On Saturday, October 23, 1999 2:03 PM Replicant00@aol.com wrote:
> << I mean if Hitler liked using toilet paper should everyone who
> is against Nazism stop using the stuff? I hope not!:) >>
> that is a silly argument, useless! Silly!! DUMB!!!
Good comeback.:) You can do better than that.:) Silly human.
> Come on, you can do better than that.
> Ok how abotu this?
> I said that Objectivist art *reminded me* of art that Hitler liked, for a
> She liked what he liked, idealization of man and a rigid adherance to
> portraying only those " higher " values. Ugh... repeat Ugh... Let's put it
> this way, I find both Hitler's Nazi art, and Objectivist art rigid and
> stiff... art that is so limited, and so very rigid and stiff, is ugh.
> So: if Hitler's toilet paper was rigid and stiff,(ugh) then yes- and
> given me a good arugment: - )
And if not, then you argument falls apart.:) Surely, if you stack the deck, you'll win at every turn. Is that what you want? To win or to learn?
But seriously, I do see what you mean, but an important point here is much wider. Doctrinaire art of all sorts is stiff, mechanical, formulaic. I gave other instances of this. Those who adhered to Amy Lowell's Imagist rantings wound up making such and they were hardly Nazis or Objectivists. I think this slavishness is bad for art, though sometimes something like this can inspire someone. Certainly, H.D. was able to take Imagism and make it her own -- rather than just becoming a Imagist-poem-machine.