The Aesthetic Realists' hysterical reaction to New York Magazine
May 2009 - December 2011
In 1976 Alan Rich of New York magazine reviewed a theater performance starring one of the Aesthetic Realists (whose name is changed below, since he has since left AR and presumably no longer wants to be associated with it). The actor's bio in the playbill included the obligatory plug for Aesthetic Realism, and in the review Rich referred to AR as "a cult of messianic nothingness that hangs out somewhere in the Village". The AR people then unloaded a torrent of angry mail upon New York magazine's offices, a whopping 173 separate letters, weighing nearly six pounds, including copies of other letters to other parties that they sent along because they wanted NY Magazine to see them. Luckily, Mr. Rich supplied me with the entire box of crap less than one year before his death. It took me three hours just to skim this mess and another four hours to organize it all. It's going to take me months to extract all the good bits for the website, but below is my first stab at it. Here are the takeaway points:
- Aesthetic Realism is a cult.
The gushing, over-the-top praise of AR and its founder in these
letters, along with the hysterical reactions to criticism, provides
some of the best evidence anywhere that AR is a cult. It's
ironic: the Aesthetic Realists wrote these letters to complain about
being labeled a cult, but with these letters they breathtakingly
revealed that that's exactly what they are.
- Aesthetic Realists are hypocrites. AR people says that AR shows people how to be kind. That doesn't square with the deluge of hate mail they sent to New York magazine and Alan Rich, crammed full of vitriolic insults. (Not every letter was hateful, sure, but lots of them certainly were.) It's funny how in the same letter, in almost the same breath, an Aesthetic Realism might say, "I know I have become a kinder person through Eli Siegel and Aesthetic Realism.... Your statement about Aesthetic Realism exemplifies cheapness and dishonesty...[Y]ou are unaware of the purpose of a critic, and incompetent in your profession."
- Aesthetic Realists are liars. When Alan Rich said publicly that the AR people were sending him hate mail, the AR people denied that it was hateful. The evidence below suggests that yet again, they were lying their asses off.
- Aesthetic Realists don't tolerate criticism. On AR's "Countering the Lies"
website, one of the things they say I'm supposedly lying about is that
they don't tolerate criticism. According to them, they just love criticism, they roll around in it and rub it all over their bodies. So why then, when a reviewer makes a four-word slight against them, do they respond with a veritable deluge of hate mail, and a campaign to get the magazine's advertisers to cancel their accounts?
- AR people have delusions of grandeur.
Aesthetic Realists believe that one day everyone in the world will
study AR and revere their founder Eli Siegel as the greatest person who
ever lived. This comes through strong and clear in the
letters. One of the writers says, "Because this letter is of
historical importance I am keeping the original and sending you a
copy." (!)
- Aesthetic Realists have paranoid feelings of persecution.
AR people believe there's a conspiracy in the press to not report about
the wonders of Aesthetic Realism. As such, nearly every single
letter writer puts "Victim of the Press" under his or her name.
Many of the letters make outrageous claims of persecution; for example,
one AR child suggests her mother is on drugs because NY Magazine won't
cover Aesthetic Realism favorably.
Aesthetic Realists pimp their children. The AR people got their children,
some as young as 2-1/2, to write letters to NY Magazine. (When a
kid was too young to write, the parents wrote out what the child
said.) This is one of the cases in which the term "brainwashed"
comes to mind: It's obvious to everyone else how ludicrous this
is, but the Aesthetic Realists actually thought it was a good idea. A quote from Homer Simpson comes to mind: "Kids are the best! You can teach them to hate the things that you hate!" The Aesthetic Realists are at the Homer Simpson level.
- You can't trust an Aesthetic Realist. This collection of letters exemplifies one of the five reasons you can't trust what an Aesthetic Realist says:
Most of them eventually snap out of it and leave the group (and of
course, recant what they said). Most of the people who wrote
these angry letters to NY Magazine praising Aesthetic Realism in 1976
sure wouldn't say so today So it's kind of hard to place much
faith in the words of those who haven't snapped out of it yet. Today's zealot is tomorrow's former member.
I omit the names of people who have left the group since they presumably no longer wish to be associated with it, or with the comments they made back when they were brainwashed.
The original slight in NY Magazine which provoked all the letters
Review of "Rich and Famous" play (New York Magazine, March 8, 1976, p. 77, by Alan Rich; name of the actor changed since he's no longer an Aesthetic Realist)
"As Bing, Donald Atkinson gives the same sandpapered, uninflected reading that looked positively heroic in The Day of the Locust. Mr. Atkinson, he wants it to be known, is an alumnus of Aesthetic Realism, that cult of messianic nothingness that hangs out somewhere in the Village. It figures."
Letters from the children
Dear Alan Rich,
I am a student of Aesthetic Realism I think your Article in new york was awful is not bigotted or religious cult it is based on truth and it teaches people to like the world and themselves. I am 11-1/2 years old and I think you should study it, it would do you a lot of good. I have seen something for myself even though I am so young this article was a liie, I think you should apologize in print cause you've hurt peoples lives, you have hurt mine
[name]
Victim of the Press
Note: This person has since left the group.
Dear Mr. Rich,
I am 14 years of age, and you probably never heard of me, but I think it's about time you did.... The way you described Aesthetic Realism as "that cult of messianic nothingness that hangs out somewhere in the village" is about as contemptuous as a person can get.
What gives you the right to talk that way about something you haven't bothered to study or see what it is about?! You are a victim of the press and you are not only hurting yourself, but many other people in the world who are looking for the kind criticism of Eli Siegel and Aessthetic Realism.
I came to New York to visit but I stayed to study Aesthetic Realism. The reason I stayed is because in Aesthetic Realism Consultations I am learning how to like things and people more and to make sense of my life.
It is your duty as a journalist to make a solemn apology to Donald Atkinson and Aesthetic Realism. You will respect yourself....
[name]
Victim of the Press
Note: This person has since left the group. Below is his follow-up letter.
Dear Mr. Glaser, [of New York Magazine]
On March 5th, 1976, I wrote a letter to Mr. Alan Rich about his slur on Aesthetic Realism. A few weeks later I called him up. I wass very affected by our conversation. The way he was so smooth about Eli Siegel and Aesthetic Realism really ticked me off. Since that day I have been angry and sick, off and on for the last two weeks. Because of Mr. Rich, Mr. Sulsburger and all the other people of the press I have been miserable.
How do you think I should feel? Aesthetic Realism has changed my life Mr. Glaser, but because the press does'nt write about that, I can't even talk to my school friends about it. Ethics isn't a hot subject at Robert Wagner Jr. High. It's news, Mr. Glaser, and unfair reporters like Mr. Rich have hurt the lives of millions of people.
Because of the press boycott my father, my stepmother and my half sister are all having a hard time placing my coming up to N. Y. to study a thought. Why are you so unfair? What you want most is to study Aesthetic Realism. Something should be done about a retraction of Mr. Rich's slur. Out of all the 400 letters he has gotten he should know by now that Aesthetic Realism is true about all people . An apology should be printed from Mr. Rich, because if he doesn't he will not be at ease with himself. I can imagine what he goes through at nights, knowing that he is hurting lives all over the world.
People from all walks of life study Aesthetic Realism & feel their lives have been saved. Print that, Mr. Glaser, instead of some jive, no good slur. Aesthetic Realism is true, and if you mess around with it, you will never have a large feeling about anything anymore. You should want to know the facts. Retract Mr. Wretch's, I mean Rich's, slur. You will respect yourself.
[name]
Victim of the Press
Letters from adult Aesthetic Realists
We are writing you this letter in refrence [sic] to an articile [sic]
appearing in the New York Magizine [sic] in which you mentioned
Aesthetic Realism.We feel that what you wrote about Aesthetic Realism was unkind and not true. If you were willing to look and to study, your anger would be less and you would not have made such a statement.
Mr. Rich, we have come to love Aesthetic Realism and find our study necessary to complete our lives and our marriage.
Two and one-half years ago after a violent argument, we seperated [sic]. Through our study of Aesthetic Realism, we were able to see important things about ourselves, including our attitude towards the world which made for large changes in our lives.
After nearly two years of study we were able to resume our marriage. This could never have been possible without our study of Aesthetic Realism.
Therefore, Mr. Rich, you are making a mistake by not looking deeper at Mr. Eli Siegel's thought Aesthetic Realism. It is for this reason you have no right to make statements against that which you do not know, and so Mr. Rich, we demand a retraction.
[name] and [name]
Victims of the Press
Note: These people have since left the group.
I am writing in reference to your slurring comment about Aesthetic Realism, in New York Magazine. Cheapness and dishonesty cannot go unanswered, your statement about Aesthetic Realism exemplifies cheapness and dishonesty.
In the first place you are not yet in any position to judge the value of Aesthetic Realism. You have nothing to back up your statement. This shows you are unaware of the purpose of a critic, and incompetent in your profession.
But this statement is not only incompetent it is vicious, and that cannot be excused. Along with many other people who know Aesthetic Realism I have seen that it is true about people and the world. We have seen this through honest study. The press has an obligation to see why we say this. I know I have become a kinder person through Eli Siegel and Aesthetic Realism, and I have seen this happen with many people. When Aesthetic Realism is known, kindness will be seen as the hieght [sic] of education. This is what you choose to call nothing. You need to become a kinder person. You can begin by retracting your statement publicly, and begin to see what the value of Aesthetic Realism really is.
Sincerely,
Hank D'Amico
Victim of the Press
Editor's note:
Hank was one of the AR leaders, leading AR "consultations" with Dorothy
and Chaim Koppelman. He was later pushed out of the group amid a
controversy. In 2005, long after he left AR, he wrote a piece for
AR's "Countering the Lies" site, disputing our claim
that people who leave AR are shunned by those still in, saying that
he's still in contact with his son who's still in AR. Hank of
course neglected to mention that he was kicked out of AR. Those who are thrown out don't necessarily get the cold shoulder, but those who voluntarily
leave the group absolutely do get shunned by those still in, including
family members. It's ironic that Hank's rebuttal is part of AR's
"Countering the Lies" site, because his failure to mention why he left
AR is pretty much a lie by omission. Then again, the whole
"Countering the Lies" site is chock full of such misrepresentations.
Hank passed in January 2010. Here's his memorial page.
Dear Clay Felker [founder of NY Magazine]:
There has yet to be a retraction by Alan Rich and New York Magazine, of his careless and cruel comment about Aesthetic Realism in the Marth 8th issue.
Everyday that there is no retraction and public apology is another day that your magazine sanctions injustice, unethical journalism, and literally murders people's hopes.
There is something in America that people can trust, and that has been deeply hoped for. That trust and hope is in the knowldege of Aesthetic Realism. There have been 12,000 Aesthetic Realism consultations as of this date.
We see ourselves and our son Matthew age five as representative Americans who have met Aesthetic Realism. We have seen that our son, like many other children that have met Aesthetic Realism, has a deep instinctive love for, and understanding of it. He is fortunate to have met the Aesthetic Realism of Eli Siegel, and wonders why other children have not been able to have this good fortune.
We have studied Aesthetic Realism; Mr. Rich has not. People have a right to know what we have seen through our study, and not have hope destroyed by a cheap, careless statement of one who doesn't know.
We and our son are victims of the press, because this long injustice has encouraged suspicion where there should be trust; cycnicism [sic], instead of belief in what is beautiful. You have stopped us from being as kind and as useful as possible to our son, as well as people in general.
Instead of asking people what they have learned, which would be the useful and just thing to do, the press has chosen silence. This is cruelty at its utmost. We hope this letter will appeal to your conscience, and encourage you to ask: what is there to learn?
Sincerely,
Hank D'Amico
Victim of the Press
Barbara D'Amico
Victim of the Press
cc: Arthur Ochs Sulzberger [publisher of the NY Times]
Bob Weiner
James Wechsler [editorial page editor of the NY Post]
Aesthetic Realism Foundation
[See editor's note in the box above.]
Sirs,
I have read Alan Rich's review in the March 8th issue of the play "Rich and Famous". I take great offense at his slurs about Aesthetic Realism. It figures that he is in need of great help. His whole article is so filled with his own contempt of the world. I have met with the Three Persons in Aesthetic Realism and found great knowledge.
What Mr. Rich needs badly is Aesthetic Realism which teaches honest criticism without contempt.
I hope Mr. Rich is a big enough man to do some personal investigating.
[name]
Note: This person has since left the group.
Dear Mr. Felker,
If you are interested in the well being and sanity of America you will retract that malicious slur, to put it mildly, made by Alan Rich about Aesthetic Realism, in your March 8 edition.
I have been studying Aesthetic Realism for the past 6 years, and have found it to be the most accurate, comprehensive and kindest thought that has been. It has helped the lives of hundreds of people, my own included. Being a natural skeptic I have given Aesthetic Realism a workout and found it to be true. Isn't this good news? Mr. Rich is not in a position to judge the value of Aesthetic Realism, because he has not taken the privilege to study it. That is not professional. Persons lives were hurt because of that slur, my own included, as well as his and your own.
This cheap dishonesty has got to stop now! You can do something about it. I hope you do. People want and must know Aesthetic Realism!
Harvey R. Spears
Type Director
Victim of the Press
[This letter was sent on the letterhead of Grey Advertising, which provoked Alan Rich's response below.]
Grey Advertising, Inc.
Dear sir,
I received the enclosed letter today as part of a voluminous campaign being waged against me and New York Magazine by Aesthetic Realism, a crackpot cult lodged in the woodwork down in Greenwich Village.
Whatever the merits of the campaign may be, it strikes me as highly improper that it be waged on Grey Advertising letterhead, and I think that this matter should be called to your attention.
Sincerely,
Alan Rich
Arts Editor
Dear Mr. Rich,
I have been a student of Aesthetic Realism for six years. I have taught Aesthetic Realism to persons ranging in age from six to seventy-eight for three years. I have seen concrete evidence of the great value of Eli Siegel's thought to the lives of people in America. Why is it I wonder that you, who as far as I know, have never even attended an Aesthetic Realism seminar, or read one book about Aesthetic Realism, feel you have the right to print anything you want? Is this journalistic integrity?
You remind me of the critic who called Keats' "Endymion" impossible to read and made himself immortal through stupidity and snobbishness. However much he hurts Keats, he didn't keep knowledge from people that they needed to have so that their lives could be whole and healthy. If you knew, Mr. Rich, how hurtful your statements about Aesthetic Realism are I think you would faint from shame.
The citizens of Germany after World War II were appalled at what was found in the concentration camps. They were frightened and weakly said "We didn't know what was going on." But, Mr. Rich, they didn't want to know. Does that excuse them? Please, before you make any statements find out what you are talking about. Find out of people's lives will be hurt by what you say. You owe Eli Siegel and the American people a very large apology as do your colleagues of the press. Why not make yourself immortal through your courage rather than through your lack of seeing?
Sincerely yours,
Heide Feller
Co-Director [this letter was on the letterhead of "Children's Day Care Center, Inc."]
Victim of the Press
Note: Heide also left AR and is now critical of it.
Dear Sir,
When you write about Aesthetic Realism you should adhere to an eclectic philosophy that is working wonders for a great many people. You are responsible for what you know, so do not slander when it is not pertinent to your way of life. Examine thyself before examining others.
[name]
[This letter was sent by the father of a daughter he lost to Aesthetic Realism. Parents members had to play the game of helping to write letters if they didn't want to be cut off from their children completely.]
Reader comments
Hal Lanse, Ph.D • March 21, 2010
I'm
an AR survivor. I want to comment on your report of AR's letter
writing campaign against New York Magazine. Such campaigns were
common in the days when I was young, shame-based and suckered into the
cult. I thought I'd add some additional information I believe the
public should know.
There was a letter writing
campaign against the surgeon who operated on Eli Siegel. Siegel's
procedure was for prostate cancer. Later, he claimed that
"something went wrong" in the operation and he could no longer feel his
feet when he walked. Since my mother now suffers from neuropathy,
I've recently learned of this fairly common disorder. It's
possible that this is what ailed Siegel.
The AR leaders didn't see the problem as a common disorder. One
of them declared in a closed-to-the-public meeting (I was there) that
the doctor didn't understand that there was a "different relation of
mind and body" in Siegel than in the rest of humanity. There were
heated discussions in AR classes about Siegel's need to walk because
his feet and mind were connected. Given this line of logic it
would follow that his feet and prostate were connected, too. At
the time, the weirdness of it all was lost on me.
And of course there was the usual AR paranoia: People were out to
get Siegel because they hated their respect for him. The
doctor's hatred of his great respect for Siegel (so the AR myth goes)
caused him to botch the surgery. I look back with amazement that
I bought into all of this crap. Many members did.
A letter writing campaign ensued. AR insiders had to sign up for
a mailing date. The campaign was organized this way to ensure
that the doctor received a new letter every day. Later, we were
encouraged to write to other medical people, many of whom had no
connection to the case. We were encouraged to demand that these
medical people contact Siegel's surgeon and demand he "tell the truth"
about the operation.
Looking back, I realize that the poor surgeon could have launched a
libel suit against each member who wrote to another doctor.