Roger there are rules with poetry. Ever heard of iambic pentameter? Have you
heard of meter? Or any of a number of other things.
Certanly some break rules or conventions, or don't conform to them. But, to say
there are no rules is simply incorrect.
----- Original Message -----
From: Roger Loran Bailey (Redacted sender "rogerbailey81" for DMARC)
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Sunday, January 10, 2016 9:23 PM
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: 'Art is incompatible with lies, hypocrisy and
conformity'
I have taken classes in which poetry was studied. We were asked to figure out
what the symbolism in the poetry was and what it meant. That phrase was "figure
out." That makes it a word puzzle. That is, that makes it a word puzzle except
that there were no rules. Without rules all you have to do is to make up
answers and in that sense they were not word puzzles. But if they were not
puzzles and we were asked to figure them out anyway then what were they? One
answer that comes readily to mind is exercises in irrationality.
On 1/9/2016 3:36 PM, Alice Dampman Humel wrote:
They are word puzzles to you, because you neither understand nor appreciate
the conventions, the language, the structure, or the nature of poetry.
On Jan 8, 2016, at 10:43 PM, Roger Loran Bailey (Redacted sender
"rogerbailey81" for DMARC) <dmarc-noreply@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Well, like I said, poetry is presented as if it was a word puzzle and
word puzzles are good for entertainment and to give one's intellect a workout.
Word puzzles even have potential to raise one's IQ. That phenomenon has
actually been measured as an effect of word, math and logic puzzles. But word
puzzles have strict rules. Not to have strict rules is not playing fair with
the player. Poetry interpretation has no rules. You can work on figuring one
out for years and your solution is just as good as the person who just glances
at it. What is the point of that?
On 1/8/2016 5:38 PM, Alice Dampman Humel wrote:
That story is kind of funny.
The purpose of a poem is not to make a declarative statement.
That’s missing the point entirely.
I do not think anyone in this discussion or elsewhere, except the most
pedantic, like, sadly, far too many English teachers, is saying that everyone
has to have the same reaction, subjective or otherwise, to
a work of art. Art is a gateway for? into? the imagination, the
personality, the mind, the heart, the emotions, the intellect, and it is a
broad pathway. How a person reacts to it is indeed subjective, and, news
flash, subjective is not a dirty word.
On Jan 7, 2016, at 11:45 PM, Roger Loran Bailey (Redacted sender
"rogerbailey81" for DMARC) <dmarc-noreply@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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
<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:
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> 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
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
