# Can anyone make sense of this quote and explain it?



## Musicforawhile (Oct 10, 2014)

'Auden was a chameleon-like and self-conscious artist, not a Kadinsky but a Picasso, not a Schoenberg but a Stravinsky.' From an Introduction to an Auden poetry book collection, by John Fuller.

So, in what way was Stravinsky self-conscious and like a chameleon as an artist, whereas Schoenberg wasn't?

Or maybe you don't agree?

*I don't mean an explanation about Auden necessarily, but about the composers mentioned, and also the painters.


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

Stravinsky is very famous for having gone through a number of styles over the course of his career, and imitating the stylistic traits of his models relatively closely.

For example, he could be:
Rimsky-Korsakov

Debussy (a la "Nocturnes" for orchestra)

Bach

Beethoven (early Beethoven, that is)

Monteverdi *and* Mozart, with passing appearances from others (Incidentally, and not in the least coincidentally, an opera with an Auden libretto)

Jazz band

Renaissance Polyphony, particularly Gesualdo

Webern

Despite all of that, every bit of his work remains recognizably "Stravinskian", partially because his treatment of rhythm and harmony (particularly voicing) were so distinctive.

He also made arrangements of music by others that come off sounding very much like his own music:

"Pergolesi" (thought at the time to be Pergolesi, but actually others of the era; Picasso did scene designs for the ballet)

Tchaikovsky (Stravinsky's first experience of an orchestra was Tchaikovsky's music, and he retained a love for Tchaikovsky throughout his life)

That's not to say that Schoenberg's style was monolithic, but his own arrangements of others' work don't feel nearly as much like "his own" as Stravinsky's do, despite some very anachronistic elements, and the whole comes off sounding more like a dialogue between Handel and Schoenberg rather than Handel infused with Schoenberg:
Concerto for String Quartet and Orchestra after Handel


----------



## Figleaf (Jun 10, 2014)

I remember John Fuller- his study was opposite my tutor's. You could always ask him what he means.

[email protected]


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

as for Stravinsky, Picasso too took inspirations from a lot of different painters, sculptors and artistic styles, from Michelangelo to El greco, from Cezanne to Puvis de Chavannes, from the African masks to the surrealism.


----------



## Musicforawhile (Oct 10, 2014)

Thank you Mahlerian! This is very interesting. I definitely heard the Beethoven, Tchaikovsky, and Rimsky Korsakov in those examples. The Debussy inflected one sounded similar to Debussy's opera, _Pelleas et Melisande_, I'd say. At the start of the Renaissance polyphony example (Threni 2nd mvt.) when the bass sang it sounded to me like he was invoking Mozart's Commendatore.


----------



## Musicforawhile (Oct 10, 2014)

Figleaf said:


> I remember John Fuller- his study was opposite my tutor's. You could always ask him what he means.
> 
> [email protected]


Hmm, I could...I wouldn't have thought of doing that - I would think I was bugging him, but I don't see why he would mind. I will look into the examples he mentioned a bit more, and if I still don't fully understand what he meant by Auden being a chameleon, then I might email him.


----------



## Xaltotun (Sep 3, 2010)

I agree with this. Even with all his theories, Schoenberg always feels that he's using theory as a tool and an excuse to express something deeply instinctive, which is the opposite of being self-conscious. He's using 21st-century language to bring forth the same things that Wagner and all the Romantics did.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Stravinsky and Picasso, throughout their long careers, 'changed hats' many times, as Mahlerian so well illustrated in what he wrote, replete with links! 

This means the very outward 'appearance' of their work has distinctly different styles: both artists also were deeply informed of art of the past, and would sometimes reference it while making not a pastiche or mere reference, but a fresh and somewhat innovative take. Both are well-noted for works that, regardless of seeming (perhaps) 'at a remove' while investigating these different styles and manners, are quite distinctly recognizable as having their individual and personal stamps and signatures.

I am but the tiniest bit familiar with Auden, but this is the general point of such a comparative analogy... the artist was original and innovative, but also used any number of 'borrowed' older forms and used references, all the while making something fresh, at least, if not something innovative in the way of synergy with the old and new -- always original, often startlingly so.

This type of artist, whatever the craft, is often criticized for not consistently writing / painting in one style which develops over time -- I think those criticisms come from those who would prefer (or are more easily comfortable) if artists instead stayed 'more in one groove,' -- and criticized too, by others who are likely envious of the breadth of their ability to encompass such a variety without a loss of quality or personality.

Certainly, this also can make some wonder "who is the real person behind all this?" The answer is actually simple: the person "behind all that" has the genius, and they borrow or "plunder" any thing at all from the past which they love, admire, find interesting -- and any and all from things all about them _which they find useful, and turn them completely to their own purposes -- and their genius is what makes those works, regardless of major stylistic / content shifts, begged, borrowed, purloined materials or references so fresh, strong, and uniquely 'theirs.'_


----------



## Weston (Jul 11, 2008)

Mahlerian said:


> Stravinsky is very famous for having gone through a number of styles over the course of his career, and imitating the stylistic traits of his models relatively closely.
> 
> For example, he could be:


Wow! These are extraordinary -- but:



Mahlerian said:


> Monteverdi *and* Mozart, with passing appearances from others (Incidentally, and not in the least coincidentally, an opera with an Auden libretto)


I'm in serious need of eye bleach after this set design.  View at own risk.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

It's easy to see "chameleon-like" behavior in an artist's drawing on different styles and passing through different stylistic phases. Perceiving "self-consciousness," if it means more than this, seems subtler. 

Does it refer to a preoccupation with style itself? As opposed to, or at the expense of, something else? What? Meaning? Self-expression? Spontaneity? Does that imply "artificiality"? Is that bad? Is it somehow "insincere"? 

Does the "self-conscious" artist strive for "effect," peculiarity for its own sake, drawing our attention to his cleverness or his own enjoyment of it? Is the medium more important than the message, or does it become the message itself? Is the artist himself the message?

What is the self-conscious artist conscious of, or consciously doing, that the unself-conscious, or less self-conscious artist, is not?

Does any of this apply to Stravinsky?


----------



## Blake (Nov 6, 2013)

Woodduck said:


> What is the self-conscious artist conscious of, or consciously doing, that the unself-conscious, or less self-conscious artist, is not?


John Adams said he's at his best when the compositional creation is not so conscious. Sort of like being in deep-sleep, but fully awake.


----------



## sharik (Jan 23, 2013)

Musicforawhile said:


> So, in what way was Stravinsky self-conscious and like a chameleon as an artist, whereas Schoenberg wasn't?


in the mass media. Starvinsky would say and write what the US establishment wanted him to, not his own thoughts.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

sharik said:


> in the mass media. Starvinsky would say and write what the US establishment wanted him to, not his own thoughts.


Why the heck would he do that? Somebody's seriously out of touch here, and it ain't me. Anybody here can say the "establishment" is a crock or Obama's a fool, as always. You may live in a different place, I'm guessing.


----------



## Guest (Nov 20, 2014)

sharik said:


> in the mass media. Starvinsky would say and write what the US establishment wanted him to, not his own thoughts.


Evidence ?


----------



## sharik (Jan 23, 2013)

KenOC said:


> Why the heck would he do that?


so that he don't end up in the street as a homeless bum.



KenOC said:


> Anybody here can say the "establishment" is a crock or Obama's a fool, as always.


it is today, but then it was different. Stravinsky found himself in harsh circumstances in a country where they would lock you up any minute if you fail to comply.


----------



## sharik (Jan 23, 2013)

MacLeod said:


> Evidence ?


for example, once upon a time the agents of Zappa and Stravinsky had arranged that the both would praise one another.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

sharik said:


> for example, once upon a time the agents of Zappa and Stravinsky had arranged that the both would praise one another.


An interesting thought. You may want to compare the dates of birth and death of these two worthies. :lol:

Still, theoretically possible. But some evidence of this odd arrangement might be helpful.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

sharik said:


> it is today, but then it was different. Stravinsky found himself in harsh circumstances in a country where they would lock you up any minute if you fail to comply.


Your view of American political history is...odd. In 1944 it was quite acceptable (even amusing) to say of the election, "No man's good the fourth time!"


----------



## Nereffid (Feb 6, 2013)

sharik said:


> for example, once upon a time the agents of Zappa and Stravinsky had arranged that the both would praise one another.


"Agents of Zappa" sounds like a _great_ idea for a TV show!


----------



## sharik (Jan 23, 2013)

KenOC said:


> An interesting thought. You may want to compare the dates of birth and death of these two worthies. :lol: Still, theoretically possible. But some evidence of this odd arrangement might be helpful.


unable to find the article; i only remember to have read somewhere of that story... but anyway, it is enough to watch Stravinsky interviews to see what a media figure the man was.


----------



## sharik (Jan 23, 2013)

KenOC said:


> Your view of American political history is...odd. In 1944 it was quite acceptable (even amusing) to say of the election, "No man's good the fourth time!"


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

sharik said:


>


The urban myth about this photo has it the composer was arrested for desecrating the American National Anthem via his arrangement of the same.

The fact is it is something dully mundane, having something to do with citizenship, alien registration, etc.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

sharik said:


> unable to find the article; i only remember to have read somewhere of that story... but anyway, it is enough to watch Stravinsky interviews to see what a media figure the man was.


There are media figures and media figures. I have a hunch about Stravinsky, that not he, nor Columbia records, nor any of his publishers... ever lifted a finger to 'get the press to interview' Stravinsky.

I.e. some people attract the press by what the work(s) they have done and simply being who they are; others solicit and then work the press to "get press" -- huge difference


----------



## Xaltotun (Sep 3, 2010)

Woodduck said:


> It's easy to see "chameleon-like" behavior in an artist's drawing on different styles and passing through different stylistic phases. Perceiving "self-consciousness," if it means more than this, seems subtler.
> 
> Does it refer to a preoccupation with style itself? As opposed to, or at the expense of, something else? What? Meaning? Self-expression? Spontaneity? Does that imply "artificiality"? Is that bad? Is it somehow "insincere"?
> 
> ...


Very good questions. I think that your suggestion that the self-conscious artist aims for the effect rings true. Now, there's nothing bad in this. Often, these are the people that push art forward. They realize where art has been and where it is going. Cleverness and wit may be involved, or they may not. It's a consciousness of the big picture in art and (and maybe society and history), and a consciousness of their art and its effect to the whole system. Whereas an unself-conscious artist is a romantic type, acting as a channel for creative impulses. I'm thinking, can these two types be combined? I could maybe answer that, but right now my very young child is starting to break furniture, so I must log off TC.


----------



## Blake (Nov 6, 2013)

Xaltotun said:


> Very good questions. I think that your suggestion that the self-conscious artist aims for the effect rings true. Now, there's nothing bad in this. Often, these are the people that push art forward. They realize where art has been and where it is going. Cleverness and wit may be involved, or they may not. It's a consciousness of the big picture in art and (and maybe society and history), and a consciousness of their art and its effect to the whole system. Whereas an unself-conscious artist is a romantic type, acting as a channel for creative impulses. I'm thinking, can these two types be combined? I could maybe answer that, but right now my very young child is starting to break furniture, so I must log off TC.


I think there are always both. If it's all in the intellect then it's really just a theoretical exercise. All art starts out in the unconscious, then makes it's way into subconscious abstractions, and then comes the conscious use of theory to actualize the expression.

All artists have varying degrees of this. That's why some art you feel in your bones, while others are simply an intellectual stimulus. And of course the level of comprehension the listener has greatly effects the experience.


----------



## sharik (Jan 23, 2013)

PetrB said:


> I.e. some people attract the press by being what they've done and who they are


only serial killers and that sort of stuff, but to get the press interview a composer - you surely have to pay, one way or another, money not considered, rather a product placement or advertising or political message.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Woodduck said:


> It's easy to see "chameleon-like" behavior in an artist's drawing on different styles and passing through different stylistic phases. Perceiving "self-consciousness," if it means more than this, seems subtler.
> 
> Does it refer to a preoccupation with style itself? As opposed to, or at the expense of, something else? What? Meaning? Self-expression? Spontaneity? Does that imply "artificiality"? Is that bad? Is it somehow "insincere"?
> 
> ...


In a way, the "Self-conscious" artist is something akin to the "Sentimental" of Schiller's premise in _On Naïve and Sentimental Poetry._ This makes the majority of artists the sentimental, not the naive, ergo, they are more than aware of the history of the craft, its works, and _style._ The old cliche when style is the prime occupation over substance is the best rudder for the style question... and it seems to me to not remotely apply to Stravinsky.

The "style question" could very much apply to I think almost all of the composers lumped under that dreadful genre label "spiritual minimalism," i.e. Part, et alia. There you have something borrowed, revisited, supposedly deeply meaningful, but instead a mere stylistic cloth covering a less than substantial table -- and typically, a lot of the public go for 'the style.' -- i.e. it is a mode, fashion, trend. Ditto for the sort of polystylistic neotonalist 'fusion' the likes of which Jennifer Higdon has composed, and I fear a lot of the newer 'avant / international' music coming out of (mainly, it seems) the former soviet satellite countries, and the older generation too, of Schnittke, Gubaidulina, etc. But that is my opinion, and of course time will tell if this remains 'fashionable,' or if its cloth is of a more durable quality.

Stravinsky or otherwise, the questions are moot, really. Some composers who were quite earnestly 'writing their own way' without donning stylistic trappings still managed to write something 'well enough' but so dull that their works were played once or twice and forgotten, stylistic clothing or none. Compare many of those 20th century and later 'neoclassicist' composers and pieces, and note their already old and still lively age, holding up quite well, likely to be with us, and later generations, and that is again a matter of the depth of composer, not mere 'style.' -- Some who don stylistic clothing are more superficial than others, have / had less to say of interest in the first place, etc.

There is nothing to say about it, I think, unless it is a matter of trying to critique _a particular work,_ and not an artists' particular stylistic period.

I think the matter has to be taken as I believe one should 'judge' people, i.e. on a need to know and case by case basis


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

sharik said:


> in the mass media. Starvinsky would say and write what the US establishment wanted him to, not his own thoughts.


You have peculiar, mistaken ideas about how things work in the U.S. There is no "establishment" that tells artists, composers, and writers what to say. Even if someone wanted to, the mechanism for doing this simply doesn't exist. More important, it would be impossible for such an alleged "establishment" to even decide what they might want someone like Stravinsky to say. Where do you imagine such a consensus of opinion would exist?


----------



## sharik (Jan 23, 2013)

EdwardBast said:


> There is no "establishment" that tells artists, composers, and writers what to say.


there is one alright; at some point you get approached by a couple of guys who tell you shut up, and if you don't, you'll have problems.



EdwardBast said:


> Where do you imagine such a consensus of opinion would exist?


lobbyism.


----------



## Guest (Nov 21, 2014)

sharik said:


> there is one alright; at some point you get approached by a couple of guys who tell you shut up, and if you don't, you'll have problems.


Is this what is meant by gangsta?


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

MacLeod said:


> Is this what is meant by gangsta?


Imagine what music Penderecki would've made if the capitalist thugs had left him alone!


----------



## sharik (Jan 23, 2013)

MacLeod said:


> Is this what is meant by gangsta?


no, the FBI men that is, but if you won't listen, next time it might well be mobsters (in case the Tax Department is unable to pinch you) or for example it might be no contracts signed with you, and so on.


----------



## sharik (Jan 23, 2013)

science said:


> Imagine what music Penderecki would've made if the capitalist thugs had left him alone!


for instance, neither Stravinsky nor Rachmaninov have written anything of significance since got in the US.


----------



## Guest (Nov 21, 2014)

sharik said:


> no, the FBI men that is, but if you won't listen, next time it might well be mobsters (in case the Tax Department is unable to pinch you) or for example it might be no contracts signed with you, and so on.


I don't live in the US, so the FBI won't be knocking on my door.

Whilst there _may _be wholesale secret surveillance of ordinary citizens in the UK, it is...secret...so I don't know that it happens. I must say that in the absence of evidence to the contrary, I assume that the police aren't interested in me and I can say what I like. I would also assume that unless artists and musicians are up to no good, they're not being subjected to surveillance either.


----------



## sharik (Jan 23, 2013)

MacLeod said:


> I don't live in the US, so the FBI won't be knocking on my door.


then MI6 would.



MacLeod said:


> I would also assume that unless artists and musicians are up to no good, they're not being subjected to surveillance either.


obscure personalities are allowed freedom of thought, but public ones aren't.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

EdwardBast said:


> You have peculiar, mistaken ideas about how things work in the U.S.


I agree, have found those mistaken sets of ideas highly consistent, and also find them 'understandable' due to place of origin, not 'the person.'

The repetition of such similar cant _does_ more than sound as if these responses are deeply conditioned and programmed, though.


----------



## sharik (Jan 23, 2013)

PetrB said:


> I agree, have found those mistaken sets of ideas highly consistent, and also find them 'understandable' due to place of origin


what were the origins of George Orwell for example?


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

sharik said:


> for instance, neither Stravinsky nor Rachmaninov have written anything of significance since got in the US.


Rachmaninoff's Fourth Piano Concerto, Rhapsody on a Theme of Paganini, and Symphonic Dances?

Stravinsky's Symphony in Three Movements, Rake's Progress, and Requiem Canticles?

These are pieces that are regularly featured in the international repertoire. By what measure are they insignificant?


----------



## sharik (Jan 23, 2013)

Mahlerian said:


> Rachmaninoff's Fourth Piano Concerto, Rhapsody on a Theme of Paganini, and Symphonic Dances?
> 
> Stravinsky's Symphony in Three Movements, Rake's Progress, and Requiem Canticles?
> 
> These are pieces that are regularly featured in the international repertoire. By what measure are they insignificant?


the talk was of when they were US residents.


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

sharik said:


> the talk was of when they were US residents.


All of these works were written after their composers had emigrated to the US; although Rachmaninoff did go to Europe to compose, his main residence was in America.


----------



## sharik (Jan 23, 2013)

Mahlerian said:


> All of these works were written after their composers had emigrated to the US; although Rachmaninoff did go to Europe to compose, his main residence was in America.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sergei_Rachmaninoff#Emigration_and_career_in_the_West

as for Stravinsky in the US he hasn't written anything nearly as groundbreaking as his first three ballets.


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

sharik said:


> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sergei_Rachmaninoff#Emigration_and_career_in_the_West
> 
> as for Stravinsky in the US he hasn't written anything nearly as groundbreaking as his first three ballets.


Okay, yes, the Wikipedia article you linked to contains the following sentence:
"In the 25 years between 1918 and his death in 1943, while living in the U.S. and Europe, he completed only six compositions."

Which six, of course, include the four mentioned above.

As for Stravinsky, whether or not the compositions I listed are groundbreaking or not is debatable (though Stravinskian Neoclassicism was _the_ most important Western style between the two World Wars), but what is not debatable is that these pieces are played regularly and admired.


----------



## Guest (Nov 21, 2014)

sharik said:


> what were the origins of George Orwell for example?


Mr and Mrs Orwell, presumably.


----------



## Figleaf (Jun 10, 2014)

MacLeod said:


> I don't live in the US, so the FBI won't be knocking on my door.
> 
> Whilst there _may _be wholesale secret surveillance of ordinary citizens in the UK, it is...secret...so I don't know that it happens. I must say that in the absence of evidence to the contrary, I assume that the police aren't interested in me and I can say what I like. I would also assume that unless artists and musicians are up to no good, they're not being subjected to surveillance either.


Does being 'up to no good' include being a whistleblower? There are blacklists for them, compiled with the help of the police. It was all over the Guardian last week. What about being a trade union activist, an environmental protester, or a campaigner against tuition fees, or even a reporter who covers such people sympathetically? All are guilty of 'domestic extremism' and surveilled by the police:

http://www.theguardian.com/commenti...snoop-journalists-freedom-data-protection-act


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

MacLeod said:


> I don't live in the US, so the FBI won't be knocking on my door.


No, just MI5.



> MacLeod: Whilst there _may _be wholesale secret surveillance of ordinary citizens in the UK, it is...secret...so I don't know that it happens. I must say that in the absence of evidence to the contrary, I assume that the police aren't interested in me and I can say what I like. I would also assume that unless artists and musicians are up to no good, they're not being subjected to surveillance either.


Then why is _everyone_ being tracked, traced, and data-based by their governments?


----------



## Harri (Nov 21, 2014)

Stravinsky wrote a ballet called Le Baiser de la Fee (The Fairys Kiss) ... I recommend it for listening, as it was created using several Tchaikovsky songs, which were bound together with a fairy tale theme and created what I personally thing is a really unique piece of music. It is too Tchaikovskian to be truly Stravinsky, but there is too much of Stravinsky in the ballet, for it to be pure Tchaikovsky....it is a perfect example of Stravinsky's chameleon skills...


----------



## Guest (Nov 22, 2014)

Marschallin Blair said:


> Then why is _everyone_ being tracked, traced, and data-based by their governments?


You mean, my government only needs to give me a social security number for nefarious purposes, not to check that I'm an 'entitled citizen'?

The fact that such data can be misused does not mean that's what it's for.



Figleaf said:


> Does being 'up to no good' include being a whistleblower? There are blacklists for them, compiled with the help of the police. It was all over the Guardian last week. What about being a trade union activist, an environmental protester, or a campaigner against tuition fees, or even a reporter who covers such people sympathetically? All are guilty of 'domestic extremism' and surveilled by the police:
> 
> http://www.theguardian.com/commenti...snoop-journalists-freedom-data-protection-act


No, it doesn't. My point was that the 'ordinary citizen' is not generally being watched, or if she is, it's of no consequence, and artists who have a public profile are able to say what they want - more or less. However, you rightly point out examples of 'active' citizens who may be being watched. We live in paranoid times, unfortunately, and both Joe Public and the state fear that the next person pronouncing that they dislike the government may be about to wield a machete in anger. I'm not condoning 'police state' tactics, but I understand why we are subject to them - though to varying degrees in different countries.

Thanks for the link.


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

> MacLeod: You mean, my government only needs to give me a social security number for nefarious purposes, not to check that I'm an 'entitled citizen'?
> 
> The fact that such data can be misused does not mean that's what it's for.


In civilized society as opposed to a totalitarian one, the presumption is upon innocence and not guilt. That's why there's such things as 'probable cause' and 'search warrants.'

"Truth is treason in the Empire of Lies."

-- George Orwell


----------



## SiegendesLicht (Mar 4, 2012)

MacLeod said:


> I don't live in the US, so the FBI won't be knocking on my door.


I would not be so sure. The NSA spies on ordinary German citizens (are they still _that_ scared?), there is no reason it would not do the same with the ordinary British.


----------



## Guest (Nov 22, 2014)

Marschallin Blair said:


> In civilized society as opposed to a totalitarian one, the presumption is upon innocence and not guilt. That's why there's such things as 'probable cause' and 'search warrants.'


I'm not sure I follow your line of argument - or is it just comment?



SiegendesLicht said:


> I would not be so sure. The NSA spies on ordinary German citizens (are they still _that_ scared?), there is no reason it would not do the same with the ordinary British.


Are you saying that the FBI physically operates in the UK?


----------



## SiegendesLicht (Mar 4, 2012)

MacLeod said:


> Are you saying that the FBI physically operates in the UK?


I don't know, but I think they would have no problem sending agents anywhere on the globe, especially to a friendly nation like the UK.


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

SiegendesLicht said:


> I would not be so sure. The NSA spies on ordinary German citizens (are they still _that_ scared?), there is no reason it would not do the same with the ordinary British.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SKyIil9OdF4#t=293

http://www.dallasnews.com/opinion/l...s-not-paranoia--nsa-is-spying-on-everyone.ece

http://www.inspirationfolder.com/2014/09/27/shocking-documents-prove-nsa-spying-on-your-cell-phone/

_"All government, in its essence, is a conspiracy against the superior man: its one permanent object is to oppress him and cripple him. If it be aristocratic in organization, then it seeks to protect the man who is superior only in law against the man who is superior in fact; if it be democratic, then it seeks to protect the man who is inferior in every way against both. One of its primary functions is to regiment men by force, to make them as much alike as possible and as dependent upon one another as possible, to search out and combat originality among them. All it can see in an original idea is potential change, and hence an invasion of its prerogatives. The most dangerous man to any government is the man who is able to think things out for himself, without regard to the prevailing superstitions and taboos. Almost inevitably he comes to the conclusion that the government he lives under is dishonest, insane and intolerable, and so, if he is romantic, he tries to change it. And even if he is not romantic personally he is very apt to spread discontent among those who are." _

- H.L. Mencken, _The Smart Set_, December, 1919


----------

