If it is then that might explain why it seems so rambling to me.
On 1/10/2016 10:25 PM, Miriam Vieni wrote:
You don't recognize that his response to you is poetry?
Miriam
________________________________
From: blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Roger Loran
Bailey (Redacted sender "rogerbailey81" for DMARC)
Sent: Sunday, January 10, 2016 9:54 PM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: 'Art is incompatible with lies, hypocrisy and
conformity'
Joe, if people do not tend to comment on your posts I can't really be sure
of why others don't, but I can say why I am prone not to. It is because
your posts tend to be very long and rambling. There is just too much to
respond to and when there are a few points that I do want to address it is a
lot of trouble to go through the whole thing again to check your wording.
On 1/9/2016 3:36 AM, joe harcz Comcast wrote:
It is remarkable that no one has commented on my post on this issue.
It wasn't obscure. It was precisely divined, so to speak.
Thoughts on the subject fell like a sledge hammer upon the mind.
Sometimes appearing cruel as natures revenge, and other times being
reconciling as an autumn breeze through a forest of Birch trees.
At least I thought it was my motive....But nooooooooooooooo.
Noooooooooo...
Forget anything trully analytical, let alone profound, let alone
even moderately inspirational. No let us genuflect to the alter of the
perported rational; the logical; and the indulgent self interest which
assumes only adoration....like an ancient god force (most ironic)...echoed
in the words and applause claiming variously..."Hurrah...get it
on....and....bring it on....
I thought art was a thing to aspire to, or at least with. But
somehow this whole thing makes me feel somewhat dirty somehow for some
reason.
I thought once upon a time that one definition of art versus
non-art, for a lack of better words was: "the differance between making love
and prostitution."\With the discussion at mind I'm more convinced that we
should include masturbation in the equation.
For once upon a time I elivated certain plastic and literary works
of art above the mundane as almost self defitional.
But, alas, Roger has taught me differently. For in my stupid being I
once thought that art might express the beauty and the aspirations of all
human kind, let alone my personal aspirations for same.
I mean I could really dig a sort of world, or at least I tried to
envision a world beyond the meager, pathetic and profane. I really did even
though I knew the mere fact of existence itself was meager, pathetic, and
profane.
Maybe it was the audacity of hope that made me think so. Maybe it
was my sixth beer. Maybe I don't know the differance, and, just maybe no one
else doeseither... So na na na!
WTF is wrong with us where we live in a world full of such cynicism?
(Oh I know I am personally full of it!)
But, man oh man there is some sort of bravery in denial of even the
most documented of factoids from time to time.
I find solice not only in the rubbing of a "pretty thigh" or in the
smile of a "pretty face", but also in my fervent denial that this world as
pretty as it is in my moment of bliss will never end. Never. Never. Never.
Na na na na na.
----- Original Message -----
From: Roger Loran Bailey (Redacted sender "rogerbailey81"
for DMARC) <mailto:dmarc-noreply@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <mailto:blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Friday, January 08, 2016 11:00 PM
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: 'Art is incompatible with
lies, hypocrisy and conformity'
So who ascribed obscurantism to all art? I certainly didn't.
But when one insists on defining art in terms like art is something that
speaks to one's soul; art is ethereal; art moves me; art is an experience of
the spirit, and so forth, then that is obscurantism. Now think about this.
Miriam said that she did not know what art is. She later said that was an
emotional statement which I suppose she meant that she did not mean what she
said. But in assuming that she was making an honest statement I tried to be
helpful and offered an explanation of what art is. It was as clear as I
could make it. It was objective. It tied all kinds of art together in a way
that just trying to define art by example would fail to do. What do I get in
response? A bunch of emotional claptrap. At no time did I deny anyone's
emotional responses to art. At no time did I say that emotions were not a
common result of art. I didn't really deny anything about art. I have even
agreed with the point of the original article that spawned the discussion,
that no one has any business trying to dictate what will be art and how
anyone should create art. But I get all this flack because I did not set my
brain aside and think with my emotions and spout subjective nonsense. I am
sorry if it offends you, but the desire to be clear and to promote
understanding is just built into me. I say what I mean and I mean what I
say.
On 1/8/2016 5:53 PM, Alice Dampman Humel wrote:
ascribing obscurantism to all art is another
demonstration of the propensity to blame others for one's own lack of
knowledge or comprehension of art in even its basic, nature, let alone in
any of its styles, genres, etc.
On Jan 8, 2016, at 10:14 AM, Miriam Vieni <
<mailto:miriamvieni@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> miriamvieni@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
What bothers some of us is statements like
the following, which you made in
response to me.
I still stand by
what I said after all these years though.
Clarity beats deliberate
obscurantism any time.
The reason your statement is disturbing is
that you deny the validity of the
kinds of artistic expression that you are
incapable of understanding. It's
one thing to say that one prefers prose to
poetry. It's quite another to say
that poetry is invalid because it is obscure
to you, because you don't
appreciate it or understand it and to make a
general rule from your personal
reaction about the clarity or validity of
poetry.
Miriam
-----Original Message-----
From:
<mailto:blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Roger Loran
Bailey (Redacted sender "rogerbailey81" for
DMARC)
Sent: Thursday, January 07, 2016 11:45 PM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: 'Art is
incompatible with lies, hypocrisy and
conformity'
Okay, I suppose that if people want to talk
about a piece of art and
describe their individual emotional
reactions to it then that is
legitimate enough as long as they do not try
to define it by their own
subjective standards and then demand that
others agree with that. It is
that latter practice that I keep hearing
from those who want to define
art in vague and subjective ways. In fact,
it is not really so much as
an insistence that others define it in the
same subjective way, but it
is that they just assume that everyone is
and then when it becomes clear
that they do not they get upset and say that
this vague and subjective
way is the only way. As for the English
teacher and the poem, I don't
recall that the only English teacher I
mentioned in connection with a
poem was going into all that you said. It
was a long time ago and she
might have, but I don't remember. What I do
remember is accidentally
causing a good deal of laughter in the
classroom. I had simply said that
I didn't see the point of going to all this
trouble to make up a hard to
understand poem to say something when you
could just come right out and
say it. That way you would be clear about
what you had to say. You could
be a lot more confident that your readers
would understand it and it
would be a lot easier to write. The teacher
who was aghast at such a
suggestion then read a line of poetry and
then said, now, how would this
sound? She then translated it into prose and
it read, "The ship came
over the horizon." I said in all
seriousness, "It wasn't worth saying in
the first place." That's when the class
cracked up. I still stand by
what I said after all these years though.
Clarity beats deliberate
obscurantism any time.
On 1/7/2016 10:07 PM, Miriam Vieni wrote:
Yes, but if people want to really
communicate about a particular piece of
art, whether it be a painting, a
sculpture, a piece of literature, or a
piece of music, then a universal
objective definition like the one you
prefer, doesn't take them very far.
And that's because the appreciation
of
the piece of art is individual and
emotional, regardless of all those
objective standards that it may
meet. As the young people say, you
either,
"get it", or you don't. Also, one of
the things to which you've objected,
the english teacher who was
explaining the meaning of a poem to the class,
was doing the kind of thing that you
advocate. She was trying to explain,
in
universal, logical terms, its form,
its structure, and its meaning in
terms of symbolic language, and you
didn't like that. But perhaps if you'd
just picked up the poem and read it
without all the explanation, you might
have liked it.
Miriam
-----Original Message-----
From:
<mailto:blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Roger Loran
Bailey (Redacted sender
"rogerbailey81" for DMARC)
Sent: Thursday, January 07, 2016
8:29 PM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: 'Art
is incompatible with lies, hypocrisy
and
conformity'
That much is true, but I tend to
think that those who assume the
universality of their own emotional
experiences are lacking in empathy.
I suppose that any work of art may
elicit an emotional response in some
people and the emotional response
may be different in other people and
completely lacking in others. When
you start defining things, whether it
is art or anything else, in the
terms of your own personal emotional
experiences and then expect everyone
to understand that definition and
to experience the same thing then
you are failing to consider, much less
experience, the emotional state of
others and thereby you lack empathy.
By stripping emotions out of it and
by defining art or other things in
objective terms you can have a basis
for mutual and even universal
understanding. In no way does this
deny any emotional experience anyone
has and in no way does it deny
anyone's emotional experience with the
object of art being defined. It just
facilitates communication.
Insisting, on the other hand, that
everyone else has to have the same
emotional reactions as oneself shows
strong disrespect for the emotions
of others and is thereby lacking in
empathy.
On 1/7/2016 9:53 AM, Miriam Vieni
wrote:
The reason that people can
understand other people's experiences, even
when
those experiences are subjective, is
that most of us have empathy. We can
imagine ourselves in another
person's situation. We can imagine what it
might feel like to have experienced
what that person has experienced. We
can
allow our emotions to take the
forefront so that even if we don't have
empirical information, we know, on
an emotional level. Emotional knowing
is
just as valad a human experience as
intellectual knowing. It permits us
to
form close relationships with other
people, to love each other, and even,
to
sacrifice our lives for each other.
It allows us to become emotionally
involved in the stories we read or
hear, the plays or films we see, and
to
cry when others are suffering. It
allows us to put ourselves in another's
place, so to speak. Empathy and
human understanding also allows us to
accept that other people's beliefs
and orientations are as valid for
them,
as our's are for us.
Miriam
-----Original Message-----
From:
<mailto:blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Roger Loran
Bailey (Redacted sender
"rogerbailey81" for DMARC)
Sent: Wednesday, January 06, 2016
10:59 PM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: 'Art
is incompatible with lies, hypocrisy
and
conformity'
Well, a subjective experience is
real enough, but by the very fact that
it is subjective it is not shared by
other people and when people expect
that their own subjective
experiences are the subjective experiences of
other people and so speak of them as
if they were objective and
empirical observations then
communication is severely lacking. I suspect
that is what is going on when these
extremely vague people try to convey
something to me that doesn't make
sense. One signal that they are about
to do that is when they say that
they know something because they feel
it in their heart. My initial
reaction to that is that if I felt
something in my heart I would be
getting immediately to an emergency
room or at the very least I would be
making an appointment with a
cardiologist. Okay, I realize that
they do not literally mean the muscle
that pumps blood, but trying to
figure out what they do mean is an
impossible task. I ask them and
they get even vaguer. They start
speaking of spiritualism, ethereal
experiences and feelings. It is that
last one that makes me suspect
strongly that it is subjective emotional
experiences that they are talking
about. The trouble with that is that I
don't necessarily feel the same
emotions and even if I did there is no
way of telling that my emotions
match the other person's emotions. Yet
they seem to expect without any
doubt that it is a shared experience.
The result of that is that they
simply do not make sense.
On 1/6/2016 9:46 AM, Miriam Vieni
wrote:
I think that the definitions that
Dick posted, sound accurate and broad
enough to encompass the meaning of
art more accurately. I suppose that
your
wish to communicate about every
subject in terms of logic and stric
definitions, gets in the way of
discussing subjects that require less
precise discourse. When, for
example, someone talks about a spiritual
experience, it has no meaning for
you, or for me eiither, but that
doesn't
mean that the experience isn't real
or that other people may not
comprehend
it.
Miriam
-----Original Message-----
From:
<mailto:blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[
<mailto:blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
mailto:blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Roger Loran
Bailey (Redacted sender
"rogerbailey81" for DMARC)
Sent: Tuesday, January 05, 2016
11:36 PM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: 'Art
is incompatible with lies, hypocrisy
and
conformity'
I am pretty sure that I did come
across it in a book, but I don't
remember
which one. Identifying music as
patterned sound is something that I have
heard from a number of sources and
the one that I especially remember
was
a
television show on the subject of
the history of music.
The narrator was a musician and
forthrightly said that music was
patterned
sound. I have accepted that
definition because it coincides with all of
my
own observations of art. Not only is
art patterns, but the ubiquity of
that
over all kinds of art is a
superpatern of patterns.
It is something that all art has and
without it there is no art and so
that
really does pretty much define it.
People may have subjective emotional
reactions to any kind of or specific
examples of art, but because it is
so
subjective it does nothing to define
it objectively.
And if you really do want to
communicate to other people what you are
talking about you have to be
objective. It is really unfortunate that so
many people want to discuss art only
in vague ways.
On 1/5/2016 9:55 PM, Miriam Vieni
wrote:
I'm curious. From where did you get
the definition of art that you
keep referring to, the one that says
that patterns define the object
as art? Is it in a book or
something?
Miriam
________________________________
From:
<mailto:blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[
<mailto:blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
mailto:blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Roger Loran
Bailey (Redacted sender
"rogerbailey81" for DMARC)
Sent: Tuesday, January 05, 2016 9:30
PM
To:
<mailto:blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: 'Art
is incompatible with lies,
hypocrisy and conformity'
The rock in question consists of a
larger domelike part with a couple
of smaller and more spirelike domes
beside it. The whole sculpture is
brown in color. When it was first
installed there was a newspaper
article about it in which it was
said that it represented the
mountains of West Virginia. If it
had not been for that article I
would have never guessed that it
represented mountains or anything
else. It communicates absolutely
nothing to me and causes no emotional
reaction, positive or negative. I
don't think I ever heard anyone else
say anything about it either, so I
assume that it does not communicate
anything to other people either.
Nevertheless, it is art. When I had my
eyesight I looked at it and without
hesitation identified it as art.
It is clear that it was carved and
not a natural formation and it is
clear that it was carved with the
conscious intent to imbue it with a
pattern.
On 1/4/2016 8:46 PM, Alice Dampman
Humel wrote:
are you sure about that? I did not
read it that way, either.
And the rock sounds like an example
of abstract,
non-representational
art, and abstract art, indeed,
abstraction in any form, can express a
hell of a lot...
On Jan 4, 2016, at 10:19 AM, Miriam
Vieni <
<mailto:miriamvieni@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
miriamvieni@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
He was referring to representational
art that makes a point
and he
was
making a joke.
Miriam
-----Original Message-----
From:
<mailto:blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[
<mailto:blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
mailto:blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of
Roger
Loran
Bailey (Redacted sender
"rogerbailey81" for DMARC)
Sent: Sunday, January 03, 2016 10:26
PM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: 'Art
is incompatible with
lies,
hypocrisy and
conformity'
That does not make sense. There is a
piece of sculpture in
front of
the
library in my town. I saw it many
times before I lost my
eyesight
and I can
see that it is what most everyone
would call art. It is a
rock that
has been
sculpted into a pattern, but it is
not a representation of
anything
real
like a statue would be. The pattern
is clear, though, and it
is an
example
of art. Can I agree with it? I don't
see how anyone could
either
agree or
disagree with it. It is just a
carved piece of rock. It is
not
expressing an
opinion nor is it making a statement
that is factual or
false. It
just is.
There is nothing about it that tries
to persuade anyone of
anything,
so I
don't see how it could be propaganda
even if someone could
figure
out a way
to disagree with it.
On 1/3/2016 10:34 AM, Frank Ventura
wrote:
When you agree with something it is
art, when you
don't its
propaganda.
-----Original Message-----
From:
<mailto:blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[
<mailto:blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
mailto:blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Miriam
Vieni
Sent: Sunday, January 3, 2016 10:02
AM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: 'Art
is incompatible
with lies,
hypocrisy
and conformity'
Well, that's a famous painting and
everyone thinks
it's art. If we
accept
the negative definition of
propaganda, than I suppose the
Fascists
would
have considered it to be propaganda
back then.
Miriam
________________________________
From:
<mailto:blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[
<mailto:blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
mailto:blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Abby
Vincent
Sent: Saturday, January 02, 2016
10:54 PM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: 'Art
is incompatible
with lies,
hypocrisy
and conformity'
YYes. A lot ofPicasso's art was one
dimensional.
It never occurred to me
that he might have seen the world
that way.
"Guernica", a depiction of the
horrors of the
Spanish civil war,
was
his protest against war with mass
civilion
casualties. It was
drawings
of body parts. If art expresses an
opinion, is it
still art and not
propaganda
propaganda? Same question for "War
is not healthy
for children and
other
living things".
Abby
From:
<mailto:blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[
<mailto:blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
mailto:blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Alice
Dampman Humel
Sent: Saturday, January 02, 2016
6:05 PM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: 'Art
is incompatible
with lies,
hypocrisy
and conformity'
the cluelessness of that teacher has
nothing to do
with art, but
rather
only with cruelty and utter lack of
imagination,
sensitivity,
creativity,
all essential components of artistic
expression. It is
nothing short
of
tragic that his/her treatment of you
led to your abandonment
of art
in any
or all of its manifestations.
It has been posited, for example,
that great artists
like el Greco
and
Picasso had some kind of visual
conditions that made them
see,
experience,
and express the world in the way
they painted it.
On Jan 2, 2016, at 7:55 PM, Abby
Vincent <
<mailto:aevincent@xxxxxxxxx>
aevincent@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
What I was taught in the classroom
activity called
art made it
difficult to
appreciate what we're talking about
now. I never
had two
dimensional
vision. Our teacher tried to teach
us how to depict
dimension on a
flat
paper. There were four shapes
placed on a table.
We were given
paper
and charcoal and told to draw them.
The charcoal
helped to show
shading.
I was told my shadows were in the
wrong place and
going in the wrong
direction. So, the art of sighted
kids is real,
So it is art. The experience of a
partially sighted
kid has no
value
because it's wrong. I developed a
lack of
confidence in my ability
to know
and share what was around me. It
carried over to
the more
subjective
studies such as literature and
poetry. I
concentrated on math and
social
studies and later, French.
Abby
-----Original Message-----
From:
<mailto:blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[ <
<mailto:blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
mailto:blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
<mailto:blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
mailto:blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Miriam
Vieni
Sent: Saturday, January 02, 2016
1:55 PM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: 'Art
is incompatible
with lies,
hypocrisy and
conformity'
Roger,
I'll start with your last point. I
don't remember
that scene in The
Grapes
of Wrath. To me, the art of the book
is in the way
that he tells the
story
of what happens to the family. The
book communicates
on two levels:
the
intellectual one, i.e. what it was
like for this
family when they
had to
leave their farm and travel west,
looking for work,
at a time when
everyone
else was also leaving the Dust Bowl
and traveling
west. And it
communicates
on an emotional level. I felt
terrible for the
family, for what they
had to
go through, for what was happening
to them. For me,
one of the most
moving
passages is when they're in a barn
and no one has
anything to eat,
and they
encounter a stranger there who is
hungrier than they
are. I won't
tell you
what happens because maybe you'll
decide to read the
book.
Now, as to symbolism. I don't get it
either. But I
will tell you
that there
are a lot of wonderful books that
are art because of
how effectively
they
communicate to the reader, and I
don't pay attention
to the opinions
of
critics or literature professors
when I make that
judgement. I know
that a
book is really good because of my
reading experience
and my own
assessment
of the writing. Also, there are
times when I can
tell that a book
is
written very well, that it is fine
literature, but I
don't enjoy it
and I
stop reading it. However, I don't
assume that
because I don't like
the book,
it's worthless. I've learned that
there are
limitations to my
ability to
appreciate certain kinds of
literature. I've heard
interviews with
authors
and it turns out that often, the
authors did not
have all of the
symbolism
in mind that the interviewers and
other self styled
experts,
attribute to
their books.
Last but not least, poetry. There
are all different
kinds of poetry.
Poetry
is not always symbolic. Some of it
is very literal.
Some of it is
funny. I
have never, however, chosen of my
own volition, to
read a book of
poetry.
But I read a very long poem in high
school which I
loved, and I
haven't
looked at it since. I think that,
perhaps, you might
appreciate it
if you
can find it. It is, "The People,
Yes" by Carl
Sandberg. See if you
can find
it and read it. It is not flowery or
symbolic. If I
remember
correctly from
so many years ago, it should be
right up your alley.
By the way,
did you
ever have to read The Illiad in high
school or
college? It is the
story of
Ulysises' long trip home from the
Peloponesian Wars
and it is in
verse.
There's another one, I think about
Helen of Troy.
Miriam
-----Original Message-----
From:
<mailto:blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[ <
<mailto:blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
mailto:blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
<mailto:blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
mailto:blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Roger
Loran
Bailey (Redacted sender
"rogerbailey81" for DMARC)
Sent: Saturday, January 02, 2016
4:11 PM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: 'Art
is incompatible
with lies,
hypocrisy and
conformity'
I suppose I could include poetry as
art. Like I
said, art is
characterized
by patterns that are imparted to it
by the artist
and in all the
meters and
rhymes poetry does have patterns. As
a means of
communication,
though, it is
terrible. As I understand poetry it
is virtually
required for it to
be good
poetry for it to be filled with
symbolism and then
it is supposed to
be
better poetry if the symbolism is
represented by
more symbolism and
that the
more layers of symbolism the better
the poetry is.
This sounds like
a word
puzzle and if it was a word puzzle
it would have
more legitimacy. I
used to
enjoy working crossword puzzles and
acrostics. I
have even in the
past
bought entire puzzle magazines full
of word puzzles
and logic
problems. It
can be a fun pastime. However,
another thing I have
always heard
about
poetry is that anyone's
interpretation is just as
good as another
person's
interpretation. That removes all the
rules from the
puzzle and
renders it
not a puzzle at all. If your
solution to the puzzle
is correct no
matter
what it is then you have not solved
anything and you
may as well
just make
up interpretations. I could spend
all day making up
interpretations
and I
would not even have to read the
poem. I could skip
the poem entirely
and
just write up an interpretation for
a poem that I
had no idea of
what was in
it and my interpretation would be as
good as that of
anyone who
carefully
read it. But if the author has
anything to actually
say then he or
she is
defeating him or herself. If you
hide what you have
to say behind a
lot of
symbolism then you have not
communicated. I remember
being in an
English
class once and we were studying a
unit on poetry and
I was
expressing some
of these same views.
I was saying that if you have
something to say then
what is the
problem with
just coming out and saying it
instead of engaging in
deliberate
obscurantism. The teacher decided to
try a bit of
comparing to show
some
advantage to poetry. She read a line
of poetry. I
forget now how it
was
worded, but she then translated it
into straight
prose saying how
would this
sound. The translation was, the ship
came over the
horizon. My
response was,
it wasn't worth saying in the first
place. I really
was not
intending to be
funny, but the classroom burst into
laughter.
Anyway, if some people enjoy poetry
for the patterns
like they do a
painting, a sculpture or a piece of
music then that
is okay. Those
forms of
art don't do a lot of communicating
either. And, in
fact, in certain
forms I
can enjoy poetry too. A song is a
poem accompanied
by music and, in
fact, in
a song the human voice can be
regarded as another
instrument
contributing to
the patterns that make music art.
There are
certainly songs that I
like. In
that sense I enjoy poetry. But I
have still noticed
that when you
strip a
song of its music and just read the
words straight
forward as you
would read
a poem songs are simplistic
nonsense.
They really do not convey much
meaning. So, insofar
as anyone claims
that a
poem is communicating some profound
message I think
they are
deluded.
As for prose literature being art,
like I have said,
when I have
read
fiction that has been identified as
art I usually
find myself
reading
something else that is obscurantist.
This is the
kind of fiction
that wins
awards and I suspect that it is
because it is full
of symbolism
again and
deliberately filling something up
with symbolism
serves no real
purpose but
to make it hard to understand. You
used The Grapes
of Wrath as an
example. I
will have to admit that I have never
read that one.
It is famous
enough that
I have an idea of what it is about
and I think it
might be something
that I
might like to read, but I have just
never gotten
around to it. I did
read a
fairly long excerpt though. I was
reading an
anthology of nature
writing and
the scene from The Grapes of Wrath
describing the
turtle crossing
the road
was included. I remember when I was
in high school
there was a
fellow
student exclaiming about how John
Steinbeck could
write about a
turtle
crossing a road and make it
interesting. It took me
decades before
I
finally got around to reading that
scene, though,
and it was because
it was
a part of that nature writing
anthology. It was
interesting if only
mildly
interesting to me. It struck me as a
straight
forward narrative
though. If
there was any hidden symbolism in it
I did not
detect it and I did
not look
for it. Insofar as I found it
interesting it was
because it was a
straight
forward narrative. If it had been
written in a way
such that it had
been
hard to understand I would not have
found it
interesting. So I ask,
did you
find that part of the novel to be
art and if you did
what about it
made it
art? Bearing in mind that I have not
read the rest
of the book, but
do have
an idea of what it is about, what
made the book as a
whole art?
On 1/2/2016 9:55 AM, Miriam Vieni
wrote:
I think that this is, you should
excuse the
expression, your
blind spot.
Certainly, literature is categorized
as art and
certainly,
poetry is art.
Although you and I may not
appreciate poetry, very
many
intelligent
and sophisticated, and not so
sophisticated people
do. There
are all
kinds of poetry, some easier for me
to understand
than
others. Whole
stories have been told in verse like
the famous
Greek ones
and
Evangeline or, The People, Yes. As
for fiction not
being
informative
or being poor fiction if it is, that
is a very
debateable
opinion.
John Steinbeck's Grapes of Wrath is
a wonderful
novel. It's
art. And
it was written to inform about what
was happening to
midwestern farm
families during the Depression.
Miriam
-----Original Message-----
From:
<mailto:blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[ <
<mailto:blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
mailto:blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
<mailto: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 11:40
PM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: 'Art
is incompatible
with
lies,
hypocrisy and conformity'
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:
<mailto:blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[ <
<mailto:blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
mailto:blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
<mailto: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,
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
relationships between men and women
could never be
shown in films or
on
TV.
Art is used to support conceptions
of public
decency and acceptable
behavior.
Miriam
-----Original Message-----
From:
<mailto:blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[
<mailto: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
implications of that simplistic way
of putting it.
With that in mind, though, art is
not really
either agitation nor
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
it compel one to take action as it
would if it was
agitation.
On 1/1/2016 2:49 PM, Carl Jarvis
wrote:
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
<
<mailto:dmarc-noreply@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> 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
patterns.
The 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
does not detect the patterns
immediately.
The patterns are too
complex to be picked out immediately
when
hearing something that to
them is
unusual.
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
for making a bit of money.
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:
<mailto:blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[
<mailto: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
is encouraged.
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:
<mailto:carjar82@xxxxxxxxx>
<mailto:carjar82@xxxxxxxxx> <mailto:carjar82@xxxxxxxxx> 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
<mailto:alicedh@xxxxxxxxxxx>
<alicedh@xxxxxxxxxxx> <mailto: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
<mailto:carjar82@xxxxxxxxx>
<carjar82@xxxxxxxxx> <mailto: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
<mailto:dmarc-noreply@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
<dmarc-noreply@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <mailto:dmarc-noreply@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
<http://themilitant.com/2016/8001/800149.html>
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
December.
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
society.
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
exhaustive reply.
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
rebellion.
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,
impressionism, cubism, futurism. .
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
historical plane.
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
oppressed masses live their own
life.
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
surprising here!
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
"realism"
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
orders, but by its very essence,
cannot tolerate them.
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
bureaucracy.
Front page (for this issue) | Home |
Text-version home
