Talk:Aesthetic Realism/drafts2

I have just posted this section. Please post comments here, above text. Thanks.Trouver (talk) 15:20, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

This appears to be a history of AR up to 1946, then a history of the gallery. Is there going to be a history of AR from 1946 to the present? Should the gallery be covered in a separate article, since it appears to be a discrete subject?   Will Beback  talk  16:53, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Understood. Will revise. Trouver (talk) 14:29, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Below is my revised entry. Trouver (talk) 19:45, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Have you considered splitting the gallery section into a standalone article? It seems to be a tangent here and is sufficient for an article of its own. The rest of the modern history appears to be incomplete. Is this actually everything we verifiably know about the history of AR from 1946 to the present?   Will Beback  talk  04:44, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Here are the current "history" section headings: (total 2294)

3 History

3.1 Predecessors to Aesthetic Realism (186)

3.2 Early years (182)

3.3 Aesthetic Realism's approach to racism (186)

3.4 Aesthetic Realism and homosexuality (857)

3.5 "Victim of the press" (29)

4 Aesthetic Realism Foundation (525)

4.1 Aesthetic Realism scholarship (212)

5 Allegations of cult behavior (64)

I'm not sure that that's an ideal outline, but how are the last three topics (3.3, 3.4, and 3.5) going to be covered? And are the three non-history items going to be covered separately? It looks like the foundation is being covered in history.   Will Beback  talk  17:35, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

In answer to the above: (1) Still considering a separate article for Terrain Gallery, but since Aesthetic Realism was the gallery's raison d'etre some things belong here. (2) The article has been reorganized to follow chronology more strictly, and hopefully clarify relationships. Once it gets posted (hopefully most of it by tonight, the rest by the weekend) we can all see how well it works. Thanks for your suggestions and observations.Trouver (talk) 23:09, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I still don't understand what your plan is for the rest of the history material not included here. More fundamentally, is this really a comprehensive and well-balanced history of the movement? Please don't post it until these issues have been resolved.   Will Beback  talk  23:12, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

The section on homosexuality will be added tomorrow.Trouver (talk) 04:30, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I worked on the section homosexuality and have now posted it here. CSaguaro 13:31, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I think the TG section should remain in this article because it is central to the history of Aesthetic Realism. I have trimmed it, moved the Foundation earlier, so things follow chronologically. The entire rewrite appears below. Do you think we should move it onto the talk page? Trouver (talk) 21:53, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

There's no reason to move this draft to the talk page, though you might remind folks that this is being drafted here.   Will Beback  talk  23:14, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Draft outline: (2498)

2 History (revised 3/31/10)

2.1 Beginnings of Aesthetic Realism (225)

2.2 Major texts (101)

2.3 Lectures and classes by Eli Siegel (109)

2.4 Terrain Gallery & the Siegel Theory of Opposites (342)

2.5 Aesthetic Realism and the Arts (192)

3 Aesthetic Realism Foundation (349)

4 Aesthetic Realism and the opposition to prejudice and racism (609)

5 Aesthetic Realism and Homosexuality (449)

6 "Victim of the press" (46)

7 Criticism (23)

I've added the number of words in the existing text to the outline above, and copied the outline and number of words in the drafted text. I have several questions. Why are the gallery and the arts treated separately? Why are the "texts" in the history section? Why is the racism section so much longer and the homosexuality section so much shorter than their current versions? Why are we using a thematic arrangement rather than a strictly chronological one? Why is the death of Siegel not mentioned? Why does the "criticism" section only include a rebuttal without including the criticism itself?   Will Beback  talk  23:14, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I will answer more completely tomorrow, but briefly: TG and Arts could be combined; they were separated because TG focused on visual arts; Texts will be moved to Philosophy section; Racism increased because a wealth of current sources exist on this subject (and two sections, Preferences and Scholarship were deleted) homosexuality was revised according to sources (IP71 told me not to worry about length); chronology was attempted, but arrangement of sections can certainly be changed; didn't realize Siegel's death was left out and shall add that tomorrow; for Criticism I simply used what was there before. I will give this more thought. Thanks for your comments.Trouver (talk) 03:59, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

As to the question of why the homosexuality section "is so much shorter than the current version": the draft version was written with the goal of having every sentence/idea properly sourced, and eliminating repetition. Some sentences in the current article are not sourced and may not be able to be sourced. CSaguaro 19:19, 2 April 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by CSaguaro (talk • contribs)

Why can't they be sourced? Are the editors who have access to so many otherwise unavailable source unable to find a copy of The H Persuasion or The Aesthetic Realism of Eli Siegel and the Change from Homosexuality? Are they unable to find any mention of the Susskind show appearance? If so, it calls into question the integrity of their research and the resulting text.   Will Beback  talk  05:37, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Will, I don't like the placement of Eli Siegel's death at the start of the ARF section and am moving it up earlier into the History section, where it seems more appropriate, at the end of "Lectures and classes by Eli Siegel," with a little more detail. I think Mr. Siegel's dates should be added after his name at the beginning of the article. I have also moved Major texts as you suggest above.Trouver (talk) 17:32, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Moving Siegel's death makes it less chronological and since this is a history I think that making it more chronological would be an improvement. About the death, I know the circumstances are controversial, but they aren't necessarily relevant here. More relevant would be to explain who took over as leader of the movement, and details like that.   Will Beback  talk  23:34, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

In response to Will Beback's questions about sourcing: The two books you mention are primary sources--I thought it would be better to use reliable secondary sources where they covered the same information. I could include the two books in the text of the article. Do you think I should?

I do refer to both the Susskind show and the Jonathan Black show in the sentence that begins: "Two television interviews in 1971 with men who said they changed...etc." ; they are the sources.

The reason I say there are things in the current version on homosexuality that cannot be sourced is because it is misinformation or is hearsay or "original research." Then there are things that are quoted out of context and give a false impression. I also think some of the original material is unnecessarily detailed. CSaguaro (talk) 02:09, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

I believe that the two books I listed are secondary sources for the views of Siegel and AR. Also, one or both of them have been mentioned in other secondary sources. Other books and publications are discussed, so their omission is inappropriate. The Susskind show appearance received wide attention, and was certainly much more prominent than the weekly talks at the gallery. If we are concerned about material being unnecessarily detailed, then we should review the draft again as there are several minor details in it. Before making further edits I suggest you re-read WP:NPOV. It says "Neutrality requires that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each." This draft does not do so appear to do so.

Can you explain what you mean by "misinformation" and "hearsay"?   Will Beback  talk  04:41, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

I am taking your suggestion and am re-reading WP:NPOV. I will then review what I wrote and see what changes might be made. I will also add the two books as well as the David Susskind show.

I believe some sentences in the current version are opinions and are simply not true. For example, the sentence: "Siegel did not explain why he believed that all homosexuals had an incomplete understanding of women…” So much of Siegel’s writing on the subject is doing just that—explaining how a homosexual man sees the world and women, describing how this way of seeing often begins. There may be an objection to the explanation, but the explanation clearly exists. And as a man who has changed from homosexuality, I am very grateful that this explanation exists. CSaguaro (talk) 02:31, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Will, as you directed, I have slightly edited and moved into chronological order the sentences concerning Mr. Siegel's death and his appointment of Ellen Reiss as chairman, with more information about her. I will now consider how to develop the final two sections, reviewing the WP guidelines as directed above. Also, as you suggest above, I am posting a comment on the Talk Page notifying interested parties that the complete revision has been posted on this page. Thank you. Trouver (talk) 15:41, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

If there are no objections, I will post the sections on History through racism on the main/article page later this afternoon. I'm also leaving this message on Talk Page. Thanks to all involved.Trouver (talk) 13:27, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

There are objections, as I've discussed above. Do we need to go over this again?   Will Beback  talk  19:49, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

I thought I had addressed all of your comments concerning the sections I moved. I am aware the sections on homosexuality and criticisms (cult allegations) are still being worked on, but my understanding was that we were doing this section by section. So, just to review the sections I moved that you reverted, I reply below to the questions you asked:

Q: Why are the gallery and the arts treated separately?

A: The arts section deals mainly with other than the visual arts. However, as I said they can be combined. Do you think they should be combined?

Q: Why are the "texts" in the history section?

A: This was changed as you directed.

Q: Why is the racism section so much longer and the homosexuality section so much shorter than their current versions?

A: The racism section is longer because the most sources exist on this subject. Also, I am cutting the "Scholarship" and "Preferences" sections. Another editor is editing the section on homosexuality.

Q: Why are we using a thematic arrangement rather than a strictly chronological one?

A: It is essentially chronological. The section on homosexuality covers 1946-1990. Opposition to prejudice and racism covers 1922-present. Since the section on homosexuality is still being revised, perhaps when it is finished it should be placed before the section on racism.

Q: Why is the death of Siegel not mentioned?

A: It is now present.

Q: Why does the "criticism" section only include a rebuttal without including the criticism itself? Will Beback talk 23:14, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

A: The revision of this section should include criticism. So are you saying we should not post any sections on the main article page until ALL sections are completed? Trouver (talk) 20:40, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

The most obvious issue is with the length of the racism section. If the reason for it being so long is that "most sources exist on this subject", then it raises the issue of how we're collecting sources. How were these sources compiled?   Will Beback  talk  20:52, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Just to take one example, we're using a member of ARF, Carol Driscoll, as a sourece for this sentence: "Mr. Kimmelman has become a noted speaker at universities, high schools, museums and public libraries on the subject of how bullying, prejudice and racism can change through study of Aesthetic Realism." Is that really an objective source for a POV comment like that?   Will Beback  talk  21:57, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

No problem: I will review this section, try to trim it and make sure it is NPOV. As to sources, there are more newspaper articles on Aesthetic Realism as a solution to prejudice, racism, and bullying than in relation to any other subject. I was hoping to move this article along, but I suppose the issues above must be resolved before there is any further posting of revisions. Is that correct? Trouver (talk) 15:32, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Frquency and depth of coverage in mainstream media is a good measure of prominence. How did we determine that there are more references, over the history of AR, to prejudice, racism, and bullying than to any other topic? Did we consult a newspaper archive that includes material stretching back to the 1940s?   Will Beback  talk  21:25, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

FWIW, I have access to two newspaper archives that include issues back to the founding of AR. In the Los Angeles Times I find three items. The most substantial is a long profile of actor William Atherton printed in 1975. It devotes five paragraphs to AR, four of them to the homosexuality issue, and none to the racism issue. The other two are display advertisements. There's a small ad from 1971 that mentions the Susskind show and invites people interested in changing from homosexuality to call the AR in New York to arrange consultations. In 1979 there was a more substantial advertisement titled "We have changed from homosexuality", signed by over 50 people. Again, no mention of racism.

In the New York Times there are two reviews of a production of Hedda Gabler from 1970 (one by Clive Barnes), along with an unusual rebuttal from Siegel. Neither article mentions homosexuality or racism. Also from 1970 there's a review of a photo exhibit at the Terrain Gallery that doesn't mention either homosexuality or racism. There's a short book review of a book about Siegel and Williams, that only mentions AR in passing. In 1971 there was a short review of The H Persuasion, and an LTE disputing it from AR members. No mention of racism. There's a long article about "The Day of the Locust (film)" with a couple of paragraphs about Atherton, one of which is about AR but doesn't mention homosexuality or racism. There's a longish obit of Siegel from 1978 which devotes two paragraphs to the homosexuality issue (and one to the "Right to be Known" campaign) but no mention of racism. In 1978 members of AR wrote an LTE in response to an article about homosexuality on campus. There's a 1980 paid obit of Sheldon Kranz that's mostly devoted to the homosexuality issue. There are three mentions of Arnold Perey's 1984 campaign for US Congress. Those articles don't mention homosexuality or racism. Instead they say:

• The fourth candidate in the contest, Arnold Perey, is running as a spokesman for a group known as Aesthetic Realism, which, among other things, holds that all the nation's resources belong to everyone.
• Mr. Perey said he taught ethics and represented the Aesthetic Realism movement, which espouses a constitutional amendment that would proclaim, "The land, resources and industry of the country belong to all the people."
• The fourth candidate, Arnold Perey, represents a Utopian group called Aesthetic Realism that promotes common ownership of all resources, no wars and ethics in government.

And finally there's a 1992 article about the aquarium photographs that Louis Bernstein that just mentions AR as one of his influences.

So, that's 18 articles, eight of which mention homosexuality and none of which mention racism.   Will Beback  talk  00:31, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Given the relatively extensive coverage of Gabler and of Perey's campaign, shouldn't they receive at least a mention?   Will Beback  talk  00:44, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

The production of Hedda Gabler is under the History section (sub-heading "Aesthetic Realism and the Arts"): "The gallery also presented talks on music (some of which were subsequently published in Allegro, the newspaper of the Associated Musicians of Greater New York, Local 802) and a production of Ibsen’s Hedda Gabler inspired by Aesthetic Realism lectures, in which Eli Siegel described the title character as “essentially good,” because, “with all her uncertainty and displeasingness” she wanted “humanity and the world to be more beautiful.”" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.46.20.249 (talk) 05:21, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that explanation. However, I don't see where the POV of Clive Barnes, reviewer for the NYT, has been included. WP:NPOV requires that we include all significant points of view. We can't present an item and then give just one side of the matter.   Will Beback  talk  11:22, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

The section on homosexuality has been revised following suggestions of Will Beback. CSaguaro (talk) 19:48, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Section on racsim cut to 467 words. Questionable sources removed (Congressional Record, Carol Driscoll, Philadelphia Sun). LoreMariano (talk) 21:24, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Maybe we should discuss the separate sections separately? This thread is getting jumbled between three sections that I now see are being edited separately. Maybe we should take one at a time instead of all three at once? Or better yet, maybe we should start with a discussion of the sources we're using for these sections, since there may be a fundamental problem.   Will Beback  talk  08:38, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Discussion-History

Removed last two sections to avoid confusion about what has been edited. LoreMariano (talk) 23:07, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Why isn't the "victim of the press" campaign part of the history? Why would that be left out entirely, or shoved to a couple of lines in a separate section at the end? From the little I know of the history of this movement, it appears to be one of the most prominent aspects. This history is grossly incomplete without it. From what I can tell of its prominence relative to other aspects, it deserves a section of its own, placed chronologically (mid-1970s?).   Will Beback  talk  08:38, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

The Washington Post has a 1700-word article about Siegel and AR, "From Here to Obscurity", but all we're using it for is a second source for this sentence:

• In response, Siegel designated four consultation trios: The Three Persons and First Person Plural, both trios taught women wanting to understand themselves and love; Consultation With Three, whose purpose was the understanding and changing of homosexuality; and The Kindest Art, teaching artists the relation of art to life.

Is that really the only relevant thing the article says about AR? WaPo is a highly regarded mainstream newspaper. While it might not be expected to be expert on the fine points of philosophy, it is a fine source for historical issues and the like.   Will Beback  talk  08:55, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Ah, I see that AR has some kind of issue with WaPo, apparently because it failed to publish columns they submitted in the 1980s. From an encyclopledia-writing point of view, this complicates matters.   Will Beback  talk  11:10, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Wow! I turned off the computer after my last post to enjoy the weekend with my family so I have missed a lot. Starting from the most recent post: (1) the Washington Post article of 1978 by Michael Kernan is one of the first things I posted on the Source page. I believe it has been cited several times in this article. Do you want me to put a more extensive quote in the cite, or should I cite it more often than I do? (2) I guess I just don't understand how Wikipedia judges importance. I was not aware that I was presenting ANY POV in relation to Hedda Gabler. I cited the sentence in Time magazine to prove the production took place at the Terrain Gallery and cited Siegel's article in NYT to clarify the point of view behind the production. Although the Time review did not even mention Aesthetic Realism, it was extremely praising of the production, and I did not realize that this fact required me to cite Barnes and Kerr. If you would post on the source page any portion of these reviews that mentions Aesthetic Realism I will certainly cite it in the article. This was 1970. (3) Let me try to clear up what I said about sources on racism. The articles on this subject began after 1990 and appear in community based newspapers, most of which represent communities of color. These newspapers may not carry the weight of mainstream press, but there have been hundreds of articles about Aesthetic Realism in them. The articles now cited were not written by anyone who studies Aesthetic Realism or is affiliated with the Fdtn. I have pdfs of all of these but I do not know how to connect the citations to a pdf (and from my limited research it seemed Wikipedia did not want people to use a pdf in this way). I realize that these articles may not be available on the big online search engines that you have access to, and I think it would relieve anybody who has concerns about the veracity of my citations if they could see the entire articles, so if anyone could tell me how to do this I would be grateful. I do mention the syndicated column of Alice Bernstein, and it is true that most of the articles were written by persons who study Aesthetic Realism. That may disqualify them as Wikipedia sources but it does not change the fact that they have made Aesthetic Realism known to people across the country, particularly in those communities of color that rely on their own papers because they feel the mainstream press does not give adequate attention to the issues most concerning them. Several publishers have commented on the positive response of readers to these articles. (4) I will be happy to quote from the article on Lou Bernstein in the Times (which basically credits Aesthetic Realism for its good influence on his art).

I truly wish to resolve all outstanding issues concerning the sections of this article that I have edited and thank you for being patient with my limited knowledge of technology and Wikipedia conventions. Trouver (talk) 00:38, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

PS: I do not comment on homosexuality because I did not edit this section, but articles on this subject appeared from 1970-1990. Articles on Aesthetic Realism as an answer to racism began after 1990.Trouver (talk) 00:48, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Can you send me the PDFs you have? (Lore and Perey have my email address). I don't know what's in the WaPo article, but I'd be surprised if that one fact is the only relevant thing they say. I could only find one citation to it in the draft, but perhaps I missed others or it's been used as a source without citing it. Wikipedia's NPOV, which I encourage every editor to read carefully, requires all significant points of view. To cite positive reviews while ignoring prominent negative reviews doesn't meet that policy. Community papers considerably vary in quality, and we should probably review them individually. It'd be hard to argue that issue covered in a small local papers are more prominent than those covered in national newspapers, but if that's the argument then we'd need to look at them individually to assess their weight. Works written by ARF faculty are not excluded as sources, but they are basically primary sources and their use should be limited and attributed, for example, "Lou Bernstein, a member of the AR faculty, writes that...." I still think that a straight chronology would be more effective presentation. Right now the narrative jumps back and forth confusingly.   Will Beback  talk  02:41, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

According to the Boston Globe, About 250 persons rallied on Boston Common yesterday to demand that The Boston Globe "print the truth about Aesthetic Realism,"... Are 250-person rallies in Boston so common in the AR history that it doesn't merit a mention?   Will Beback  talk  06:20, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

There have always been at least three citations of the Kernan article in WaPo but I had neglected to put the title in two, maybe three of mine, so thanks for that correction which, as you can see, I made last night as soon as I was alerted to it. I was citing this article to prove the facts stated in the article. Michael Kernan quoted both praising statements (which I did not cite) and rather contemptuous, snide remarks (which I also omitted from my citation). As I said, if you insist, I will either cite longer passages from this article or actually quote in the article both the bad and good things he said. I thought I was writing NPOV by simply trying to state the facts about the philosophy. Quite frankly, if you go back to my original draft I dealt more with the controversy as to the Terrain Gallery. If you insist, I will put in the controversy about Hedda Gabler, as soon as I am able to study the Times articles which you may have already posted on the Source page as I requested. I will be happy to send you pdfs of the articles. As to the Boston Common rally, that was in protest to an article in the Globe (the paper's Ombudsman later stated his opinion that this article was "unfair") but as the original article concerned homosexuality, an editor with greater knowledge of this aspect of the philosophy is handling this section. As to the article in the NYT about photographer Lou Bernstein, this is not about the philosophy (although he once studied it, once wrote about it, and says nice things about it in this article about him) I believed the personal information about living individuals (including Atherton) who do not represent the philosophy in any official capacity is not appropriate for this article. Much more relevant to the article, in my opinion, was the paragraph supported by citations from major publishers that I cut at your suggestion because you said they dealt with the founder and his poetry and were not about Aesthetic Realism.

I think we've gotten off on the wrong foot, or at least our discussion has taken on a more adversarial tone than I would prefer. I am not attempting to avoid the controversy about this philosophy; I've attempted to describe the philosophy and a little of its history, believing that most of the controversy would be covered in the final sections (two of which have not even been written). There has been controversy about this philosophy 20 years before it even existed (and I have not even mentioned the highly praised, award-winning film recently released of this poem as read by the author in keeping with my desire to keep this NPOV. There was controversy about the Terrain Gallery, about Hedda Gabler, about the press, about homosexuality. If we were to deal comprehensively with every one of the controversies it would be a book. My goal has been to explain the philosophy, its relation to poetry, aesthetics, and ethics, and I hope to deal with the controversies once that has been made clear. I do not want to say bad things about the philosophy before readers even know what it is simply because some nasty things were said by people who are pushing a particular POV. Finally, I will be happy to send you pdfs of the articles I cite and will do so as soon as possible, but I am at work right now and have a busy day. Will do asap. Trouver (talk) 14:13, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

The philosophy section is elsewhere. Here, we're discussing the history of the movement/foundation. While I understand that three editors have agreed among themselves to split the drafting effort, I don't see how it's possible to separate the history into discrete pieces if that means leaving key events out of the history section. So far as the homosexuality and history sections, perhaps the best solution is to have a short section on AR's theory of homosexuality, and then include the history of the application of that theory in with the rest of the history. Likewise notable events at the Terrain Gallery, though mentioning every exhibit isn't necessary either, at least in this article. (there are many articles on galleries and it'd be entirely appropriate to have one about the Terrain.) As for Bernstein, I don't know what your talking about. I only mentioned his name as an example of how to attribute assertions sourced to AR faculty.   Will Beback  talk  19:31, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Again: Why isn't the "victim of the press" campaign part of the history? That's one of the most prominent aspects of the movement. If I understand correctly, members and sympathizers wore large buttons with that slogan for years and participated in numerous actions like rallies and protests, and wrote letters to the editor and bought ads about it. How can the history of AR be close to complete with a suitably long discussion of it?   Will Beback  talk  20:36, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

PS - I see that Google has now digitized the entire microfilm collection of the Village Voice. As the most prominent newspaper local to Greenwich Village, this should be a good resource.   Will Beback  talk  20:38, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Re: Hedda Gabler - New York Magazine also published a capsule review.   Will Beback  talk  23:38, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

The above is a review of Glenda Jackson as Hedda Gabler. It has absolutely nothing to do with this article. If you can post or link to the reviews in the Times by Kerr and Barnes in January 1970 it would help me. If not I have to find them, which is not as easy for me as it is for you. The Opposites Company production took place at the Terrain Gallery in late 1969, where it was reviewed by Time and moved to the Actor's Playhouse at the beginning of 1970, where it was reviewed by Kerr and Barnes and maybe others. The actress in the title role was Rebecca Thompson not Glenda Jackson.

To facilitate work on this article, I suggest moving to the main page the first three sections below. If there is any objection to these sections please express it. If not, let's move it and start with the Terrain Gallery. I will go back to the first draft I posted on the Terrain Gallery, which did have something about the press controversy, and expand it to include all POV. You had said this section was too long and should be a separate article, but if you want the History to include the press controversy it will be longer. Trouver (talk) 01:45, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't see Glenda Jackson's name on page 18. They list Karen Sunde at the "Aesthetic Realism East", which I assumed was connected. I guess it's a different production. No matter, it was just a capsule review anyway.

I think we've all agree that the "Major texts" section should be in the "Philososophy" section. Let's leave the rest of the history material for now, as it still being drafted.   Will Beback  talk  10:51, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

This may be a small thing, but I noticed that the list of sample terms defined in Definitions, and Comment: Being a Description of the World were inadvertently (?) cut. Is there any objection to my putting them back in? Were they cut for a reason?

Currently: "...The full text was published in 1981 (NY: Definition Press).[25] His second text, Definitions, and Comment: Being a Description of the World, completed in 1945, defines 134 terms needed for a philosophic outline of reality. These definitions were published in the journal The Right of Aesthetic Realism to Be Known."

Proposed edit: "...The full text was published in 1981 (NY: Definition Press).[25] His second text, Definitions, and Comment: Being a Description of the World, completed in 1945, defines 134 terms needed for a philosophic outline of reality, including Existence, Change, Fixity, Freedom, Thought, Will, Wonder, Fear, Hope, Negation, Reality, and Relation. These definitions were published in their entirety in the journal The Right of Aesthetic Realism to Be Known." LoreMariano (talk) 00:38, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't object to adding those terms, but I'm wondering about other parts. Why is it significant that the definitions were published in a journal? According to whom are these "134 terms needed for a philosophic outline of reality"? If that is Siegel's view then maybe we should attribute it to him.   Will Beback  talk  01:03, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

As far as I know, they've been published only in serial format in The Right of. I was wondering about the phrase "needed for a philosophic outline of reality" also. I'll try to find out where it comes from. LoreMariano (talk) 01:06, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I guess I don't understand - I thought the material was published in a book? If so, then the fact that it was published previously in a journal isn't so important. If there was as significant delay between the two publications then that might be informative.   Will Beback  talk  01:32, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it was ever published as a book, but I'm not sure. I think they were only published in serial form....but that's not final. I have to confirm. LoreMariano (talk) 01:45, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Oh, now I see - I was confused by the way the text was excerpted. If these only appeared in the journal of the AR is this text notable compared to other articles they've published?   Will Beback  talk  01:55, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it is a work that should be mentioned as it sets forth definitions of important terms Aesthetic Realism uses: "Reality," "Aesthetics," etc. It's a book length work that was serialized in 41 weekly issues of The Right of Aesthetic Realism to Be Known, beginning on October 11, 1978, issue #289 through issue #330. Eli Siegel wrote that these definitions are "the beginning things on which Aesthetic Realism is based" (The Right Of, issue #289, 11 October 1978).

Here is my proposed revision (taking out the phrase you questioned and adding the publication dates):

His second text, Definitions, and Comment: Being a Description of the World, completed in 1945, defines 134 terms used in the philosophic thought of Aesthetic Realism, including Existence, Change, Fixity, Freedom, Thought, Will, Wonder, Fear, Hope, Negation, Reality, and Relation. The work was published in 1978-9 as a series in the journal The Right of Aesthetic Realism to Be Known.

LoreMariano (talk) 01:42, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with that text, though I don't quite understand how AR managed to survive prior to 1978 if this text was its foundation.   Will Beback  talk  18:56, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I think pre-publication copies or copies in an earlier form were made available. LoreMariano (talk) 20:49, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

• Fischkin, Barbara (1997). Muddy cup: a Dominican family comes of age in a new America. Scribner. ISBN 9780684807041.

FWIW, this novel has a character, Linda Kunz, who wears one of the VOP buttons, explains a little about the change from homosexuality, and gives a lesson in grammar from a (supposedly) AR point of view. Pages 231 – 234

Thanks, I didn't know about this. I couldn't quickly get the book on Kindle and so I just ordered it from Amazon.

From what I can tell, reading about it on Amazon, it's a compilation of articles that first appeared as a series in Newsday.

Linda Kunz was a real person, not a character, who taught ESL at various NY institutions, including Teachers College at Columbia. She passed away December 21, 2009.

There is a grammar wiki for a methodology she used, Xword Grammar. It tells of a posthumous award given to her: "As a tribute to her outstanding career of five decades, she is being given special recognition as part of the 2010 New York Times ESOL Teacher of the Year Award on March 16th." LoreMariano (talk) 01:42, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry for your loss. I just assumed it was a fictional character. However, if it isn't fiction then it's more usable here, though I'm not sure in exactly what context. Perhaps just another source for the fact that ARF faculty would wear VOP buttons and convey AR concepts in various contexts.   Will Beback  talk  06:39, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure how/if it should be used either. I'll circle back to this when I get the book. LoreMariano (talk) 11:22, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Minor Edits

I would like to suggest two minor edits to the article:

1. Add Eli Siegel's dates to the info box.
2. Revise the sentence which begins "This idea...." In context, the suggested change is marked-up below:

".....He described the world as having a construction like art: it too, is composed of opposites. In Siegel's eyes, freedom at one with order could be seen in an electron, a tree, or the solar system.[7][8] Siegel reasoned, "If...the structure of the world corresponds to the structure [of art], that much the world may be beautiful in the deepest sense of the word; and therefore can be liked."[9]

This idea led to the A primary concept of Aesthetic Realism, is that the world "can be liked honestly." Further, a core teaching of Aesthetic Realism is that it is “every person's deepest desire to like the world on an honest or accurate basis."

I think this reads better. It's a little confusing to see how the conclusion of the reasoning lead to the same idea.

These are not substantive changes but I wanted to post them here first. Thanks. LoreMariano (talk) 17:19, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Discussion-Homosexuality

Let's discuss the "Aesthetic Realism and Homosexuality" section here to avoid getting confused with the other sections. Above, I've proposed that the section be limited to discussing the AR theory of homosexuality, and that the historical aspects of the movement's activities regarding homosexuality be folded into the history section. Apparently, that includes the whole "victim of the press" issue.   Will Beback  talk  21:29, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

• Sheldon Kranz to interviewer Jonathan Black, Free Time, Jonathan Black interview, WNDT, New York: 19 February 1971

Is there a transcript of this interview? How is it verifiable?   Will Beback  talk  21:41, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

If nothing else, this is a source for the "familiar VICTIM OF THE PRESS buttons".   Will Beback  talk  23:41, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Concerning the statements of Sheldon Kranz to Jonathan Black, a transcript of the interview is contained in the book The H Persuasion. I should have indicated this in the citation; it is corrected now. There was also a sentence in the article which stated that the interview was contained in The H Persuasion, but due to a mistake in the immediately previous citation, this sentence and another were removed. This I have corrected as well. CSaguaro (talk) 00:32, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Are you going to be writing the material on the "Victim of the Press" campaign?   Will Beback  talk  00:39, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

No, I was not planning on writing about the Victim of the Press matter in the homosexuality section. I believe that will be included in the History section. CSaguaro (talk) 02:30, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the press response should be part of the history throughout, chronologically, and not a separate section apart from everything else. For that reason, it is probably better that Trouver take the lead on that, and not me. LoreMariano (talk) 02:39, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Beginnings of Aesthetic Realism

From the early 1920’s, Siegel was developing a unified philosophic world view.^[1] His earliest scholarly essay appeared in 1922 in Horizons, the magazine of Johns Hopkins University.^[2] The following year, The Modern Quarterly, a magazine founded by Siegel and V. F. Calverton, published several essays by Siegel, including The Scientific Criticism, which dealt with the need to see value objectively, as having the same reality as fact,^[3] and The Equality of Man, in which he stated that society “is hardly justified in appraising any person conclusively” until it has done everything possible “to bring out what was truest, strongest, best, most individual” in that person.^[4]
These early essays were later published as The Modern Quarterly Beginnings of Aesthetic Realism, 1922-1923 (Definition Press, 1969), and in his Preface, Siegel wrote of the connection between them and the philosophy he later founded: “In March, 1922, I felt that every person owed something to every other person and, indeed, to every other thing. Aesthetic Realism now has in it the need of every person to be precise about what is not himself.”^[5]
In 1938, Siegel began teaching poetry classes (described above) and in 1941, students in his classes asked him to give individual lessons in which they might learn about their own lives. These were the first Aesthetic Realism lessons.^[6]

Major texts

The philosophic basis of Aesthetic Realism was set forth systematically by Siegel in two major texts. The first, Self and World: an Explanation of Aesthetic Realism, was written from 1941-3. Individual chapters, including “Psychiatry, Economics, Aesthetics,”^[7] and “The Aesthetic Method in Self-Conflict,”^[8] were printed in 1946. The full text was published in 1981 (NY: Definition Press).^[9] His second text, Definitions, and Comment: Being a Description of the World, completed in 1945, defines 134 terms needed for a philosophic outline of reality. These definitions were published in the journal, The Right of Aesthetic Realism to Be Known.

Lectures and classes by Eli Siegel

In 1946, Siegel began giving weekly lectures at Steinway Hall in New York City, in which he presented what he first called Aesthetic Analysis (later, Aesthetic Realism) “a philosophic way of seeing conflict in self and making this conflict clear to a person so that a person becomes more integrated and happier.”^[10]

From 1948 through 1977, Siegel continued teaching at 67 Jane Street in New York City, where individuals studied in such Aesthetic Realism classes as the Ethical Study Conference, the Nevertheless Poetry Class, and classes in which Aesthetic Realism was discussed in relation to the arts and sciences, history, philosophy, national ethics and world literature.^{[11] [12]}

Terrain Gallery & the Siegel Theory of Opposites

On February 26, 1955, the Terrain Gallery opened, with painter Dorothy Koppelman as Director. From the beginning, the Terrain was simultaneously an exhibition space for contemporary art and a public cultural center where artists and scholars discussed their original research on the relevance of Aesthetic Realism to contemporary art and life.^[13] In the announcement of its opening exhibition, the Terrain published Eli Siegel’s 15 Questions, Is Beauty the Making One of Opposites? (subsequently reprinted in The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism).^[14] Artists exhibiting at the Terrain were not required to endorse Aesthetic Realism,^[15] but many wrote comments on the Siegel Theory of Opposites in relation to their work, which were displayed with their art.^[16]

The Society for Aesthetic Realism discussed, at the Terrain, how opposites “explain art, poetry and humanity.”^[17] Through gallery exhibitions, public talks and discussions, poetry readings, and the publication of Aesthetic Realism essays and lessons by the Terrain, principles of Aesthetic Realism influenced contemporary intellectual thought as well as the New York art scene. Parker Tyler wrote in Art News of the “explicitly inquiring and venturesome spirit” at the Terrain.^[18] Bennett Schiff wrote: “There probably hasn’t been a gallery before like the Terrain, which devotes itself to the integration of art with all of living, according to…the theory of ‘Aesthetic Realism’ as developed and taught by Eli Siegel.” ^[19] The effect of Aesthetic Realism on artists is revealed in interviews by Chaim Koppelman^[20] founder of the printmaking department of the School of Visual Arts, with Roy Lichtenstein, Richard Anuszkiewicz, and Clayton Pond on the relevance of Aesthetic Realism and Eli Siegel’s Theory of Opposites to their work. Tape recordings of these interviews are now part of the Smithsonian Archives of American Art.^[21] Artists who have exhibited at the Terrain include Ad Reinhardt, Larry Rivers, Andre Kertesz, Harold Baumbach, Richard Bernstein, Dorothy Dehner, Leonard Baskin, Chaim Koppelman, Robert Blackburn, Arnold Schmidt, Harold Altman, Rolph Scarlett, Will Barnet, Richard Anuszkiewicz, Lois Dodd, Steve Poleskie, and Clare Romano. ^[22]

Aesthetic Realism and the Arts

Several artists and critics began utilizing Aesthetic Realism in their work, including Ralph Hattersley, editor of the photography journal Infinity,^[23] and Nat Herz, author of articles in Modern Photography and of the Konica Pocket Handbook: An Introduction to Better Photography.^[24] Throughout the 1950s, 60s and 70s, the Terrain Gallery continued to give weekly dramatic presentations of Aesthetic Realism,^[25] and over the years, the gallery became a center for presentations by artists in various fields who saw value in this philosophy.^[26] In 1967, the gallery presented talks by six working artists in the fields of painting, printmaking, photography, acting, and poetry, later published as the book, Aesthetic Realism: We Have Been There (NY: Definition Press, 1969).^{[27] [28]} The gallery also presented talks on music (some of which were subsequently published in Allegro, the newspaper of the Associated Musicians of Greater New York, Local 802)^[29] and a production of Ibsen’s Hedda Gabler inspired by Aesthetic Realism lectures, ^[30] in which Eli Siegel described the title character as “essentially good,” because, “with all her uncertainty and displeasingness” she wanted “humanity and the world to be more beautiful.”^[31]

The not-for-profit Aesthetic Realism Foundation was founded in 1973. At 141 Greene Street in New York City, it is the primary location where the philosophy is taught, in public seminars on a wide range of subjects,^[32] dramatic presentations, and privately scheduled consultations for individuals.^[33] The Foundation also offers a curriculum of classes in poetry, anthropology, art, music, acting, singing, ^[34] and classes for children.^[35] Scholarly papers on diverse arts, including architecture,^[36] and music,^[37] have been presented at the Aesthetic Realism Foundation, which also offers Outreach programs through various community organizations.

In 1977, Eli Siegel appointed Ellen Reiss chairman for the teaching of Aesthetic Realism. Since that time, she has conducted the professional classes for the teachers, and to-be teachers, on the Foundation's faculty. Herself an Aesthetic Realism consultant since 1971, Ms. Reiss also taught in the English departments of Queens and Hunter Colleges, City University of New York. She is a poet, editor, co-author (with Martha Baird) of The Williams-Siegel Documentary (Definition Press, 1970), and instructor of the course "The Aesthetic Realism Explanation of Poetry."^[38]

In November, 1978, Eli Siegel died.^[39] His work is continued by Ellen Reiss, whose editorial commentaries on literature, life, and national ethics appear regularly in the periodical, The Right of Aesthetic Realism to Be Known.^[40]

In 1984, a new series of weekly talks, free to the public, was held at the Foundation's Terrain Gallery: Aesthetic Realism Shows How Art Answers the Questions of Your Life. An overview of this series of more than 175 talks on art of diverse genres and periods was presented by co-directors Dorothy Koppelman and Carrie Wilson at the 31st World Congress of the International Society for Education through Art (InSEA) (Teachers College, Columbia University, 2003).^[41] In 2005 the Terrain Gallery's 50th Anniversary Exhibition^[42] documented the influence of Aesthetic Realism on both emerging and well known artists.^[43]

The Aesthetic Realism Theatre Company, composed of actors, singers and musicians, has presented various productions at the Foundation, based on lectures Eli Siegel gave on Shakespeare, Moliere, Sheridan, Ibsen, Strindberg, Eugene O’Neill, George Kelly, Susan Glaspell, and others. Their musical productions, combining songs with Aesthetic Realism comment, have also been presented at conferences in New Orleans, Las Vegas, Lake George, at libraries, museums, and to legislators and arts leaders at Arts Day in Albany, NY, on March 6, 2007.^[44]

[Revised, 4-17]

In one of his earliest essays, “The Equality of Man” (1923), Siegel criticized writers who were promoting eugenics, the theory that intelligence is inherited and some people belong to superior breeds or races, while others are born inferior.^[45] He argued that thus far in the history of the world, people have not had equal conditions of life, to bring out their potential abilities, and he asserted that if all men and women had “an equal chance to use all the powers they had at birth, they would be equal.”^[46]

According to Aesthetic Realism, racism and prejudice of all kinds begins with the human inclination towards contempt, “the addition to self through the lessening of something else.” Students of the philosophy assert that the racist attitude is not inevitable, but can change if one learns to recognize and criticize contempt. In public forums, individuals of diverse nationalities and cultural backgrounds have described how, through study of Aesthetic Realism, their racism and prejudice changed, not into “tolerance” but into a respectful desire to know and to see that the feelings of another are “as real, and as deep, as one’s own.” ^[47]

On an international level, proponents advocated the study of Aesthetic Realism as “The Only Answer to the Mideast Crisis” in a 1990 advertisement on the op-ed page of the New York Times.^[48] To oppose prejudice they recommend that persons of nations who are in conflict “write a soliloquy of 500 words” describing the feelings of a person in the opposing land.^[49]

The UN commissioned filmmaker Ken Kimmelman, a consultant on the faculty of the Aesthetic Realism Foundation, to make two anti-prejudice films: Asimbonanga, and Brushstrokes. Kimmelman credits Aesthetic Realism as his inspiration for these films, as well as his 1995 Emmy-award winning anti-prejudice public service film, The Heart Knows Better, based on a statement by Eli Siegel,^[50] which has received international acclaim.

Another noted speaker on the subject of Aesthetic Realism and how it opposes prejudice and racism is Alice Bernstein, whose articles on the subject have been published in hundreds of papers throughout the country, including in her serialized column, “Alice Bernstein & Friends.” ^[51] Mrs. Bernstein is the editor of The People of Clarendon County (Chicago: Third World Press, 2007), a book that includes a play by Ossie Davis re-discovered by Bernstein, together with historical documents, photographs and essays about Aesthetic Realism, which she describes as "the Education That Can End Racism." The late Ossie Davis, noted actor and civil rights activist, stated: “Alice Bernstein has dedicated her life to ending racism in this country.”^[52] A production of The People of Clarendon County—a Play by Ossie Davis, & the Answer to Racism, presenting Aesthetic Realism as the educational method that explains and changes prejudice and racism, was staged in the Congressional Auditorium of the US Capitol Visitor Center in Washington, DC on October 21, 2009, with introductory remarks given by House Majority Whip James E. Clyburn.^[53]

In 1946 writer and WW II veteran Sheldon Kranz (1919-1980) was the first man to report that he changed from homosexuality through the principles of Aesthetic Realism. ^[54] He said that as his way of seeing the world changed, his sexual preference also changed: from a homosexual orientation (he was no longer impelled toward men) to a heterosexual one that included love for a woman for the first time in his life. Kranz was married for 25 years (until his death) to Obie award-winning actress Anne Fielding. ^[55] This change occurred even though the subject of homosexuality was not central to the philosophy. ^[56]

Aesthetic Realism views homosexuality as neither a “sin” to be repented nor an “illness” to be cured, but as a philosophic matter. ^[57] A fundamental principle of Aesthetic Realism is that every person is in a fight between contempt for the world and respect for it. ^[58] That fight is present in homosexuality. ^[59] Aesthetic Realism states that, in the field of love and sex, a homosexual man prefers the sameness of another man while undervaluing the difference of the world that a woman represents. This undervaluing of difference is a form of contempt for the world; therefore, as a man learns how to like the world honestly, his attitude toward difference changes and this affects every area of his life, including sexual preference. ^[60]

In 1971 three men were interviewed on New York City’s WNDT Channel 13 Free Time show about their change from homosexuality through Aesthetic Realism. ^[61] A transcript of this interview was reprinted in the book The H Persuasion, which was published that year. The book also contained writing by Siegel detailing his ideas about the cause of homosexuality, transcripts of Aesthetic Realism lessons, and narratives by men describing both why they changed and how. ^[62] Also in 1971, four men who said they changed from homosexuality were interviewed on the David Susskind Show, which had a national syndication. ^[63] The airing of these two televised interviews resulted in many requests from people who wanted to study Aesthetic Realism, including, but not limited to, men wanting to change from homosexuality. In response, Siegel designated four consultation trios: The Three Persons and First Person Plural, trios that taught women wanting to understand themselves and love; Consultation With Three, whose purpose was the understanding and changing of homosexuality; and The Kindest Art, teaching artists the relation of art to life. ^[64][65] In 1983, five other men who said they had changed from homosexuality were interviewed on the David Susskind Show. ^[66] The transcript of this interview was published in the 1986 book The Aesthetic Realism of Eli Siegel and the Change from Homosexuality. ^[67] Through the 1970s and 1980s additional men said they changed from homosexuality through the philosophy. Many married and some started families. ^[68]

The idea that men could change from homosexuality was controversial. With the exception of a brief 1971 review calling The H Persuasion “less a book that a collection of pietistic snippets by Believers,” ^[69] The New York Times never reported that men said they changed from homosexuality through Aesthetic Realism. ^[70] In 1978, an ad that was placed in three major newspapers stating “we have changed from homosexuality through our study of the Aesthetic Realism of Eli Siegel.” It was signed by 50 men and women. ^[71] In 1982 The Boston Globe, reported that the “assertion” of change through Aesthetic Realism was “a claim staggering to psychiatrists and psychologists.” ^[72] The Globe’s ombudsman later wrote in his column that the article was biased against Aesthetic Realism. ^[73]

Beginning in the 1980’s, gay activists increasingly attacked Aesthetic Realism for saying that homosexuality arose from an incomplete way of seeing the world and could change. ^[74] Supporters of the philosophy responded that Aesthetic Realism describes contempt as a hurtful interference in every person’s life—homosexual and heterosexual, man and woman, child and senior.

The Aesthetic Realism Foundation also stated that it supported full, completely equal civil rights for homosexuals, including the right of a man or woman to live their life in the way they chose. ^[75] In 1990, not wanting to be involved in the atmosphere of anger surrounding this matter, the Aesthetic Realism Foundation decided to discontinue its presentations and consultations on the subject of homosexuality, saying that “we do not want this matter, which is certainly not fundamental to Aesthetic Realism, to be used to obscure what Aesthetic Realism truly is: education of the largest, most cultural kind.” ^[76]