I don't discount it. I suppose you can learn something from any book.
The difference is that in fiction the learning is incidental. The main
purpose of a work of fiction is to entertain. Insofar as a work of
fiction tries to teach rather than entertain it becomes poor writing and
the more it strives to educate the poorer the writing becomes. If your
intention is to be entertained you read a novel and if you are lucky you
just might learn something along the way. If your intention is to learn
something you do not go to a work of fiction. As for fiction being art,
I have heard that many times and I think it is loose use of the word
art. However the books that are most frequently called works of art are
the ones that it is hard to read. Poetry is frequently called art and it
strikes me as a deliberate effort to obscure and to make it hard for the
reader to understand. The prose that is called art suffers from the same
kind of thing. It tends to be dense, to make little sense and to be less
than entertaining to myself at least.
On 1/1/2016 11:02 PM, Miriam Vieni wrote:
Many people would disagree with you about writing not being art. Probably
most of the books that I read aren't art, but great literature surely is.
And don't discount the information about real life that appears in novels.
I've read pieces of fiction and pieces of non fiction that told me precisely
the same things about certain issues. But film has certainly been used very
effectively, as has also video on TV and now the internet, to influence
people's point of view. Often, it works better than words because people
respond immediately and emotionally to what they see and they don't have to
read or try to comprehend a spoken argument. I suspect that Trump is as
successful as he is because he uses few words to create images in people's
heads, like Mexican rapists or Muslims celebrating on 9/11. People aren't
persuaded by his arguments. They just envision what he says.
Miriam
-----Original Message-----
From: blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Roger Loran
Bailey (Redacted sender "rogerbailey81" for DMARC)
Sent: Friday, January 01, 2016 9:21 PM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: 'Art is incompatible with lies, hypocrisy and
conformity'
Don't forget that you said that you are reading novels. That is fiction.
And also don't confuse writing with art. Writing actually communicates and
so it is an excellent medium for propaganda. Nevertheless, nothing else of
what you said refutes that art is used to reinforce concepts that have
already been inculcated by other means. Persuasion comes first, then
reinforcement. Note that in the article that started this thread Trotsky is
coming out against the misuses of art that you describe from your novels.
On 1/1/2016 4:14 PM, Miriam Vieni wrote:
I've read fiction that takes place in various authoritarian states,relationships between men and women could never be shown in films or on TV.
nazi gtermany, the Soviet Union for example, and in those books, I've
read descriptions of how writers and visual artists and song writers
were used to support the mindset that the State wanted the people to
have. Certain kinds of books and music were forbidden. Artists were
encouraged to produce works that glorified the political theories that
underlay the government. And here in the US, there are people who want
to forbid certain kinds of art. There was a big fuss about an art
piece in Brooklyn several years ago because some people considered it
to be anti Christian. And remember those hooten annies I mentioned?
They were advertised as folk song concerts but that's not exactly what
they were. They were socialist or communist talking points
interspersed with songs. And then there was the rule that interracial
Art is used to support conceptions of public decency and acceptableimplications of that simplistic way of putting it.
behavior.
Miriam
-----Original Message-----
From: blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Roger Loran
Bailey (Redacted sender "rogerbailey81" for DMARC)
Sent: Friday, January 01, 2016 3:18 PM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: 'Art is incompatible with lies,
hypocrisy and conformity'
My comments were made in response to Miriam who said that she didn't
know what art is, so I explained what it is, basically patterns of
just about anything. I forgot to mention something else, though. She
also said that art was used as propaganda. I don't think that is true.
Propaganda is an argument intended to persuade someone of something.
As an attempt to persuade propaganda is usually written as an essay
with evidence to back up the main argument. It is usually explained by
contrasting it to agitation. That is, to put is simply, propaganda
makes a lot of points for a few people and agitation makes one or a
very few points to be distributed to many people. Rather than get
involved in explaining that in greater detail just try to think of the
With that in mind, though, art is not really either agitation norit compel one to take action as it would if it was agitation.
propaganda. It is reinforcement. Bear in mind what I have already said
about how one's taste in art - that is, one's affinity for patterns of
patterns - is acquired. That shows that by the time a person has fixed
on a particular genre of art the person is already persuaded of the
ideology or other milieu of thinking that the genre of art is
identified with. By indulging in appreciating the art one is
persistently reminded of what one has already been persuaded of. That
is, one is reinforced. Think of medieval European art. It is almost
all religious art. But can you really imagine anyone who has not
already been indoctrinated in the religion being persuaded by looking
at the art? It neither persuades as it would if it was propaganda nor does
On 1/1/2016 2:49 PM, Carl Jarvis wrote:patterns.
Very interesting, Roger.
All I can say is that I am so very glad that I was born long, long
before Heavy Metal.
Actually, my brother-in-law, who just turned 65, immerses himself in
Heavy Metal. I never criticize others choices in music, but I'll get
down with Benny Goodman or Ella Fitzgerald. Cathy leans toward the
pop music of the 60's and 70's, and leaves the room if I stay with
the 40's too long. As you said, it's what we grew up on. There is
no, "Better" nor is there, "Worse". In music appreciation it is that
which is pleasing to the ear of the listener.
Carl Jarvis
On 1/1/16, Roger Loran Bailey <dmarc-noreply@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Art is pattern. This includes visual and audio art, also known as music.
I suppose it might also apply to the other three senses, but it is
harder to create something in a pattern for touch, taste and smell,
even though some chefs do consider themselves to be artists. In
visual art a pattern of colors, lines or whatever is created that
the structure of our brains happen to find pleasing. In the case of
music it is a pattern of sound. These patterns can be highly
variable to the point of near infinitude, so there are also patterns of
unusual.does not detect the patterns immediately. The patterns are too complexThe patterns of patterns that are found to be pleasurable vary from
culture to culture and may vary from subculture to subculture and
from individual to individual. I have personally observed that the
favored patterns of patterns seem to be imprinted on people when
they are in the age range of about fourteen to eighteen. That is,
once one is exposed to a certain genre of music or school of visual
art while in that age range it becomes what one favors for life. In
my case, for example, I became interested in heavy metal rock at
that age. I think it had something to do with both what I was being
exposed to and the subcultures with which I was identifying at the
time. For years now I have paid very little attention to music at
all, but if I do hear various samples of music in my daily life I
perk up and notice and like it if I happen to hear some heavy metal.
I have certain ideas of visual art that I like and had imprinted on
me at the same time too. I favor the kind of art that used to appear
on the covers of fantasy paperback novels. I say used to because I
know things like that change over time and I have not seen the cover
of a paperback book for many years now. In general I prefer more
abstract art than realistic art. Of course, I am talking about
personal preference, but I have noticed that most everyone's
personal preferences were formed at about the same time in life and
had something to do with not only what they were exposed to, but to
what subcultural milieu they identified with. On a worldwide basis
few people really like the art and music from another part of the
world, but they are often attracted to it as an exotic novelty. The
main point of art, though, is that it must be patterned. If you hear
sound without pattern it is called noise. If you see something
visually with no pattern it is called a mess. And even though a lot
of people like sophisticated art - that is, art with highly complex
patterns - if the patterns become too complex to the point that the
pattern cannot be discerned quickly then it is rejected as art and
called noise or a mess. I think I have seen that tendency even when
the pattern is not overly complex, but just alien. For example, I
have ever so often heard the music that I favor called noise. What I
think is going on is that the person who says that is not used to it
and so
to be picked out immediately when hearing something that to them is
for making a bit of money.An alien music that is simple might be recognized as music, but add
complexity to it being alien and it will be heard as noise while the
person who is used to it and has it imprinted on him or her will
clearly hear music and enjoyable music too.
On 1/1/2016 12:43 PM, Miriam Vieni wrote:
I have attended college and graduate school and I read lots of books.
I've
visited museums and been to europe, in particular, to Italy twice.
And i don't have a clue about what art truly is. I know what music
I enjoy hearing and what music I don't like and what I like
includes folk, country, popular songs from the days before rock and
roll, and some classical music. My appreciation of the visual arts
was hampered by poor vision, but I did like impressionist
paintings, and paintings that tended toward being representational.
On some of the trips arrange for blind people in which I
participated, I was subjected to art and explanations of art by
specialists in various museums, and I always felt like the
specialists were being patronizing and I was being stupid. I've
read a number of novels which dealt with the experience of artists,
particularly contemporary artists and the ways in which they
express themselves in various art forms. I haven't been able to
truly relate to most of what I've read. I'm aware that what artists
do is related to, and influenced by the societyies in which they
live and the culture that informs their sensibilities. And I know
that some governments have used art as propaganda. Also, many years
ago, I had friends who were professional classical musicians. Some
of their friends made a steady living as music teachers in public
schools and they played in orchestras at concerts when they were
able to get this work. My friends did not have steady teaching
jobs. They might teach at a community college for a semester or at
a music school, but making a living involved a constant scramble
for work. It meant networking and staying alert to every possibility
society.is encouraged.True, after a concert, there was some discussion about the skill or
lack thereof, of other musicians, but I don't think I ever heard a
discussion of music per se. I assume that most of us on this list
are somewhere at the same level as I am in terms of understanding
true art or what makes an artist.
Miriam
-----Original Message-----
From: blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Carl
Jarvis
Sent: Friday, January 01, 2016 11:34 AM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: [blind-democracy] Re:
[blind-democracy] [blind-democracy] 'Art is incompatible with lies,
hypocrisy and conformity'
Good New Years Day Alice and All,
Probably I haven't much of a grasp on anything. Take my theories
regarding the Creation of God, or my grasp on the need to have a
one people, one people's government and a united respect for all
life, World.
No grasp on any of those topics, and many other crazy notions I
conjure up.
But then I also don't have much of a grasp on this blind democracy
list, either. I figured we might simply toss out ideas and explore
our thinking, rather than make character judgements. Most of what
I put out on this list is straight off the top of my mind. I don't
often research my opinions, nor do I expect you all to do likewise.
So having babbled around for a while, I want to return to this
topic of artistic sensibilities.
Art is created within the brain of individuals. Some folks are far
more creative and talented than others. Still, even the most
creative are influenced by the world around them. In some cultures
art
December.This was the case in the early days of this nation. But Madison
Avenue, an Oligarchy form of government, a Corporate Empire,
pressure to seek financial gain as a measure of success, and much
more have warped what we consider to be Art, or Creative Talent.
Indeed, we are far closer to the Roman Empire in our creative
talents, than to the Glory Days of Greece.
So is this what was bothering you, Alice? If so, then I stand on
my statement.
By the way, anyone wanting to set me straight privately, or tell me
to shut up, can do so privately. I am at:
carjar82@xxxxxxxxx
Carl Jarvis, who is heading for a bacon and egg and toast with jam
breakfast. First one of the new year. Hopefully not the last.
On 12/31/15, Alice Dampman Humel <alicedh@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Carl,
I'm afraid you do not have a very good grasp on artistic
sensibilities, personalities, expressions, lives, etc.
No artist worth his/her salt will be stifled. alice On Dec 31,
2015, at 11:12 AM, Carl Jarvis <carjar82@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
It is hard for me to imagine what pure art would look like in a
Land that is so controlled that the Masters corrupt artistic
expression, or stifle it altogether.
Freedom of expression is not to be tolerated by the Empire.
Carl Jarvis
On 12/31/15, Roger Loran Bailey <dmarc-noreply@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
http://themilitant.com/2016/8001/800149.html
The Militant (logo)
Vol. 80/No. 1 January 4, 2016
(Books of the Month column)
'Art is incompatible with lies, hypocrisy and conformity'
Art and Revolution by Leon Trotsky, a central leader of the
1917 October Revolution, is one of the Books of the Month for
From the vantage point of a leader in the early Soviet
republic along with V.I. Lenin, and then its defender against
the political counterrevolution after Lenin died led by Joseph
Stalin and the bureaucracy he spoke for, Trotsky examines the
place of art and artistic creation in building a new, socialist
exhaustive reply.Expelled from the Soviet Union in 1929, Trotsky got asylum in
1936 in Mexico with the aid of Diego Rivera, the country's
leading artist. The excerpt is from "Art and Politics in Our
Epoch," originally published as a letter to the August
1938 Partisan Review, a political and cultural magazine
published in the U.S. Copyright C 1970 by Pathfinder Press.
Reprinted by permission.
BY LEON TROTSKY
You have been kind enough to invite me to express my views
on the state of present-day arts and letters. I do this not
without some hesitation. Since my book Literature and Revolution
(1923), I have not once returned to the problem of artistic
creation and only occasionally have I been able to follow the
latest developments in this sphere. I am far from pretending to
offer an
impressionism, cubism, futurism. .rebellion.The task of this letter is to correctly pose the question.
Generally speaking, art is an expression of man's need for a
harmonious and complete life, that is to say, his need for those
major benefits of which a society of classes has deprived him.
That is why a protest against reality, either conscious or
unconscious, active or passive, optimistic or pessimistic,
always forms part of a really creative piece of work. Every new
tendency in art has begun with
Bourgeois society showed its strength throughout long periods of
history in the fact that, combining repression and
encouragement, boycott and flattery, it was able to control and
assimilate every "rebel" movement in art and raise it to the
level of official "recognition." But each time this
"recognition" betokened, when all is said and done, the approach
of trouble. It was then that from the left wing of the academic
school or below it - i.e., from the ranks of a new generation of
bohemian artists - a fresher revolt would surge up to attain in
its turn, after a decent interval, the steps of the academy.
Through these stages passed classicism, romanticism, realism,
naturalism, symbolism,
oppressed masses live their own life.historical plane.Nevertheless, the union of art and the bourgeoisie remained
stable, even if not happy, only so long as the bourgeoisie
itself took the initiative and was capable of maintaining a
regime both politically and morally "democratic." This was a
question of not only giving free rein to artists and playing up
to them in every possible way, but also of granting special
privileges to the top layer of the working class, and of
mastering and subduing the bureaucracy of the unions and
workers' parties. All these phenomena exist in the same
The decline of bourgeois society means an intolerable
exacerbation of social contradictions, which are transformed
inevitably into personal contradictions, calling forth an ever
more burning need for a liberating art. Furthermore, a declining
capitalism already finds itself completely incapable of offering
the minimum conditions for the development of tendencies in art
which correspond, however little, to our epoch. It fears
superstitiously every new word, for it is no longer a matter of
corrections and reforms for capitalism but of life and death.
The
surprising here!Bohemianism offers too limited a social base. Hence new
tendencies take on a more and more violent character,
alternating between hope and despair. .
The October Revolution gave a magnificent impetus to all types
of Soviet art. The bureaucratic reaction, on the contrary, has
stifled artistic creation with a totalitarian hand. Nothing
"realism"Art is basically a function of the nerves and demands complete
sincerity. Even the art of the court of absolute monarchies was
based on idealization but not on falsification. The official art
of the Soviet Union - and there is no other over there -
resembles totalitarian justice, that is to say, it is based on
lies and deceit. The goal of justice, as of art, is to exalt the
"leader," to fabricate a heroic myth. Human history has never
seen anything to equal this in scope and impudence. .
The style of present-day official Soviet painting is called
"socialist realism." The name itself has evidently been invented
by some high functionary in the department of the arts. This
orders, but by its very essence, cannot tolerate them.consists in the imitation of provincial daguerreotypes of the
third quarter of the last century; the "socialist" character
apparently consists in representing, in the manner of
pretentious photography, events which never took place. It is
impossible to read Soviet verse and prose without physical
disgust, mixed with horror, or to look at reproductions of
paintings and sculpture in which functionaries armed with pens,
brushes, and scissors, under the supervision of functionaries
armed with Mausers, glorify the "great" and "brilliant" leaders,
actually devoid of the least spark of genius or greatness. The
art of the Stalinist period will remain as the frankest
expression of the profound decline of the proletarian revolution. .
The real crisis of civilization is above all the crisis of
revolutionary leadership. Stalinism is the greatest element of
reaction in this crisis. Without a new flag and a new program it
is impossible to create a revolutionary mass base; consequently
it is impossible to rescue society from its dilemma. But a truly
revolutionary party is neither able nor willing to take upon
itself the task of "leading" and even less of commanding art,
either before or after the conquest of power. Such a pretension
could only enter the head of a bureaucracy - ignorant and
impudent, intoxicated with its totalitarian power - which has
become the antithesis of the proletarian revolution. Art, like
science, not only does not seek
bureaucracy.Artistic creation has its laws - even when it consciously serves
a social movement. Truly intellectual creation is incompatible
with lies, hypocrisy and the spirit of conformity. Art can
become a strong ally of revolution only insofar as it remains
faithful to itself. Poets, painters, sculptors and musicians
will themselves find their own approach and methods, if the
struggle for freedom of oppressed classes and peoples scatters
the clouds of skepticism and of pessimism which cover the
horizon of mankind. The first condition of this regeneration is
the overthrow of the domination of the Kremlin
Front page (for this issue) | Home | Text-version home
