We're at an impasse. I accept that you cannot understand what I am
attempting to convey. Peace!
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 13, 2016 2:10 PM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: 'Art is incompatible with lies, hypocrisy and
conformity'
Miriam, you have a strange concept of derogation. If someone has
something to say and says it in a hard to understand way that others
will have to figure out then the meaning is being obscured. I don't know
how that could be more obvious. If someone loves and appreciates it that
has nothing to do with the fact that someone has purposely said
something that makes it hard to understand. If someone thinks that just
stating facts about something is derogating it then I suppose that is
another irrationality. Next, I have never discounted the emotional
component in either enjoying art nor in creating it. I have simply said
that the subjective emotional aspects cannot be used in defining it
overall for the simple reason that subjective things are just that,
subjective. Trying to make a concept clear to everyone by objectively
describing it has nothing to do with derogating it. When I say that
things should be described in objective ways I am by no means insisting
that they be described in a way that is acceptable to me personally.
That would be exactly the kind of thing that I am objecting to, defining
something according to my own subjective feelings and either demanding
or assuming that others do the same, that is, define things in my, not
their, subjective way. Rather, I am pointing out the advantages of
objective descriptions so that things can be understood by everyone,
that is, clearly. Asking for clarity has nothing to do with derogating
anything. Why do you and Alice insist on making out what I have said to
be the exact opposite of what I have really said?
On 1/12/2016 9:38 AM, Miriam Vieni wrote:
If you say that poetry which people love and appreciate, has no meaningand
because it is purposefully written in such a way to obscure the meaning,
then you are derrogating it. If you discount the emotional component in
creating or appreciating art, then you are derrogating it. When you insist
that people define art in logical, rational terms acceptable to you, and
that they omit their emotional response to it, you are derrogating 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: Monday, January 11, 2016 10:28 PM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: 'Art is incompatible with lies, hypocrisy
conformity'have
If we call a copy art then before it becomes a copy it is not art. It is
just construction material. To make that material into a copy that you
are willing to call art it seems to me that you have to be creating it.
Now, where do you get this stuff about my derogating something. I
thought we were just discussing what it is. After I have stated so many
times that I have enjoyed art myself and that I think it is everyone's
right to enjoy or create any kind of art that they want it really seems
to be a stretch to say that I am derogating it. It just has its limits.
On 1/11/2016 10:11 PM, Miriam Vieni wrote:
I think that you are twisting what I said or, misunderstanding what Isaid.
One can copy a painting, and if one is a really good painter, a good
craftsman, one can create an excellent copy. But the act of copying the
painting isn't creating art. We can call the copy art, if you wish. I
Youno problem with that. But when you followed the rules in your art classand
produced a metal sculpture, you were being shown the mechanics of art.
longproduced a metal sculpture. But you were going through the motions. Youdoes
weren't actually creating art. What you produced might cause an emotional
experience in the viewer and it was certainly a sculpture which is an art
form. But there was no creative process involved. The creative process
involve emotion. One can play a piece of music very competently, but a
really talented musician, a pianist, for example, does more than play the
piece competently. He or she interprets the piece as well as being
technically competent. These are aspects of art and music that you appear
not to perceive, or that are inconsequential to you. But among people who
value certain kinds of music, art, poetry, and classical literature, they
are important. I think the reason that this discussion has gone on so
peopleis that it is disturbing to some of us that you insist on derrogatingYou
aspects of life that you either don't have knowledge of or don't value.
are insisting on literal definitions of things that don't lend themselvesto
the kind of analysis and description that you prefer. You are unable tojust
allow us to differ with you in terms of definitions or in how we describeand
the way in which we experience life.
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: Monday, January 11, 2016 9:12 PM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: 'Art is incompatible with lies, hypocrisy
conformity'
So what if it is a copy? If a person looks at it that person will
recognize it as art and will never know it is a copy unless he or she is
told or unless he or she is familiar with the original and the copy is
enough altered from the original for the difference to be detected. In
defining what art is you seem to require that the artist must have some
kind of emotional experience while creating it. But how can you possibly
know that. If you look at something that looks like art then you call it
art. If you find out later that the person who created it had no
emotional experience while creating it then I suppose you retract your
assumption that it is art, but the object has not changed. If you
require that the artist must have an emotional experience while creating
the art then you will be suspicious of every piece of art in that it
might not be a piece of art, but you can never know. You may as well
require that in order for a coin to be money it has to have been handled
by a Hindu in the last year. It might very well have been, but how is it
possible for you to know that?
On 1/11/2016 9:39 AM, Miriam Vieni wrote:
Perhaps your metal sculpture was good craftsmanship and certainly,
theywerewho saw it might or might not have emotional responses to it. But you
just following orders or copying something when you made it. There are
excellent copies of fine art which can pass for the original art but
hypocrisyItare not the creation of the copyist. They are examples of excellent
craftsmanship. The rock that you describe, may mean nothing to you or to
others who saw it, but it had a meaning to the sculptor who created it.
wasn't copied. It came from mechanisms within him or her which includeand
emotion, the ability to envision a form that would express the emotion,
the capability to create the form. He or she wasn't copying anything orand
following anyone else's direction.
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 10, 2016 10:40 PM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: 'Art is incompatible with lies, hypocrisy
conformity'would
Well, one thing I made was a piece of copper that I pressed a stylus
into to make a picture of a couple of wolves. It is true that I was
following a pattern that was on a piece of paper. The copper sheet was
then polished and I made a frame for it with some wood and then
shellacked the wood. I was graded on it, but I forget what the grade
was. When I took it home my mother hanged it on the wall and it remained
there a very long time. I don't know what ever happened to it. I made it
without attaching any emotion to it and I have no idea if other people
ever attached any emotions to it except that I think my mother may have
only because I was the one who made it. By the way, I do think that the
picture of the wolves looked about as realistic as one could expect on a
sheet of copper that had been mashed in certain places with a stylus.
Aside from it's possessing patterns that I imbued it with I call it art
because I think that most people would call it art if they saw it and
that they would call it that with or without emotions being involved.
Again, I refer to that sculpture in front of the library. I have no idea
of what kinds of emotions the sculptor may have had while creating it,
but I had no emotional reaction at all and since I never encountered
anyone expressing emotional reactions to it except at first then I think
it is likely that most people have no emotional reactions to it. Yet, it
is recognizable art. By the way, I did mention hearing some expressions
of emotions when it was first erected. They were expressions of how ugly
it was. I stopped hearing that pretty quickly, though, and from then on
nobody ever to comment on it at all.
On 1/10/2016 9:47 PM, Miriam Vieni wrote:
In your example, you were not creating art. You were fulfilling aclassroom
assignment. You produced an imitation of art, something with, as you
anddescribe it, a pattern. But that wasn't art. Going through the motions
isproducing an object is not the same as producing an object of art. What
missing, is creativity.
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 10, 2016 8:50 PM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: 'Art is incompatible with lies,
notand
conformity'
I don't think that art necessarily even expresses the emotions of the
artist. I have created some of it myself without expressing emotions. I
already said that I did have art classes in school even though I was
createespecially interested in it. As a part of these art classes I did
ownfinalart. Because of those objective characteristics of art that I have
already described I think most anyone would recognize what I created as
art. As to whether it was good art, that is an entirely subjective
judgement and I am not going to claim that it was either good or bad. I
just don't have an opinion on that. But I did not create it to express
any kind of emotion. I created it to fulfill a classroom assignment.
On 1/9/2016 11:39 AM, Miriam Vieni wrote:
I'm going to add a final postscript to this message and this is my
comment on this thread. Art comes in specific forms and there areobjective
criteria for judging it. However, art expresses the emotions of theartist.
Most of us who are unschooled in art, respond, as we should, in our
tryasubjective emotional ways. People who do not respond to emotionaldiscourse,
communications, who are most comfortable with logic and rational
can only understand emotional communication by analogy. Trying to have
likediscussion about the essence of emotional experience with someone who
doesn't recognize emotional experience or communication as valid, is
attempting to explain what the color red is to someone who has beentotally
blind from birth. You can talk about the color and use analogies to
Vieniisto
explain it like heat, but you'll never be able to communicate what it
says,like to see the color red. A person who denies the validity of poetry
because he cannot understand it is like a totally blind person who
"Red isn't a valid concept because I have never experienced it".
Miriam
-----Original Message-----
From: blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Miriam
kindshypocrisySent: Saturday, January 09, 2016 10:00 AM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: 'Art is incompatible with lies,
isand
conformity'write
People are not attempting to make things hard to understand when they
poetry. That isn't the motivation. If you and I don't understand what
modebeing said, it is a lack in our ability to comprehend that particular
of communication. But as I've mentioned previously, there are manydifferent
kinds of poetry because poets are individual people and they express
different things in different ways. There are also many different
argument.youof
poetry readers and some like certain poems, while others don'p. What
are
doing is to project your own defisciency onto the art that you don't
understand. This is not a point that you can win with logical
hardhypocrisy
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 08, 2016 10:36 PM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: 'Art is incompatible with lies,
and
conformity'
If someone says something and deliberately with intention makes it
don'tIto understand then people are going to fail to understand it. It is
really hard to understand something else, why would anyone do that. If
madesay something I may not word it in a way that it is easily understood,
but I certainly do not make an effort to be either misunderstood or to
baffle people. I may fail, but I try to be as clear as I can. It makes
no sense that anyone would do otherwise. So, yes, clarity always beats
deliberate obscurantism.
On 1/8/2016 10:14 AM, Miriam Vieni wrote:
What bothers some of us is statements like the following, which you
ofin
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
totheIt's
kinds of artistic expression that you are incapable of understanding.
one thing to say that one prefers prose to poetry. It's quite another
say
that poetry is invalid because it is obscure to you, because you
Loranappreciate it or understand it and to make a general rule from yourpersonal
reaction about the clarity or validity of poetry.
Miriam
-----Original Message-----
From: blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Roger
ownhypocrisyBailey (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,
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
defineissubjective standards and then demand that others agree with that. It
that latter practice that I keep hearing from those who want to
asart in vague and subjective ways. In fact, it is not really so much
itan insistence that others define it in the same subjective way, but
subjectiveclearis that they just assume that everyone is and then when it becomes
that they do not they get upset and say that this vague and
orandthatway 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
toI didn't see the point of going to all this trouble to make up a hard
understand poem to say something when you could just come right out
piececouldsay it. That way you would be clear about what you had to say. You
thisbe 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
insound? 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
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
of
art, whether it be a painting, a sculpture, a piece of literature,
thoseayou
piece of music, then a universal objective definition like the one
appreciationprefer, doesn't take them very far. And that's because the
of
the piece of art is individual and emotional, regardless of all
whetherLoraninobjected,objective standards that it may meet. As the young people say, youeither,
"get it", or you don't. Also, one of the things to which you've
explain,class,the english teacher who was explaining the meaning of a poem to the
was doing the kind of thing that you advocate. She was trying to
in
universal, logical terms, its form, its structure, and its meaning
you'dterms of symbolic language, and you didn't like that. But perhaps if
mightjust picked up the poem and read it without all the explanation, you
have liked it.
Miriam
-----Original Message-----
From: blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Roger
andempathy.hypocrisyBailey (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,
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
someI suppose that any work of art may elicit an emotional response in
people and the emotional response may be different in other people
completely lacking in others. When you start defining things,
theandit
is art or anything else, in the terms of your own personal emotional
experiences and then expect everyone to understand that definition
inempathy.lessto experience the same thing then you are failing to consider, much
experience, the emotional state of others and thereby you lack
By stripping emotions out of it and by defining art or other things
anyoneobjective terms you can have a basis for mutual and even universal
understanding. In no way does this deny any emotional experience
has and in no way does it deny anyone's emotional experience with
sameobject of art being defined. It just facilitates communication.
Insisting, on the other hand, that everyone else has to have the
whatWeemotionsemotional reactions as oneself shows strong disrespect for the
evenof 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,
when
those experiences are subjective, is that most of us have empathy.
can
imagine ourselves in another person's situation. We can imagine
permitsexperienced.it
might feel like to have experienced what that person has
Wehave
can
allow our emotions to take the forefront so that even if we don't
knowingempirical information, we know, on an emotional level. Emotional
is
just as valad a human experience as intellectual knowing. It
forusemotionally
toeven,
form close relationships with other people, to love each other, and
to
sacrifice our lives for each other. It allows us to become
toandinvolved in the stories we read or hear, the plays or films we see,
toanother's
cry when others are suffering. It allows us to put ourselves in
place, so to speak. Empathy and human understanding also allows us
accept that other people's beliefs and orientations are as valid
experiencesLoranthem,
as our's are for us.
Miriam
-----Original Message-----
From: blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Roger
thathypocrisyBailey (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,
and
conformity'
Well, a subjective experience is real enough, but by the very fact
expectit is subjective it is not shared by other people and when people
that their own subjective experiences are the subjective
emergencyoffeel
aboutsuspectother people and so speak of them as if they were objective and
empirical observations then communication is severely lacking. I
conveythat is what is going on when these extremely vague people try to
something to me that doesn't make sense. One signal that they are
to do that is when they say that they know something because they
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
stricexperience.thatthatmuscleroom or at the very least I would be making an appointment with a
cardiologist. Okay, I realize that they do not literally mean the
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
emotionallast one that makes me suspect strongly that it is subjective
experiences that they are talking about. The trouble with that is
noI
don't necessarily feel the same emotions and even if I did there is
Yetway of telling that my emotions match the other person's emotions.
they seem to expect without any doubt that it is a shared
broadThe 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
thatenough to encompass the meaning of art more accurately. I suppose
your
wish to communicate about every subject in terms of logic and
Ilessdefinitions, gets in the way of discussing subjects that require
spiritualprecise discourse. When, for example, someone talks about a
Lorandoesn'texperience, it has no meaning for you, or for me eiither, but that
mean that the experience isn't real or that other people may notcomprehend
it.
Miriam
-----Original Message-----
From: blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Roger
hypocrisyBailey (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,
andremember
conformity'
I am pretty sure that I did come across it in a book, but I don't
which one. Identifying music as patterned sound is something that
ubiquityallrememberhave
heard from a number of sources and the one that I especially
was
apatterned
television show on the subject of the history of music.
The narrator was a musician and forthrightly said that music was
sound. I have accepted that definition because it coincides with
of
my
own observations of art. Not only is art patterns, but the
andof
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
youitso
emotionalthat
really does pretty much define it. People may have subjective
reactions to any kind of or specific examples of art, but because
areis
so
subjective it does nothing to define it objectively.
And if you really do want to communicate to other people what you
thattalking about you have to be objective. It is really unfortunate
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
sculptureobjectkeep referring to, the one that says that patterns define the
coupleLoranas art? Is it in a book or something?
Miriam
________________________________
From: blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Roger
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
of smaller and more spirelike domes beside it. The whole
anythingis
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
art.hademotionalelse. It communicates absolutely nothing to me and causes no
elsereaction, positive or negative. I don't think I ever heard anyone
communicatesay anything about it either, so I assume that it does not
anything to other people either. Nevertheless, it is art. When I
my
eyesight I looked at it and without hesitation identified it as
withisIt is clear that it was carved and not a natural formation and it
clear that it was carved with the conscious intent to imbue it
expressa
pattern.
On 1/4/2016 8:46 PM, Alice Dampman Humel wrote:non-representational
are you sure about that? I did not read it that way, either.
And the rock sounds like an example of abstract,
art, and abstract art, indeed, abstraction in any form, can
awrote:
hell of a lot...
On Jan 4, 2016, at 10:19 AM, Miriam Vieni <
<mailto:miriamvieni@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> miriamvieni@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
a pointHe was referring to representational art that makes
Behalf Ofand he
was
making a joke.
Miriam
-----Original Message-----
From: blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On
withRoger
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
sculpture inlies,
hypocrisy and
conformity'
That does not make sense. There is a piece of
lost myfront of
the
library in my town. I saw it many times before I
is aeyesight
and I can
see that it is what most everyone would call art. It
representation ofrock that
has been
sculpted into a pattern, but it is not a
though, and itanything
real
like a statue would be. The pattern is clear,
couldis an
example
of art. Can I agree with it? I don't see how anyone
It iseither
agree or
disagree with it. It is just a carved piece of rock.
ornot
expressing an
opinion nor is it making a statement that is factual
anyone offalse. It
just is.
There is nothing about it that tries to persuade
couldanything,
so I
don't see how it could be propaganda even if someone
when youfigure
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,
[mailto:blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] Ondon't its
propaganda.
-----Original Message-----
From: blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
incompatibleBehalf Of Miriam
Vieni
Sent: Sunday, January 3, 2016 10:02 AM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: 'Art is
thinkswith lies,
hypocrisy
and conformity'
Well, that's a famous painting and everyone
suppose theit's art. If we
accept
the negative definition of propaganda, than I
[mailto:blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] OnFascists
would
have considered it to be propaganda back then.
Miriam
________________________________
From: blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
incompatibleBehalf Of Abby
Vincent
Sent: Saturday, January 02, 2016 10:54 PM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: 'Art is
dimensional.with lies,
hypocrisy
and conformity'
YYes. A lot ofPicasso's art was one
theIt never occurred to me
that he might have seen the world that way.
"Guernica", a depiction of the horrors of
is itSpanish civil war,
wascasualties. It was
his protest against war with mass civilion
drawings
of body parts. If art expresses an opinion,
healthystill art and not
propaganda
propaganda? Same question for "War is not
[mailto:blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] Onfor children and
other
living things".
Abby
From: blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
incompatibleBehalf Of Alice
Dampman Humel
Sent: Saturday, January 02, 2016 6:05 PM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: 'Art is
to dowith lies,
hypocrisy
and conformity'
the cluelessness of that teacher has nothing
iswith art, but
rathersensitivity,
only with cruelty and utter lack of imagination,
creativity,
all essential components of artistic expression. It
abandonmentnothing short
of
tragic that his/her treatment of you led to your
artistsof art
in any
or all of its manifestations.
It has been posited, for example, that great
themlike el Greco
and
Picasso had some kind of visual conditions that made
calledsee,
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
neverart made it
difficult to
appreciate what we're talking about now. I
to depicthad two
dimensional
vision. Our teacher tried to teach us how
a table.dimension on a
flat
paper. There were four shapes placed on
charcoalWe were given
paper
and charcoal and told to draw them. The
place andhelped to show
shading.
I was told my shadows were in the wrong
real,going in the wrong
direction. So, the art of sighted kids is
sightedSo it is art. The experience of a partially
over tokid 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
<mailto:blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>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
[
incompatiblemailto: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
rememberwith lies,
hypocrisy and
conformity'
Roger,
I'll start with your last point. I don't
the waythat scene in The
Grapes
of Wrath. To me, the art of the book is in
communicatesthat he tells the
story
of what happens to the family. The book
thison two levels:
the
intellectual one, i.e. what it was like for
for work,family when they
had to
leave their farm and travel west, looking
travelingat a time when
everyone
else was also leaving the Dust Bowl and
thewest. And it
communicates
on an emotional level. I felt terrible for
For me,family, for what they
had to
go through, for what was happening to them.
one hasone of the most
moving
passages is when they're in a barn and no
than theyanything to eat,
and they
encounter a stranger there who is hungrier
read theare. I won't
tell you
what happens because maybe you'll decide to
But Ibook.
Now, as to symbolism. I don't get it either.
because ofwill tell you
that there
are a lot of wonderful books that are art
attentionhow effectively
they
communicate to the reader, and I don't pay
thatto the opinions
of
critics or literature professors when I make
experiencejudgement. I know
that a
book is really good because of my reading
I canand my own
assessment
of the writing. Also, there are times when
literature, but Itell that a book
is
written very well, that it is fine
thatdon't enjoy it
and I
stop reading it. However, I don't assume
heardbecause 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
notinterviews with
authors
and it turns out that often, the authors did
styledhave all of the
symbolism
in mind that the interviewers and other self
differentexperts,
attribute to
their books.
Last but not least, poetry. There are all
literal.kinds of poetry.
Poetry
is not always symbolic. Some of it is very
volition, toSome of it is
funny. I
have never, however, chosen of my own
which Iread a book of
poetry.
But I read a very long poem in high school
you mightloved, and I
haven't
looked at it since. I think that, perhaps,
Carlappreciate it
if you
can find it. It is, "The People, Yes" by
symbolic. If ISandberg. See if you
can find
it and read it. It is not flowery or
your alley.remember
correctly from
so many years ago, it should be right up
orBy the way,
did you
ever have to read The Illiad in high school
Peloponesian Warscollege? It is the
story of
Ulysises' long trip home from the
Troy.and it is in
verse.
There's another one, I think about Helen of
<mailto:blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Miriam
-----Original Message-----
From: blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[
DMARC)mailto:blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Roger
Loran
Bailey (Redacted sender "rogerbailey81" for
incompatibleSent: Saturday, January 02, 2016 4:11 PM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: 'Art is
Like Iwith lies,
hypocrisy and
conformity'
I suppose I could include poetry as art.
artistsaid, art is
characterized
by patterns that are imparted to it by the
ofand in all the
meters and
rhymes poetry does have patterns. As a means
virtuallycommunication,
though, it is
terrible. As I understand poetry it is
and thenrequired for it to
be good
poetry for it to be filled with symbolism
represented byit is supposed to
be
better poetry if the symbolism is
poetry is.more symbolism and
that the
more layers of symbolism the better the
haveThis sounds like
a word
puzzle and if it was a word puzzle it would
acrostics. Imore legitimacy. I
used to
enjoy working crossword puzzles and
puzzleshave even in the
past
bought entire puzzle magazines full of word
I haveand logic
problems. It
can be a fun pastime. However, another thing
just asalways heard
about
poetry is that anyone's interpretation is
from thegood as another
person's
interpretation. That removes all the rules
puzzlepuzzle and
renders it
not a puzzle at all. If your solution to the
and youis correct no
matter
what it is then you have not solved anything
making upmay as well
just make
up interpretations. I could spend all day
could skipinterpretations
and I
would not even have to read the poem. I
that Ithe poem entirely
and
just write up an interpretation for a poem
that ofhad no idea of
what was in
it and my interpretation would be as good as
actuallyanyone who
carefully
read it. But if the author has anything to
you havesay then he or
she is
defeating him or herself. If you hide what
rememberto say behind a
lot of
symbolism then you have not communicated. I
poetry andbeing in an
English
class once and we were studying a unit on
say thenI was
expressing some
of these same views.
I was saying that if you have something to
engaging inwhat is the
problem with
just coming out and saying it instead of
bit ofdeliberate
obscurantism. The teacher decided to try a
poetry. Icomparing to show
some
advantage to poetry. She read a line of
straightforget now how it
was
worded, but she then translated it into
over theprose saying how
would this
sound. The translation was, the ship came
reallyhorizon. My
response was,
it wasn't worth saying in the first place. I
laughter.was not
intending to be
funny, but the classroom burst into
patternsAnyway, if some people enjoy poetry for the
then thatlike they do a
painting, a sculpture or a piece of music
And, inis okay. Those
forms of
art don't do a lot of communicating either.
accompaniedfact, in certain
forms I
can enjoy poetry too. A song is a poem
anotherby music and, in
fact, in
a song the human voice can be regarded as
noticedinstrument
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
straightthat when you
strip a
song of its music and just read the words
insofarforward as you
would read
a poem songs are simplistic nonsense.
They really do not convey much meaning. So,
I thinkas anyone claims
that a
poem is communicating some profound message
have said,they are
deluded.
As for prose literature being art, like I
usuallywhen I have
read
fiction that has been identified as art I
thefind myself
reading
something else that is obscurantist. This is
is fullkind of fiction
that wins
awards and I suspect that it is because it
symbolismof symbolism
again and
deliberately filling something up with
Grapesserves no real
purpose but
to make it hard to understand. You used The
that one.of Wrath as an
example. I
will have to admit that I have never read
think itIt is famous
enough that
I have an idea of what it is about and I
gottenmight be something
that I
might like to read, but I have just never
describing thearound 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
schoolturtle crossing
the road
was included. I remember when I was in high
couldthere was a
fellow
student exclaiming about how John Steinbeck
took mewrite about a
turtle
crossing a road and make it interesting. It
though,decades before
I
finally got around to reading that scene,
wasand it was because
it was
a part of that nature writing anthology. It
straightinteresting if only
mildly
interesting to me. It struck me as a
notforward narrative
though. If
there was any hidden symbolism in it I did
wasdetect it and I did
not look
for it. Insofar as I found it interesting it
a waybecause it was a
straight
forward narrative. If it had been written in
you didsuch 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
the restwhat about it
made it
art? Bearing in mind that I have not read
book as aof the book, but
do have
an idea of what it is about, what made the
andwhole 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
poetry, verycertainly,
poetry is art.
Although you and I may not appreciate
peoplemany
intelligent
and sophisticated, and not so sophisticated
understanddo. There
are all
kinds of poetry, some easier for me to
famousthan
others. Whole
stories have been told in verse like the
fiction notGreek ones
and
Evangeline or, The People, Yes. As for
verybeing
informative
or being poor fiction if it is, that is a
wonderfuldebateable
opinion.
John Steinbeck's Grapes of Wrath is a
happening tonovel. It's
art. And
it was written to inform about what was
<mailto:blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
midwestern farm
families during the Depression.
Miriam
-----Original Message-----
From: blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[
DMARC)mailto:blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of
Roger Loran
Bailey (Redacted sender "rogerbailey81" for
incompatibleSent: Friday, January 01, 2016 11:40 PM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: 'Art is
learning iswith
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
entertain.
incidental. The main
purpose of a work of fiction is to
itInsofar as a
work of
fiction tries to teach rather than entertain
poorer thebecomes poor
writing
and the more it strives to educate the
a novelwriting
becomes. If
your intention is to be entertained you read
the way.and if
you are
lucky you just might learn something along
work ofIf your
intention
is to learn something you do not go to a
times andfiction. As
for
fiction being art, I have heard that many
thatI think
it is
loose use of the word art. However the books
hard toare most
frequently
called works of art are the ones that it is
toread.
Poetry is
frequently called art and it strikes me as a
deliberate
effort to
obscure and to make it hard for the reader
kind ofunderstand.
The prose
that is called art suffers from the same
thanthing. It
tends to be
dense, to make little sense and to be less
writingentertaining
to myself
at
least.
On 1/1/2016 11:02 PM, Miriam Vieni wrote:
Many people would disagree with you about
aren't art,
not being art.
Probably most of the books that I read
real life
but great
literature
surely is.
And don't discount the information about
non
that appears in
novels.
I've read pieces of fiction and pieces of
issues. But
fiction that told me
precisely the same things about certain
also
film has
certainly been used very effectively, as has
view.
video on TV and now
the internet, to influence people's point of
immediatelyOften, it works
better than words because people respond
or try
and emotionally
to what they see and they don't have to read
in
to comprehend a
spoken argument. I suspect that Trump is as
successful as he is
because he uses few words to create images
9/11.
people's heads, like
Mexican rapists or Muslims celebrating on
<mailto:blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>People aren't
persuaded by his
arguments. They just envision what he says.
Miriam
-----Original Message-----
From: blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[
"rogerbailey81" formailto:blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Roger
Loran Bailey (Redacted sender
incompatibleDMARC)
Sent: Friday, January 01, 2016 9:21 PM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: 'Art is
reading
with lies,
hypocrisy and conformity'
Don't forget that you said that you are
Writing
novels. That is fiction.
And also don't confuse writing with art.
medium for
actually
communicates and so it is an excellent
refutes
propaganda.
Nevertheless, nothing else of what you said
reinforcement.
that art is used
to reinforce concepts that have already been
inculcated by other
means. Persuasion comes first, then
comingNote that in the
article that started this thread Trotsky is
never be
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
[mailto:blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On
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
putting it.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
it was
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
[mailto:blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On
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
carjar82@xxxxxxxxxBehalf 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>
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
