Well, often, as people get older and health problems arise, or sleeping
problems arise, couples who used to sleep in the same bed, opt for twin
beds. That doesn't necessarily mean that they stop making love. Rather, it
might mean that after making love, they'd like to have a good night's sleep.
Miriam
-----Original Message-----
From: blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Bob Hachey
Sent: Saturday, January 02, 2016 9:47 AM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: 'Art is incompatible with lies, hypocrisy and
conformity'
Hi Frank,
Yes indeed, single beds for couples was the norm back in the early days of
television. Like the ricardos, the Cleavers also slept in single beds. Funny
thing, my parents slept in single beds. I recall when I was around seven and
visiting a friend. We went into his parents bedroom and I'd never
encountered a bed larger than a single bed! Seems to me that single beds was
not the norm in the 1950's.
I wonder if single beds were the norm way back when? Sounds kinda dumb given
that body heat could have come in handy before the days of central heating.
One thing we do know, America was and maybe still is one of the most
sexually repressed societies on planet Earth.
Bob Hachey
-----Original Message-----
From: blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Frank Ventura
Sent: Saturday, January 02, 2016 2:08 AM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: 'Art is incompatible with lies, hypocrisy and
conformity'
Twin beds? I think someone got some "splaining" to do.
-----Original Message-----
From: blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Carl Jarvis
Sent: Saturday, January 2, 2016 1:21 AM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: 'Art is incompatible with lies, hypocrisy and
conformity'
Speaking of TV and movies not allowing "mixed" Race relations, I remember
that the old movies and early TV did not permit husbands and wives to sleep
together in the same bed. Remember Lucy and Dezzi?
Twin beds! A Hot Blooded Cuban and a Red Head? Come on!
And I sure do remember the first Gay couple on TV. Good for the Daytime
Soaps!
But back to Lucy and Dezzi. Husbands and wives had slept together forever.
Was Art imitating customs? Prudishness seemed to dictate who got to sleep
where and with whom.
But it's confusing. Is the Art dictating, or is custom calling the shots?
It's after ten in the evening and time to quit wandering about in the back
rooms of my brain.
Good night all.
Carl Jarvis
On 1/1/16, Roger Loran Bailey <dmarc-noreply@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Remember that I said that art is pattern, but that the kind of art youprofessional classical musicians.
like is a pattern of patterns that have been imprinted on you because
you identify it with some culture, subculture or ideology to which you
have identified yourself. If the patterns or patterns of patterns do
not meet what patterns of art have been imprinted on you then whether
you recognize the patterns as patterns or not you are not going to be
likely to like the art unless you like it only as an exotic novelty.
It is similar to Carl's music of the forties. I can easily recognize
the patterns that identify it to me as music and while I can't say
that I actively dislike it, I don't particularly like it either. On
the other hand, if I heard a train wreck I just might be able to
identify it as a train wreck, but it would be very unlikely that I
would even think of it as being music. It is unpatterned, so I would
call it the noise of a train wreck. And by the way, if I saw those
milk cartons I don't think I would regard them as attractive art
either even if I did see a pattern in them.
On 1/1/2016 3:19 PM, Miriam Vieni wrote:
Well, I've heard music in which the patterns are quite recognizeable,
and I didn't like the music, even though I heard the patterns. And, I
like some popular music that I heard when I was a child, way under 14
years of age, during World War 2. And I like classical music that was
composed in Europe in the 17th, 18th, and 19th centuries. I was in a
museum, perhaps in Boston, I'm not sure, and I saw an art exhibition
which consisted of empty caartons which once held milk bottles. They
were made of wood and were painted black, and they were stacked one
upon another, many stacks of them. I could see them quite well and
there was certainly a pattern, and perhaps those cartons symbolized
something to the artist who painted and piled them up, but to me,
they were just what they were and they meant nothing at all.
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 2:20 PM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: 'Art is incompatible with lies,
hypocrisy and conformity'
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
December.Some of their friends made a steady living as music teachers inlist are somewhere at the same level as I am in terms of
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
understanding true art or what makes an artist.
Miriamconformity'
-----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
Good New Years Day Alice and All,up.
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
But then I also don't have much of a grasp on this blind democracyartistic sensibilities.
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
Art is created within the brain of individuals. Some folks are farencouraged.
more creative and talented than others. Still, even the most
creative are influenced by the world around them. In some cultures
art is
This was the case in the early days of this nation. But MadisonDays of Greece.
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
So is this what was bothering you, Alice? If so, then I stand on my
statement.
By the way, anyone wanting to set me straight privately, or tell me
to shut up, can do so privately. I am at:
carjar82@xxxxxxxxx
Carl Jarvis, who is heading for a bacon and egg and toast with jam
breakfast. First one of the new year. Hopefully not the last.
On 12/31/15, Alice Dampman Humel <alicedh@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Carl,
I'm afraid you do not have a very good grasp on artistic
sensibilities, personalities, expressions, lives, etc.
No artist worth his/her salt will be stifled. alice On Dec 31,
2015, at 11:12 AM, Carl Jarvis <carjar82@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
It is hard for me to imagine what pure art would look like in a
Land that is so controlled that the Masters corrupt artistic
expression, or stifle it altogether.
Freedom of expression is not to be tolerated by the Empire.
Carl Jarvis
On 12/31/15, Roger Loran Bailey <dmarc-noreply@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
http://themilitant.com/2016/8001/800149.html
The Militant (logo)
Vol. 80/No. 1 January 4, 2016
(Books of the Month column)
'Art is incompatible with lies, hypocrisy and conformity'
Art and Revolution by Leon Trotsky, a central leader of the
1917 October Revolution, is one of the Books of the Month for
exhaustive reply.permission.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
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
surprising here!futurism. .rebellion.The task of this letter is to correctly pose the question.
Generally speaking, art is an expression of man's need for a
harmonious and complete life, that is to say, his need for those
major benefits of which a society of classes has deprived him.
That is why a protest against reality, either conscious or
unconscious, active or passive, optimistic or pessimistic, always
forms part of a really creative piece of work. Every new tendency
in art has begun with
Bourgeois society showed its strength throughout long periods of
history in the fact that, combining repression and encouragement,
boycott and flattery, it was able to control and assimilate every
"rebel" movement in art and raise it to the level of official
"recognition." But each time this "recognition" betokened, when
all is said and done, the approach of trouble. It was then that
from the left wing of the academic school or below it - i.e.,
from the ranks of a new generation of bohemian artists - a
fresher revolt would surge up to attain in its turn, after a
decent interval, the steps of the academy. Through these stages
passed classicism, romanticism, realism, naturalism, symbolism,
impressionism, cubism,
their own life.historical plane.Nevertheless, the union of art and the bourgeoisie remained
stable, even if not happy, only so long as the bourgeoisie itself
took the initiative and was capable of maintaining a regime both
politically and morally "democratic." This was a question of not
only giving free rein to artists and playing up to them in every
possible way, but also of granting special privileges to the top
layer of the working class, and of mastering and subduing the
bureaucracy of the unions and workers' parties. All these
phenomena exist in the same
The decline of bourgeois society means an intolerable
exacerbation of social contradictions, which are transformed
inevitably into personal contradictions, calling forth an ever
more burning need for a liberating art. Furthermore, a declining
capitalism already finds itself completely incapable of offering
the minimum conditions for the development of tendencies in art
which correspond, however little, to our epoch. It fears
superstitiously every new word, for it is no longer a matter of
corrections and reforms for capitalism but of life and death. The
oppressed masses live
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
"leader,"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
"realism"to fabricate a heroic myth. Human history has never seen anything
to equal this in scope and impudence. .
The style of present-day official Soviet painting is called
"socialist realism." The name itself has evidently been invented
by some high functionary in the department of the arts. This
orders, but by its very essence, cannot tolerate them.consists in the imitation of provincial daguerreotypes of the
third quarter of the last century; the "socialist" character
apparently consists in representing, in the manner of pretentious
photography, events which never took place. It is impossible to
read Soviet verse and prose without physical disgust, mixed with
horror, or to look at reproductions of paintings and sculpture in
which functionaries armed with pens, brushes, and scissors, under
the supervision of functionaries armed with Mausers, glorify the
"great" and "brilliant" leaders, actually devoid of the least
spark of genius or greatness. The art of the Stalinist period
will remain as the frankest expression of the profound decline of
the proletarian revolution. .
The real crisis of civilization is above all the crisis of
revolutionary leadership. Stalinism is the greatest element of
reaction in this crisis. Without a new flag and a new program it
is impossible to create a revolutionary mass base; consequently
it is impossible to rescue society from its dilemma. But a truly
revolutionary party is neither able nor willing to take upon
itself the task of "leading" and even less of commanding art,
either before or after the conquest of power. Such a pretension
could only enter the head of a bureaucracy - ignorant and
impudent, intoxicated with its totalitarian power - which has
become the antithesis of the proletarian revolution. Art, like
science, not only does not seek
bureaucracy.Artistic creation has its laws - even when it consciously serves
a social movement. Truly intellectual creation is incompatible
with lies, hypocrisy and the spirit of conformity. Art can become
a strong ally of revolution only insofar as it remains faithful
to itself. Poets, painters, sculptors and musicians will
themselves find their own approach and methods, if the struggle
for freedom of oppressed classes and peoples scatters the clouds
of skepticism and of pessimism which cover the horizon of
mankind. The first condition of this regeneration is the
overthrow of the domination of the Kremlin
Front page (for this issue) | Home | Text-version home
