anthologies etc. are as subject to human error today as they were in the past. -- Arnold Perey)

Yes, we are cataloguing human knowledge here. Sometimes humans are wrong. That's life. Nonetheless, a description of Siegel needs to include the fact that, as a poet, Siegel has a very minor - in fact, nearly completely negligible - role in American literature. Outside of Aesthetic Realist circles, this statement would not be considered remotely controversial. - Outerlimits 20:02, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Your research is bad.
No, it's not.
What is Siegel's actual importance? What is his corpus of literary contributions? Do you know of his Shakespeare's Hamlet: Revisited? his lectures (a few are online) on poetry? his Scribner's reviews in the 1930s? And much more? -- His many beautiful, powerful, subtle poems? Until you do, I recommend a little more modesty in your sweeping negations.
The question is not my evaluation of his work, but the world's. He not only does not merit a significant mention in any well-known treatment of American poetry, he doesn't even get a footnote. He is simply irrelevant to the development of American literature. - Outerlimits 23:38, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
His body of work, both in quality and quantity, holds up very well in comparision to the greatest of writers and artists, I assure you. I don't mind giving details--in fact, I'll be happy to submit a critical bibliography of his philosophic works for this article and his literary works for his biography--you will see a many-page list plus commentary.
Thanks, but volumes of selected good reviews really won't make up for an accurate assessment. - Outerlimits 23:38, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Outerlimits, you are unqualified for the job you've given yourself as editor of this article. Do you have enough knowledge? Do you desire to learn more? Have you enough good will? Sorry to say, malice is what I see.
Your opinion doesn't really matter. - Outerlimits 23:38, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I hope that you are willing to learn from the way Williams wrote, and Rexroth, and Huntington Cairns, and others who knew poetry well and made the study of literature and art their lifework.
At present it is obvious to a careful reader of these comments that you are saying you are a better judge of poetry than William Carlos Williams (and Oscar Williams), you know the history of art and aesthetics better than Cairns, you know the social sciences better than anyone I ever heard of, including Margaret Mead, and you understand prosody better than Kenneth Rexroth. Take a moment to consider how preposterous that seems.
No, you seem to want me to have said that but I haven't. I haven't even come close! - Outerlimits 23:38, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Unless you stop asserting "facts" that you don't know you should not edit this article and I will call for your withdrawal. --Aperey 18:42, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I reject your call, and suggest you begin treating people with respect instead of contempt. - Outerlimits 23:38, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Note 2: I didn't put these quotes at the beginning. Someone else moved them there (look at the history). I am actually offering to remove some of them if they no longer are necessary. Please don't accuse before you have exact knowledge--I mean this as a principle. --Aperey 18:42, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
No need, I'll be happy to remove the effluvia. - Outerlimits 23:38, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Whew, what a discource! I'm still not sure why the prominence of Siegel as a poet matters to our article on Aesthetic Realism. However, setting that question aside, I have recently done a comprehensive search of all 350+ Internet references to Eli Siegel that Google reports (a few dozen to other people). Only two (yes, two) of them were to significant references by non-AR consultants. (Also two hits to archives of magazines in the early 1970s, one which printed a couple of his poems and one which had some kind of review.) While I don't know what the definition of "minor poet" is, my (original) is strong evidence that Siegel is a forgotten poet outside of the AR world. Obviously we can't cite this in the article but anyone arguing that Siegel is non-minor poet has a heavy burden of proof. (And again, for the purposes of this article I can't see why Siegel's prominence as a poet matters - this is a philosophy article, not a poet's biography). Cheers, -Willmcw 07:59, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)

Willmcw describes recent edits

Regarding my recent edits: There were Williams quotes all over and other repetitive mentions of Siegel. So I collected them and placed them in the same section. Let's move over to the biography, or delete, anything in there that isn't relevant here. Likewise, I went through the "Objections" section and collected the objections and put them in a section of their own. I think it will be easier to edit if we have common material placed under their own headings. Cheers, -Willmcw 23:25, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)
In the organization effort, I've moved the Siegel stuff to the Siegel article, then combined the conceptual material, the historical material, and the "objection/respnse" material each to their own sections. I think this is a more logical arrangement. -Willmcw 23:44, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)

Note on the importance of "Hot Afternoons"

I am writing quickly now as I just saw your post, so I can't give you references and so on. But "Hot Afternoons" was one of the first forms of Aesthetic Realism--it's a philosophic poem that says that things in the world are more related than you know. A hot afternoon in Montana is related to the whole world--to monks in Europe, to Aristotle by the Aegean, to Native Americans "thinking, feeling, trying pleasurably to live...." to a bird flying.... and much more. Mr. Siegel called this poem "The Scientific Criticism" given light and heat. It shows people are all related to one another and is a hymn to equality and mutual understanding. So these three are crucial in the development of Aesthetic Realism: "The Equality of Man," "The Scientific Criticism," and "Hot Afternoons Have Been in Montana." They are, respectively, a way of seeing people as equals, a way of seeing and criticising art--and the world as a whole: economics, history, and more; and a poetic (or artistic) way of seeing people and the world: a way that is both logical and passionate as all art needs to be. Everything in Aesthetic Realism as a mature philosophy developed from the core ideas in these three early works--and each is great in its own way--and continued in Mr. Siegel's ongoing critical, poetic, and humanistic endeavors for the next 50 years.

Yes, I think there can be a paragraph or two making this clear. Is this what you had in mind? --Aperey 20:32, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The information you posted is helpful to understanding what AR is and how it relates to Siegel's poem. We should summarize the quotes though. Thanks, -Willmcw 22:27, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)
Yes, but it need sources too, like the rest of this article. Did Siegel ever describe how AR came into being? That would be the appropriate source, I imagine. Or an official ARF interpretation of the poem.While we're onthe topic, all of this appreciation for Siegel's genius belongs in his biography. Anything that doesn't refer to AR itself should be removed. -Willmcw 20:38, Jun 7, 2005 (UTC)

Yes, Mr. Siegel did describe it. And Ellen Reiss, who is a critic, has written about the meaning of the poem. There are very good sources. -AP

By that criterion, the whole section about his poetry should be removed from this article. JamesMLane 18:58, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
What I wrote above was obviously an error. It happens, Aesthetic Realism arose from poetry. And as long as anyone is trying to give the wrong impression about Eli Siegel and Aesthetic Realism it's my job to see that the right impression is given. Make the deletions I suggest and then we'll talk. -AP
What suggestion for deletion? Was that earlier on this talk page? Thanks, -Willmcw 19:11, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)
It was earlier on this page. Here's what I wrote:
I am not for "paeans" to "ineffability"--Bluejay made it necessary to show that the opinion stated by Ellen Reiss is one that has been felt for decades by the people who knew Siegel best. Because Bluejay quotes Ellen Reiss (out of context I might add) for the purpose of making her opinion seem isolated, so he can make the reader think he is right to say Aesthetic Realism is a cult (which it isn't). Bluejay wrote this:
One has described Siegel's Self and World: An Explanation of Aesthetic Realism (http://definitionpress.org/SAW-page.htm) as the greatest book ever written, and others have said Siegel is the greatest man who ever lived. In [i]Aesthetic Realism and the Change from Homosexuality[/i] (ISBN 0910492344), Ellen Reiss, the current (2005) Class Chairman of Aesthetic Realism says:
"Eli Siegel, founder of the philosophy Aesthetic Realism, is, in my careful opinion and that of a growing number of people, the greatest human being ever to live. That means the person fairest to the world and most useful to it. This means the person kindest, most learned, most ethical, most imaginative, and most desirous of learning; the greatest fighter against ugliness in people, the greatest encourager of beauty; the person at once most unified and diverse, most serious and humorous, powerful and subtle, magnificent and democratic."
It is necessary to quote others to show that, just possibly, Reiss is talking factually about a real person whom others saw the same qualities in. (There are more than those whom I quoted). If these two paragraphs by Bluejay are no longer in the article, it wouldn't be necessary to show Reiss is not in isolation. Maybe we could get on with the business of really saying what the Aesthetic Realism philosophy is.

The above is what I wrote. --Aperey 19:52, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Two paragraphs? I only see one real paragraph quoting Blujay. And you want it deleted? Regardless, the "objections" section needs to be redone. It does not seem to comprehensively reflect criticisms of AR and the ARF. -Willmcw 22:27, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)

Relation to Structuralism and other philosophies

I can't find the reference where Conrad Arensberg compares AR to structuralism. This section seems rather long. Where is the Arensberg comparison, and why is it so important? Thanks -Willmcw 00:12, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)

The Arensberg reference is not imporant. I took it out.

Please note, Willmcw, the ugly way Outerlimits took the article and inserted editorializing POV arising from malice. I reverted the article back to a cleaner previous version.

What can be done?

You might stop imputing ugly motives. That would be one thing that could be done. You might reread what you're adding and consider whether it clarifies concepts of Aesthetic Realism or obscures them with superfluous detail. That would be another. You might strive for clarity and factuality rather than advocacy. You might strive to differentiate between the good, the mediocre, and the bad. You might attempt to see Eli Siegel's poetry as it is. All these would be good things. - Outerlimits 20:17, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

If we don't have a specific person comparing AR to structuralism then the whole section should go. I don't see the reason for it to begin with. Without Arensberg it's totally unsupported and doesn't add much of anything to our understanding of AR. Regarding other recent edits, I don't know what ugly edits AP is referring to. One edit that AP made removed the assertion that AR advertised in order to get more students. That is the reason that most schools advertise. If that was not the reason, then why did AR advertise? Also, what is the deal with the quotes form Williams? They have nothing to do with AR - they are about Siegel's poetry. It's OK to have one, somewhere, but the quote does not belong in the intro sentence. What we need there is a 10 word summary of the philosophy. Further, you say, in one edit summary, that "so much disparaging material is introduced into this article". I see very little "disparaging material" - just the short "Objections" section. Why does it matter to a comprehensive summary of AR (which is what this article is) that Siegel had an article published in an art journal? Hundreds of people have undoubtedly been published in that same journal, and I bet we don't have articles about 99% of them. And what does this mean - "As many instances of fame as possible should be pointed to, in chronological order." Why? The "fame" you are talking about is Siegel's, not AR's. This is the article on AR, not Siegel. Or, maybe we just oughta merge the two, since it seems they are one and the same thing. -Willmcw 21:38, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)
PS - I've hidden the Structuralism section. It is a big lump that is distracting and is predicated on an unsupported comparison. Would it be possible to agree to work on one section at a time? For instance, the description of the AR philosophy? Cheers, -Willmcw 22:37, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Aesthetic_Realism/Archive_2&oldid=786769469"