All:
In the sense of :
http://r.search.yahoo.com/_ylt=A0LEVjuQG4hW7jwAmToPxQt.;_ylu=X3oDMTByNXM5bzY5BGNvbG8DYmYxBHBvcwMzBHZ0aWQDBHNlYwNzcg--/RV=2/RE=1451789328/RO=10/RU=https%3a%2f%2fen.wikipedia.org%2fwiki%2fSociety_for_the_Propagation_of_the_Faith/RK=0/RS=Nc80ynKxvSZPPF2YMeZCTKfnok8-
The Society for the *Propagation of the Faith* (Latin: Propagandum
Fidei) is an international association coordinating assistance for
Catholic missionary priests ...
R. E. (Dick) Driscoll, Sr.
On 1/2/2016 10:53 AM, Miriam Vieni wrote:
Alice,
I think that Roger uses the word, "propaganda", differently than the rest of
us. I think he uses a definition of it that derives from Marxist theory or at least, not
as we do, with that negative context.
Miriam
________________________________
From: blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Alice Dampman Humel
Sent: Saturday, January 02, 2016 11:27 AM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: 'Art is incompatible with lies, hypocrisy and
conformity'
Propaganda is not a neutral term, neither in its literal definition nor in its
common and accepted usage.
prop·a·gan·da
ˌpräpəˈɡandə/
noun
1. 1.
derogatory
information, especially of a biased or misleading nature, used to
promote or publicize a particular political cause or point of view.
On Jan 1, 2016, at 11:29 PM, Roger Loran Bailey (Redacted sender "rogerbailey81" for
DMARC) <dmarc-noreply@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
e
Except that you are counterposing propaganda and truth. Propaganda
might be truthful or not. Propaganda is a neutral term.
On 1/1/2016 11:14 PM, R. E. Driscoll Sr wrote:
All:
If you are saying it to me in some manner, shape or form, then
I consider it to be propaganda.
If I am saying it to you in some manner, shape or form, then it
is the truth and you can take my word for it!
R. E. (Dick) Driscoll, Sr.
On 1/1/2016 10:02 PM, Miriam Vieni wrote:
Many people would disagree with you about writing not
being art. Probably
most of the books that I read aren't art, but great
literature surely is.
And don't discount the information about real life that
appears in novels.
I've read pieces of fiction and pieces of non fiction
that told me precisely
the same things about certain issues. But film has
certainly been used very
effectively, as has also video on TV and now the
internet, to influence
people's point of view. Often, it works better than
words because people
respond immediately and emotionally to what they see
and they don't have to
read or try to comprehend a spoken argument. I suspect
that Trump is as
successful as he is because he uses few words to create
images in people's
heads, like Mexican rapists or Muslims celebrating on
9/11. People aren't
persuaded by his arguments. They just envision what he
says.
Miriam
-----Original Message-----
From: blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf ;
Of Roger Loran
Bailey (Redacted sender "rogerbailey81" for DMARC)
Sent: Friday, January 01, 2016 9:21 PM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: 'Art is incompatible
with lies, hypocrisy and
conformity'
Don't forget that you said that you are reading novels.
That is fiction.
And also don't confuse writing with art. Writing
actually communicates and
so it is an excellent medium for propaganda.
Nevertheless, nothing else of
what you said refutes that art is used to reinforce
concepts that have
already been inculcated by other means. Persuasion
comes first, then
reinforcement. Note that in the article that started
this thread Trotsky is
coming out against the misuses of art that you describe
from your novels.
On 1/1/2016 4:14 PM, Miriam Vieni wrote:
I've read fiction that takes place in various
authoritarian states,
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> <mailto: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:
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> <mailto:alicedh@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Carl,
I'm afraid you do not have a very good
grasp on artistic
sensibilities, personalities,
expressions, lives, etc.
No artist worth his/her salt will be
stifled. alice On Dec 31,
2015, at 11:12 AM, Carl Jarvis
<carjar82@xxxxxxxxx> <mailto:carjar82@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
It is hard for me to imagine what pure
art would look like in a
Land that is so controlled that the
Masters corrupt artistic
expression, or stifle it altogether.
Freedom of expression is not to be
tolerated by the Empire.
Carl Jarvis
On 12/31/15, Roger Loran Bailey
<dmarc-noreply@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <mailto: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
________________________________
Avast logo <http://www.avast.com/> This email has been
checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
www.avast.com <http://www.avast.com/>
