Talk:Aesthetic Realism/temp

Introduction
(Note from TS): I added below the language we have discussed and, I believe, agreed to already. I'm leaving alone, however, whatever is here just in case I'm mistaken.


 * Aesthetic Realism is the philosophy founded in 1941 by the American poet and critic Eli Siegel (1902-1978). It is now taught by a faculty of consultants at the Aesthetic Realism Foundation in New York City. According to Aesthetic Realism "the purpose of life is to see the world in the best way" and this can be accomplished by learning how the world has an aesthetic structure of opposites in oneness. Contempt, the desire to lessen the world in behalf of oneself, is seen by Aesthetic Realism as the root source of both personal unhappiness and injustice throughout society. While the purpose of Aesthetic Realism is to describe the nature of the world, those who study it have credited it with many postive changes in their lives--including improved marriages, ending alcoholism, better parenting, and resolving personal difficulties such as eating disorders and stuttering. In the 1970s and 1980s Aesthetic Realism was widely known for publicizing its claim that men and women studying it had changed from homosexuality to heterosexuality.


 * This last sentence is somewhat deceptive: AR was known for its position that many men and women studying it had changed from homosexuality to heterosexuality. The construction above attempts to place responsibility for that belief on those men and women rather than on AR. - Outerlimits 20:59, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * [Comment on "Outerlimits" by Arnold Perey: The last sentence is quite true and "Outerlimits" is quite wrong. The fact is, quite a number of men and women wrote at length and spoke in public about how they changed--the logic that enabled them to change, the love that those who married felt for their spouses. The press never published a single one of these accounts out of mean-spritedness. Yes, of course, the men and women who changed "believed" they had! I knew Sheldon Kranz, who changed in 1946; I knew him from 1968 to 1980, when he died. My wife and I are good friends with his widow. Did he "believe" he changed? Of course. I have other friends who changed years ago, male and female. What is "Outerlimits" getting at? Aperey 20:21, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC) ]


 * I've now changed it so it is less deceptive, so that Aperey can perhaps comprehend my point - which he has failed to understand, yet nevertheless chooses to dismiss with an erroneous characterization. AR was known for its position on homosexuality, not for the position of those who changed. The responsibility for AR's position belongs to AR, not the "changers". Perhaps we need to be more specific: Eli Siegel taught that "all homosexuality arises from contempt of the world," and that homosexuality was a way of not liking oneself. - Outerlimits 00:51, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * I guess I had to change it a bit myself. But as I said earlier, in deference to the wishes of the Aesthetic Realism Foundation, which doesn't want to be involved in the "atmosphere of anger..." I refrain.--Aperey 23:53, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * NOTE from Arnold Perey: I think the new introductory paragraph is much better. But perhaps some slight changes would strengthen it. I'll boldface what I think might be better, and wait for your comments.


 * Aesthetic Realism is the philosophy founded in 1941 by the American poet and critic Eli Siegel (1902-1978). It is now taught by a faculty of consultants at the Aesthetic Realism Foundation in New York City. The purpose of Aesthetic Realism is to "encourage people to see the world all through their lives in the best way they can."  and this can be accomplished by learning how the world has an aesthetic structure of opposites in oneness, such as freedom and order, rest and motion, for and against. Meanwhile, contempt, "the addition to self through the lessening of something else," is seen by Aesthetic Realism as the root source of both self-dislike and injustice throughout society, including unjust wars. While Aesthetic Realism describes the nature of the world, those who study it have credited it with many postive changes in their lives--including improved marriages, better parenting, and resolving personal matters  such as eating disorders. In 1955 the Terrain Gallery opened, making the Aesthetic Realism explanation of beauty more widely known to the art world and the public in the decades that followed. In the 1970s Aesthetic Realism was best known, perhaps, for statements by many men and women studying it that they had "changed from homosexuality to heterosexuality." In 1973 the Aesthetic Realism Foundation was founded, which, through classes, and public seminars and theatrical events, continued making this philosophy known.

The change you've made again seeks to distance AR from its assertion that it was a means of "change from homosexuality" by implying that the people making such claims were operating independently of AR. It might better read "In the 1970s and 80s Aesthetic Realism was best known through a series of advertisements and media interviews in which it was claimed that the study of the philosophy produced a "change from homosexuality". These advertisements brought Aesthetic Realism a prominence which it had not enjoyed before, and has not enjoyed since. " - Outerlimits 21:48, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I beg your pardon. Read my response above. Persons teaching Aesthetic Realism in the 70s were proud to assert that it was a means of changing homosexuality. And when the Aesthetic Realism Foundation was founded it was glad to say so too. But as you well known, if the persons who changed hadn't taken the lead, written cogently and scientifically about how they themselves had changed, any "assertion" by the Foundation would have been quite unheard. --Aperey 23:53, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

AR & Poetry
Aesthetic Realism states that the world and all that is in it can be seen poetically. Whatever we may meet--whether fortunate or unfortunate--we can be proud of how we see it. Siegel explains why poetry is needed for this: &#8220;Poetry, like life, states that the very self of a thing is its relations, its having-to-do with other things. Whatever is in the world, whatever person, has meaning because it has to do with the whole universe: immeasurable and crowded reality.&#8221;

And so, Hot Afteroons Have Been in Montana begins,


 * Quiet and green was the grass of the field,
 * The sky was whole in brightness,
 * And O, a bird was flying, high, there in the sky,
 * So gently, so carelessly and fairly&#8230;

History of Aesthetic Realism
AP says: I have been working on a new history section, beginning with what Reiss wrote in The Modern Quarterly Beginnings and adding from the Corsini timeline and several other references. This gets in how Siegel began classes, how he began giving lesson, how consultations began, and how the point of view to art developed among the public and the art world--despite an astonishing blackout by most of the press of any reference to this philosopher. What I gathered is probably much too long and needs cutting. But here goes:

Suggestions toward History of Aesthetic Realism

Ellen Reiss, appointed Class Chairman of the Aesthetic Realism Foundation faculty by Eli Siegel, discerns the beginning of Aesthetic Realism in Siegel's 1922-1923 essays (including "The Equality of Man" and "The Scientific Criticism")and his poetry, including the 1924 poem &#8220;Hot Afternoons Have Been in Montana.&#8221; [please, no unnecessary quotes -W.]

The beginning of Aesthetic Realism can be seen in Siegel's 1922-1923 essays, "The Equality of Man" and "The Scientific Criticism", and his poetry, especially the 1924 poem "Hot Afternoons Have Been in Montana."

In the Baltimore Sun (2 February 1925) Siegel explained: "In "Hot Afternoons" I tried to to take many things that are thought of usually as being far apart and foreign and to show, in a beautiful way, that they aren't so separate and that they do have a great deal to do with one another." The key concept of Aesthetic Realism, -The world, art, and self explain each other: each is the aesthetic oneness of opposites,- arises directly from this.

Beginning in 1938 Siegel taught poetry classes with the concepts of Aesthetic Realism as their basis. Of these classes artist Chaim Koppelman wrote: "Opposites in poetry, such as freedom and order, personal and impersonal, both in technique and subject matter, were related to opposites in the world and opposites in a person." [We already know thwhat AR is about. -W] Students of Siegel asked him to give individual lessons in which they could and learn to see their own lives in relation to poetry. These were the first Aesthetic Realism lessons (1941). "The method does things to people of a most discernible kind,"; wrote Siegel. "It has helped to organize lives." [Preface, The Aesthetic Method in Self-Confict]

In 1942-3 Eli Siegel wrote Self and World explaining the philosophic basis of Aesthetic Realism. In 1944 his first series of philosophic lectures on the basis of Aesthetic Realism was given. In 1945 he completed Definitions, and Comment defining 134 terms needed for a philosophic outline of reality, including Existence, Change, Fixity, Freedom, Thought, Will, Wonder, Fear, Hope, Negation, Reality, and Relation.

In 1955 the Siegel Theory of Opposites--so termed by his students--was presented in the publication Is Beauty the Making One of Opposites? by the Terrain Gallery.

By 1969 artists and students of music had formally extended the Siegel Theory of Opposites to include discussions of photography, acting, painting, printmaking, and music. Aesthetic Realism: We Have Been There by six working artists who write on their own craft was published. Wrote the Library Journal: "Heraclitus, Aristotle, Kant, Hegel, and even Martin Buber have posited contraries and polarities in their philosophies. Siegel, however, seems to be the first to demonstrate that 'all beauty is the making one of the permanent opposites in reality'." (1 September 1969) [3] (http://www.definitionpress.org/WHBT-Review-LJ.htm)

In 1971 four men appeared on the David Susskind Show who described changing from homosexuality through their study of Aesthetic Realism; their book, The H Persuasion, was published that year. [Additional history needs to be inserted: the "spontaneous" "change from homosexuality" and marriage of Sheldon Kranz occurred before 1957, and the other "changes" publicised in 1971 all occurred in the 60s, so AR's teachings on homosexuality started well before 1971; and David Suskind was not the first public appearance in AR's media blitz. We also need to be clear that it was not, strictly speaking, simply "study" which was credited for the purported changes: group pressures and expectations were part of the "change", and the "matchmaking" where "converted" (previously self-hating) gays were rapidly married off to other students of AR also probably played a role.- OL]


 * The above comment from OuterBlueJaylimits is really an astounding twisting of the truth, but it suits his own self-devised picture of Aesthetic Realism which he is trying to foist upon wiki readers and editors. It is good fiction writing, though.


 * For the record: Careful study of Aesthetic Realism principles in relation to their own lives is the only way men and women changed from homosexuality and the only thing they ever credited for the change. They weren't "transformed."  They weren't "converted."  And they certainly weren't "cured."  They experienced a change in their way of seeing the world (the same way someone disinterested in poetry might change his way of seeing poetry after taking a course in the subject and coming to value poetry in a new way), and in their instance this change included a bodily response to women they hadn't experienced before.  Group pressures?  Group expectations?  Matchmaking?  "Self-hating" gays?  "Rapid marriages"?  Says who!  OuterBlueJaylimits alone as far as I can see.  His made up and carefully constructed phrasology is meant to depict Aesthetic Realism as a cult.  These are the characteristics of a cult and therefore they have to be foisted upon Aesthetic Realism, however bad the fit.


 * Blame mother nature for the fact that many men and women who changed later married--some sooner and some much later. Many are still married today with good lives and families they cherish.  Some still study Aesthetic Realism and some do not.  Indeed, many did marry other persons who studied Aesthetic Realism.  Just as many Roman Catholics marry other Roman Catholics, just as many students at Harvard fall in love with other students at Harvard, just as many people interested in music marry somebody else interested in music.  What terrible cults Roman Catholism, Harvard and music are!


 * Please name the instances of Aesthetic Realism's "media blitz" prior to the Susskind Show. I know of one televison program (Jonathan Black) on public TV.  OuterBlueJaylimits should list the programs he has in mind when he says there was a "media blitz" prior to the Susskind Show.  You will find he can't because such a "blitz" never occured. [TS 6 July 2005)

Aesthetic Realism consultations began in 1971, in which the Aesthetic Realism method used by Eli Siegel in lessons was the basis: the self explained as an aesthetic situation. See Aesthetic Realism; or, Is a Person an Aesthetic Situation?

At this time there were twelve teachers of Aesthetic Realism; three of them were concerned full-time with homosexuality. [-OL]


 * The above comment from OuterBlueJaylimits is also somewhat misleading. It is meant to backup his contention that Aesthetic Realism was largely about changing homosexuality during this time.  In fact, after the first twelve teachers (teaching in 4 trios only one of which was about homosexuality), many more consultation trios were named by Eli Siegel.  By 1973 there was All For Education (speaking to educators), Painting Music Life (speaking to artists and persons interested in religion about the relation of the arts to religion), The Young Mind (speaking to young men), There Are Wives (speaking to wives) and Each and All (which dealt with any subject not specificlly covered by another trio)--upping the number of consultants to 27, with only three discussing homosexuality.  These trios were added because of the large number of people who wanted to study Aesthetic Realism and were NOT concerned with the subject of homosexuality.  Later there was Fathers and Others (speaking to persons interested in seeing their parents--especially their fathers--better) and The L Preference (speaking to women about, yes, the subject of lesbianism).  This makes 33 consultants with only six (or 18%) of them speaking about the subject of homosexuality.  Again, OuterBlueJaylimit's comments above are revisionist history having a highly personalized POV. [TS 6 July 2005]

---This is as far as I got.-Aperey 20:38, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * References:
 * Koppelman, Chaim. This Is the Way I see Aesthetic Realism, Terrain Gallery & Definition Press: New York, 1969 (p. 2)
 * Siegel, Eli. The Aesthetic Method in Self-Conflict. 1941, 1946.
 * Siegel, Eli. Self and World: An Explanation of Aesthetic Realism, Definition Press, New York: 1981.
 * Siegel, Eli. Definitions, and Comment: Being a Description of the World,' in The Right of Aesthetic Realism to Be Known''.
 * Siegel, Eli. Is Beauty the Making One of Opposites? Terrain Gallery, New York: 1955.
 * Siegel, Eli. &#8220;Aesthetic Realism; or, Is a Person an Aesthetic Situation?&#8221; A Short Explanation Given by Eli Siegel in an Interview with Lewis Nichols of the New York Times Book Review, 14 January 1969.
 * Review of Aesthetic Realism: We Have Been There in the Library Journal, 1 September 1969.

---

Change
[There are a lot of problems with the above paragraph. I have some ideas about how to fix them --Aperey 21:21, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)] [What are the problems? What are your ideas? Thanks -Willmcw 21:32, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)]


 * Well, here's a shorter and dryer paragraph using a standard reference--I think it's more encyclopedic in tone:


 * In 1971-90 Aesthetic Realism was perhaps best known for what Raymond Corsini calls its &#8220;success...in changing homosexuality to heterosexuality.&#8221; Written by four men who said in 1971, "We have changed from homosexuality" on the nationally viewed David Susskind Show, The H Persuasion appeared that year. It contained a transcript of the earlier WNDT (Channel 13) Jonathan Black interview and personal narratives by each author. In 1975 the Tom Snyder Show also interviewed four men who changed. In 1978, 50 men and women placed an advertisement to that effect, titled "Yes, We Have Changed," in the New York Times. In 1979 the ad was repeated in the NY Times, Washington Post, and Los Angeles Times.


 * Reference: Raymond J. Corsini, Handbook of Innovative Psychotherapies (John Wiley & Sons: New York, 1981)
 * Aesthetic Realism seems to have disappeared from the Handbook of Innovative Psychotherapies since 1981. - Outerlimits 02:36, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Aperey 22:08, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Except it's not known for its "success" it's known for its claim. - Outerlimits 20:59, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Outerlimits wants to call it a "claim." Corsini--a respected authority in the field of mind--called it "success." Are we quoting exactly or changing the quotes we don't like? TS 17 June 2005]


 * Corsini seems to have changed his mind about its "success". Are we quoting 24 year old opinions in preference to modern references?


 * Oh really? Where does Corsini say he changed his mind?  Please provide the reference.  You seem unbothered by quoting 20 year old statements by students of Aesthetic Realism to support your POV about Aesthetic Realism now yet demur at quoting 20 year old statements by others.  Seems a bit inconsistent to me.  [TS 25 June 2005]

Further, the paragraph says AR was "known for its success", and the Corsini quote does not speak to what AR was "known" for - which is its contentious and controversial claim that the study of AR "changes" homosexuals. - 02:36, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Here is the Corsini quote exactly:
 * "I first learned of Aesthetic Realism while watching a David Susskind show on television Four men on the show said that they had changed their sexual preferences from homosexualiy to heterosexuality and gave credit to Eli Siegel, not only for this changeover but also for larger and grander personal changes. In my subsequent reading of Siegel's works, it appeared that he had, on his own, come to an understanding of life that was not only unique but also clearly related to the mind-boggling concept of complementarity in physics, in which two antithetical concepts are considered true at the same time.  To quote Warren Weaver (The Religion of a Scientist in L.  Rosen Religions in America, New York, Simon & Schuster, 1975 p. 301):  'The idea of the  valid use of two contradictory viewpoints is by no means restricted to physics.  As [Niels] Bohr emphasized, there are numerous pairs of contradictory concepts (love snd hate, for example: practical and ideal; intuitive and logical) that, when held jointly and used appropriately, give us a more complete and satisfying description than can be achieved otherwise. {Handbook of Innovative Psychotherapies ed. by Raymond J. Corsini, John Wiley & Sons, New York, 1981 p. 18)  [TS 6 July 2005]

We've already covered "known", so let's be more direct. (I also added in the post 1980s stuff into a second paragraph)
 * From 1971 to 1990 Aesthetic Realism offered consultations for those who wished to change from homosexuality to heterosexuality. In 1971 four four men [names?] appeared on the nationally-aired David Susskind Show to say, "We have changed from homosexuality". That same year they published their stories in The H Persuasion, which contained a transcript of the earlier WNDT (Channel 13) Jonathan Black interview and personal narratives by each author. More publicity came in 1975 when Tom Snyder interviewed another four men who had changed. Ads titled "Yes, We Have Changed," with the names of 50 men and women ran in the New York Times. Washington Post, and Los Angeles Times. The ads criticized the press for keeping "this beautiful knoweledge from you." The Aesthetic Realism Foundation claimed that the press "were trying to make more of themselves by making less of Aesthetic Realism".

[Note from TS: The last sentence is inaccurate. I don't believe you'll find a quote from Aesthetic Realism to this effect. What the Foundation did say is that the press preferred contempt to respect--reporting on things they could feel superior to and show up rather than things they could respect. I don't think many people today would disagree with that! TS 22 June 2005]


 * The idea of "changing" homosexuality fed into in an increasingly public and heated debate where the AR did not agree with positions taken by others. It generated ill-feeling towards the philosophy and the foundation. In response, the Aesthetic Realism Foundation discontinued this aspect of the philosophy's study in 1990, stating that in such an "atmosphere of anger" calm philosophic discussion of homosexuality was not realistic and that, in any event, the subject itself was not "central to the study of Aesthetic Realism. The Aesthetic Realism Foundation did not disavow the statements of the men and women who said they had changed from homosexuality through its study, but it also reiterated its position that it is for full civil rights for everybody, including homosexual persons.


 * This present ARs view of why the response was what it was, and no other. "Fed into an increasingly public and heated debate" should be something more like, "went against a growing trend to consider homosexuality neither pathological, nor amenable to change." - Outerlimits 20:59, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

However I'm not sure this is the right way to handle this. Do we want to handle homosexual change as a separate issue from the rest of the history? I am inclined to go with a straight chronology to the extent possible, but I'm open to being convinced otherwise. (I just swapped in TS's suggested text for the second paragraph, with some changes of my own.) -Willmcw 23:39, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)]


 * Chronology has the "benefit" of hiding the information. I think if we are to be accurate about why AR is known, to the extent it is known, the information has to be featured prominently rather than hidden away by ordring it chronologically rather than in order of importance. -20:59, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[If the above paragraph stays, I would suggest "the ads criticized the press for keeping "this beautiful knoweledge from you." Otherwise I like the paragraph above.  However, I tend to agree with Willmcw that handling homosexual change as a separate issue is not the right way to go.  It was always one aspect of a much wider study.  TS]
 * Done -Willmcw 05:31, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)


 * The one aspect that made AR known to the general public. - Outerlimits 20:59, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Again, Outerlimits, I respectfully disagree. You have a right to your POV, but it is yours. I think we are seeing from the comments here the "atmosphere of anger" that prompted Aesthetic Realism to discontinue teaching about this matter.


 * I think what we are seeing here is the inability of AR to recant or embrace decisively claims which resulted in a decrease in its popularity. - Outerlimits 02:36, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

First of all, I am not Aesthetic Realism nor do I claim to speak for Aesthetic Realism. I am a person who once studied Aesthetic Realism some years ago. Meanwhile back and forth we go and what Aesthetic Realism actually is gets lost in all the heat about an ancillary matter. I tend to agree with Willmcw that highlighting the change from homosexuality--which, in any event, was only a short part of the over sixty year history of Aesthetic Realism--is terribly disproportionate. [TS 17 June 2005]

I don't believe that Willmcw said that, and I don't agree with your assessment. - Outerlimits 02:36, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Response on talk page - let's not clutter this up too much.-Willmcw 05:31, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

-

From 1971 to 1990 Aesthetic Realism was known for its attempts to attract students by advertising statements by those who claimed they had "changed from homosexuality" by studying Aesthetic Realism. The H Persuasion: How Persons Have Permanently Changed From Homosexuality Through the Study of Aesthetic Realism With Eli Siegel appeared in 1971, following the appearance of four men who said they had "changed from homosexuality" on the nationally viewed David Susskind Show. Advertisements with testimonials of these remarkable claims appeared in popular media outlets such as The New York Times Magazine, The Los Angeles Times and The Washington Post in 1979, with the participation of the Foundation. The ads excoriated the press, which (the ads stated) had conspired to keep "this beautiful news from you". The Aesthetic Realism Foundation claimed that the press "were trying to make more of themselves by making less of Aesthetic Realism". A second book on the subject, The Aesthetic Realism of Eli Siegel and the Change from Homosexuality was published in 1986. In 1990, the Aesthetic Realism Foundation issued a statement that it had discontinued "this aspect of the school'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." . The Foundation did not disavow assertions (made in the publications mentioned above) that homosexuality was unethical and selfish, prefering simply to try and drop the matter. The attempt to promote Aesthetic Realism as a means of dealing with homosexuality had failed due to an unanticipated backlash.

[The above paragraph is the one I take many exceptions to and hope will go! TS]

The idea of "changing" homosexuality had drawn Aesthetic Realism into controversy, where it did not really agree with either side in an increasingly public and heated debate on this issue, and which generated ill-feeling towards the philosophy and the foundation. In response, the Aesthetic Realism Foundation discontinued this aspect of the philosophy's study in 1990, stating that in such an "atmosphere of anger" calm philosophic discussion of homosexuality was not realistic and that, in any event, the subject itself was not "central to the study of Aesthetic Realism.

The Aesthetic Realism Foundation did not disavow the statements of the men and women who said they had changed from homosexuality through its study, but it also reiterated its position that it is for full civil rights for everybody, including homosexual persons.

[The above paragraph is more like it! TS]

Criticism of AR over Change
Aesthetic Realism has attracted critics (see Aesthetic Realism is a cult).

"In the 1970s and 1980s," stated Michael Bluejay, "the Foundation claimed it had a 'cure' for homosexuality: Study Aesthetic Realism, and homosexual feelings would go away."

Bluejay's position continues as follows: The Foundation promoted this view in two books as well as newspaper advertisements with the headline "We Have Changed from Homosexuality," with supposedly formerly gays and lesbians signing their names and asking to be interviewed by the press. Over the years a number of these success stories decided they were really gay after all and left. The Aesthetic Realism Foundation then re-released their first book on the topic, The H Persuasion (ISBN 091049214X) to omit the names of those who had fallen off the wagon. By 1986 they had to come out with a whole new book, profiling completely different people.

[A later note, June 24: I think we can see that the above paragraph is self-contradictory and simply does not correspond to the facts. I'll give one point: Take the word "supposedly" (which is POV and insulting). Now, if "a number of these sucess stories" decided they were "really gay and left" then there must have been some "success stories" who decided they were really heterosexual and remained. If so, they weren't "supposedly former gays and lesbians" but they were really former gays and lesbians. That's clear, isn't it? There are other points which I won't go into now.]

[Of course, my distaste for Michael Bluejay and his obvious misrepresentations make it hard for me to be objective about his comments the above. Here's my try TS]


 * Aesthetic Realism has attracted critics. (see Aesthetic Realism is a cult} On his web site he placed great emphasis on Aesthetic Realism's position as to homosexuality, saying it claimed to have a "cure" for homosexuality. Bluejay stated: "The Foundation promoted this view in two books as well as newspaper advertisements." [note: since the books and ads are detailed above I don't think we need to name them again here, do we?].  He claimed there was an inconsistency in Aesthetic Realism's position about homosexuality because the publications it released on the subject over the years featured different men and women and because some of those who said they had changed later discontinued their formal study of Aesthetic Realism.

AR rebuttal to criticisms over Change
In response to these allegations that the foundation claimed to cure homosexuality Margot Carpenter of the Aesthetic Realism Foundation has written:


 * Here I would prefer either as a replacement to or in addition to Margot Carpenter's statement the one given by the Aesthetic Realism Foundation under the title: "Some notes on the effort to make trouble about homosexuality" found on the Countering the Lies site. It reads as follows:


 * There is a large difference between “cure” and “change.”  It’s not a matter of semantics. It’s a matter of what the human self is. If a person wants to change something about himself, that’s not the same as saying he is mentally ill. If he changes deeply what he cares for in music, what he’s stirred by in art, that’s not the same as being “cured.”   [TS 6 July 2005]


 * Aesthetic Realism never presented itself as having a &#8220;cure.&#8221; Not only does Bluejay misrepresent Aesthetic Realism on the subject, but he actually puts the word &#8220;cure&#8221; in quotation marks to make readers think he&#8217;s directly quoting some statement of Aesthetic Realism, when he is not.
 * Bluejay....wants people to think that there is something hidden going on. So for the record, I quote the following statement by the Aesthetic Realism Foundation; it is what anybody inquiring about this matter has been told since 1990, and people have found it very clear:
 * It is a fact that men and women have changed from homosexuality through study of Aesthetic Realism. Meanwhile, as is well known, there is now intense anger in America on the subject of homosexuality and how it is seen. Since this subject is by no means central to Aesthetic Realism, and since the Aesthetic Realism Foundation has not wanted to be involved in that atmosphere of anger, in 1990 the Foundation discontinued its public presentation of the fact that through Aesthetic Realism people have changed from homosexuality, and consultations to change from homosexuality are not being given. That is because 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.
 * Aesthetic Realism is for full, equal civil rights for everyone.

The Aesthetic Realism Foundation has pointed out that objections to the new have existed throughout history: "So it was with the great work of persons as different as Galileo and Keats, Darwin and Spinoza and Martin Luther King. And so it has been too in the history of Aesthetic Realism." Williams called the objection to Eli Siegel's work "the extreme resentment that a fixed, sclerotic mind feels confronting this new." 

Victim of the Press
"The press boycott of Aesthetic Realism," writes the Aesthetic Realism Foundation, "is in process of change. In recent years, thousands of articles and letters about Aesthetic Realism and what it explains, many written by people who study and who teach it, have been published by newspapers nationwide and internationally."

Michael Bluejay lists as one factor for his objection to Aesthetic Realism that its proponents consider it the most important teaching, ever. He also discusses the fact that for many years the students and teachers of Aesthetic Realism wore buttons saying "Victim of the Press", because they objected that newspapers had not reported on the principles or findings of Aesthetic Realism, despite, they said, the considerable importance of these principles to aesthetics, the social sciences, and people's lives. Critics (or as Bready terms them, "belittlers" ) contend that the Aesthetic Realism's claim of a press boycott was a paranoid feeling of persecution. In any event, supporters of Aesthetic Realism stopped wearing the buttons in the mid-1990s.

[This is my reworking of the objections section. I moved up the response about homosexuality from the Foundation to follow immediately upon the critics statements concerning it. I tried to make the rest of the statement NPOV, though it is hard to be neutral about statements I consider to be simply ridiculous. TS]

[The objections fall apart when the facts are looked at. I don't think it's my job to try to make them look more NPOV when the general reader will see they sound a bit off the wall in their present state. Further, the only objection to which the Foundation is given any specific response is some of Bluejay's misuse of language to make his point. And this gives him a kind of inflated importance. Can't we remedy some of this stuff? --AP]

Allegations of cult behavior
One of the more persistent critics, Michael Bluejay of Austin, Texas, whose connection with Aesthetic Realism is that his mother, Geri Ellen Harmon, once studied Aesthetic Realism when he was an infant, has devised his own web site stating that his purpose is to show that Aesthetic Realism is really a cult.

Aesthetic Realism Foundation
The Aesthetic Realism Foundation is the school in New York City that teaches the Aesthetic Realism philosophy. It was founded by students of Eli Siegel in 1955. He visited the Aesthetic Realism Foundation only once--in 1978 shortly before his death, when he attended a public presentation there--preferring to continue teaching classes for its faculty from his home on Jane Street. Since Eli Siegel's death in 1978, Ellen Reiss has been its academic head and teaches these professional classes for consultants and those who wish to become consultants at the Foundation. Ellen Mali, a former executive director, has since left the school and become a critic. The executive director today, Margot Carpenter, is a poet and teacher of Aesthetic Realism.

A faculty of 46 approved consultants now teach Aesthetic Realism to the general public through conducting classes, public programs and seminars, private consultations, and through the recorded lectures of Eli Siegel. Many of its faculty have blogs. It publishes books through Definition Press (other books about Aesthetic Realism have been published by Orange Angle press and Waverly Place Press) and the biweekly journal The Right of Aesthetic Realism to Be Known, which has published over 1600 issues since its beginnings in 1973. Classes in a variety of subjects are offered throughout the week and students may enroll for as many or few as they desire. There are also seminars and public presentations of Aesthetic Realism offered to the public on a regular basis as well as privately scheduled consultations. The faculty and those studying to teach on the faculty attend the professional classes conducted by Ellen Reiss twice a week, on Tuesday and Friday evenings.

[I wrote what I knew and added it to the paragraph above. I can't answer what is asked below. It would be some job to count up the number of people who have studied Aesthetic Realism at some time or other in some fashion or another! I'm not sure that is even possible but I suppose Aperey would know. TS]

[AP replies--The above looks good to me. I don't think we need quote marks around consultants. I'd rather the word not be there than have a peculiarity attached to it. How about, "A faculty of 46 now teaches...."


 * I agree to that [TS 6 July 2005]

As to the blank spaces below, there are no "daily meetings"--just the biweekly, etc., classes described above. Tuition is very modest. To enroll for one semester consisting of 7 classes (like the 90-minute anthropology classes I teach) costs $50. Auditing one class costs $8. See the class registration information online. As to the numbers studying across the years, or TRO subscribers, I don't know. I also don't consider it relevant if we want to convey the most important information about the philosophy. Corsini describes the number of people reached by the Aesthetic Realism Foundation as "thousands." Meanwhile, as always, the important question about Aesthetic Realism is, Is it true? --Aperey 17:58, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Since it isn't clear what the upshot of these diverse editings is, I took the liberty to edit as follows: I added Margot Carpenter, the present executive director, as she is certainly more important than Ellen Mali and should be identified; and I took out the quote marks around "consultants" -- AP --Aperey 20:07, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

and currently has ____ subscribers. Since its founding the school has had ____students [do we have any statistics for how many students/subscribers/etc?] Daily meetings [?]. Tuition?

The Foundations' Terrain Gallery was founded in 1955 to show contemporary art and to make known the Aesthetic Realism understanding of the visual arts. Its basis was the Siegel Theory of Opposites: "All beauty is a making one of opposites, and the making one of opposites is what we are going after in ourselves." For its opening, the Terrain published Siegel's "Is Beauty the Making One of Opposites?", subsequently reprinted in The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism and other sources both academic and otherwise. Artists from the 1950s on who exhibited at the Terrain included Larry Rivers, George Tooker, Rolph Scarlett, John von Wicht, Elaine de Kooning, Jim Dine, Roy Lichtenstein, Chaim Koppelman, Robert Blackburn, Astrid Fitzgerald. 

[I like the above. It is straightforward. TS]

Relation to Structuralism and other philosophies [hidden]
<!-- Text hidden pending some sources to indicate it's purpose. Some observers have pointed to a resemblance between structuralism and Aesthetic Realism. The reason is, both respect the dialectic process and see opposites as primal in our understanding of the world. A dialectic, writes musicologist Rose Rosengard Subotnick "enables one to grasp the two opposed priorities as simultaneously valid".

Aesthetic Realism, however, sees the dialectic process as essentially aesthetic. This makes for very significant differences. Siegel presented reality as having a dialectic structure, yes, but more fundamentally as having an aesthetic structure. That is why, he stated, the world--or reality--can be liked: it has a structure that is beautiful the way a painting or poem is beautiful. This differs from structuralism, which does not neccessarily accent the value--or beauty--of an object's structure, but the structure itself.

This brings us to another difference between structuralism and Aesthetic Realism. The opposites which, Siegel explained, are at the basis of reality are the metaphysical or ontological opposites: such as freedom and order, one and many, sameness and difference, individuality and relation, matter and energy. These are qualities which are in reality as such (see for instance Aristotle's discussion of One and Many in his Metaphysics). And take an electron--it is both substance and form, a particle and a wave. A sonnet is both substance and form (a Shakespearean sonnet about the Dark Lady has subject matter and sonnet form) -- see the similarity? The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle describes every instance of matter as both definite and indefinite (we can know position or velocity but not both). Monet's Waterlilies are both definite and indefinite--and beautifully so! We feel both opposites at once: hence the idea of dialectic. We see it as beautiful: hence the term aesthetic.

Eli Siegel wrote in his preface to The Aesthetic Method in Self-Conflict(Definition Press, New York: 1946):

"'Were there a word as exact as aesthetics for the purpose, we would have been glad to use it. The nearest word, other than aesthetics, is dialectics.'"

Claude Lévi-Strauss by comparison--the best known of structuralists today--relies on such opposites as sky and water, succulent and dessicated, raw and cooked which are not ontological, along with such opposites as diversity and unity, order and disorder which are ontological; but the structuralist approach does not see it as necessary to differentiate between them. That is, Raw and cooked are not ontological the way disorder and order are; they are not fundamental or inescapable in the description of any reality--though we do use them to describe food as well as other things that we process, e.g.: "He cooked up a plan for revenge. But it was only a half-baked plan."

a quote from another Wikipedia entry: Lévi-Strauss explained that opposites are at the basis of social structure and culture. In his early work he demonstrated that tribal kin groups were usually found in pairs, or in paired groups that both oppose one another and need one another. For example, in the Amazon basin, two different expanded families would build their houses in two facing semi-circles that together make up a big circle. He showed too that the congnitive maps, the ways early folk categorized animals, trees, and so on, were based on a series of oppositions. Later in his most popular work The Raw and the Cooked he described the widely dispersed folk tales of tribal South America as all related to one another through a series of transformations--as one opposite in tales here changes into another opposite in tales there. As the title implies, for instance, Raw becomes its opposite Cooked. These particular opposites (Raw/Cooked) are symbolic of human culture itself, in which, by means of thought and labor, raw materials become clothes, food, weapons, art, ideas. Culture, explained Lévi-Strauss, is a dialectic process: thesis, antithesis, synthesis.

While Aesthetic Realism has a resemblance to structuralism and other philosophic thought, and arises from the Western philosophic tradition, it also differs in this fundamental way: Eli Siegel stated that art, the self, and the sciences have in common a structure of fundamental opposites--opposites which make for beauty. This had not been stated elsewhere. -->

[This is very scholarly and interesting. It is up to everybody else doing the editing if it is too much for this article or should stay. I have no objections one way or the other, except that it does show the place of Aesthetic Realism in the ongoing flow of philosophic thought. TS]

Aesthetic Realism scholarship
Aesthetic Realism has been the basis for scholarly work in both the arts and sciences, including the work by anthropologist Arnold Perey, Oksapmin Society and World View; and by musicologist Edward Green whose paper, written with Perey, was published by the University of Graz in Austria's conference Proceedings "Aesthetic Realism: A New Foundation for Interdisciplinary Musicology". Papers were recently given at the International Society for Education through Art (InSEA) sponsored by the United Nations Educational, Social, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) describing the Siegel Theory of Opposites in relation to painting, world art, and art education. One paper focused on the way the study of art can be a more effective means of opposing prejudice than ever. This was published in the Proceedings of InSEA, titled "Aesthetic Realism, Art, and Anthropology: Or, Justice to People" by Marcia Rackow and Perey. Huntington Cairns, Secretary of the National Gallery of Art, said "I believe that Eli Siegel is a genius. He did for aesthetics what Spinoza did for ethics." 

The new anthology, "Aesthetic Realism and the Answer to Racism", edited by Alice Bernstein, written by teachers and students from a multicultural point of view explores how effective the Aesthetic Realism way of seeing people is in understanding and defeating racism. Marguerita Washington, publisher of the Omaha Star, said of the book, "We can't have too much awareness of the inequality of the races. The approach of Aesthetic Realism is valid, exciting, and a benefit to the community."