My comments were made in response to Miriam who said that she didn't
know what art is, so I explained what it is, basically patterns of just
about anything. I forgot to mention something else, though. She also
said that art was used as propaganda. I don't think that is true.
Propaganda is an argument intended to persuade someone of something. As
an attempt to persuade propaganda is usually written as an essay with
evidence to back up the main argument. It is usually explained by
contrasting it to agitation. That is, to put is simply, propaganda makes
a lot of points for a few people and agitation makes one or a very few
points to be distributed to many people. Rather than get involved in
explaining that in greater detail just try to think of the implications
of that simplistic way of putting it. With that in mind, though, art is
not really either agitation nor propaganda. It is reinforcement. Bear in
mind what I have already said about how one's taste in art - that is,
one's affinity for patterns of patterns - is acquired. That shows that
by the time a person has fixed on a particular genre of art the person
is already persuaded of the ideology or other milieu of thinking that
the genre of art is identified with. By indulging in appreciating the
art one is persistently reminded of what one has already been persuaded
of. That is, one is reinforced. Think of medieval European art. It is
almost all religious art. But can you really imagine anyone who has not
already been indoctrinated in the religion being persuaded by looking at
the art? It neither persuades as it would if it was propaganda nor does
it compel one to take action as it would if it was agitation.
On 1/1/2016 2:49 PM, Carl Jarvis wrote:
Very interesting, Roger.
All I can say is that I am so very glad that I was born long, long
before Heavy Metal.
Actually, my brother-in-law, who just turned 65, immerses himself in
Heavy Metal. I never criticize others choices in music, but I'll get
down with Benny Goodman or Ella Fitzgerald. Cathy leans toward the
pop music of the 60's and 70's, and leaves the room if I stay with the
40's too long. As you said, it's what we grew up on. There is no,
"Better" nor is there, "Worse". In music appreciation it is that
which is pleasing to the ear of the listener.
Carl Jarvis
On 1/1/16, Roger Loran Bailey <dmarc-noreply@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Art is pattern. This includes visual and audio art, also known as music.
I suppose it might also apply to the other three senses, but it is
harder to create something in a pattern for touch, taste and smell, even
though some chefs do consider themselves to be artists. In visual art a
pattern of colors, lines or whatever is created that the structure of
our brains happen to find pleasing. In the case of music it is a pattern
of sound. These patterns can be highly variable to the point of near
infinitude, so there are also patterns of patterns. The patterns of
patterns that are found to be pleasurable vary from culture to culture
and may vary from subculture to subculture and from individual to
individual. I have personally observed that the favored patterns of
patterns seem to be imprinted on people when they are in the age range
of about fourteen to eighteen. That is, once one is exposed to a certain
genre of music or school of visual art while in that age range it
becomes what one favors for life. In my case, for example, I became
interested in heavy metal rock at that age. I think it had something to
do with both what I was being exposed to and the subcultures with which
I was identifying at the time. For years now I have paid very little
attention to music at all, but if I do hear various samples of music in
my daily life I perk up and notice and like it if I happen to hear some
heavy metal. I have certain ideas of visual art that I like and had
imprinted on me at the same time too. I favor the kind of art that used
to appear on the covers of fantasy paperback novels. I say used to
because I know things like that change over time and I have not seen the
cover of a paperback book for many years now. In general I prefer more
abstract art than realistic art. Of course, I am talking about personal
preference, but I have noticed that most everyone's personal preferences
were formed at about the same time in life and had something to do with
not only what they were exposed to, but to what subcultural milieu they
identified with. On a worldwide basis few people really like the art and
music from another part of the world, but they are often attracted to
it as an exotic novelty. The main point of art, though, is that it must
be patterned. If you hear sound without pattern it is called noise. If
you see something visually with no pattern it is called a mess. And even
though a lot of people like sophisticated art - that is, art with highly
complex patterns - if the patterns become too complex to the point that
the pattern cannot be discerned quickly then it is rejected as art and
called noise or a mess. I think I have seen that tendency even when the
pattern is not overly complex, but just alien. For example, I have ever
so often heard the music that I favor called noise. What I think is
going on is that the person who says that is not used to it and so does
not detect the patterns immediately. The patterns are too complex to be
picked out immediately when hearing something that to them is unusual.
An alien music that is simple might be recognized as music, but add
complexity to it being alien and it will be heard as noise while the
person who is used to it and has it imprinted on him or her will clearly
hear music and enjoyable music too.
On 1/1/2016 12:43 PM, Miriam Vieni wrote:
I have attended college and graduate school and I read lots of books.
I've
visited museums and been to europe, in particular, to Italy twice. And i
don't have a clue about what art truly is. I know what music I enjoy
hearing
and what music I don't like and what I like includes folk, country,
popular
songs from the days before rock and roll, and some classical music. My
appreciation of the visual arts was hampered by poor vision, but I did
like
impressionist paintings, and paintings that tended toward being
representational. On some of the trips arrange for blind people in which
I
participated, I was subjected to art and explanations of art by
specialists
in various museums, and I always felt like the specialists were being
patronizing and I was being stupid. I've read a number of novels which
dealt
with the experience of artists, particularly contemporary artists and the
ways in which they express themselves in various art forms. I haven't
been
able to truly relate to most of what I've read. I'm aware that what
artists
do is related to, and influenced by the societyies in which they live and
the culture that informs their sensibilities. And I know that some
governments have used art as propaganda. Also, many years ago, I had
friends
who were professional classical musicians. Some of their friends made a
steady living as music teachers in public schools and they played in
orchestras at concerts when they were able to get this work. My friends
did
not have steady teaching jobs. They might teach at a community college for
a
semester or at a music school, but making a living involved a constant
scramble for work. It meant networking and staying alert to every
possibility for making a bit of money. True, after a concert, there was
some
discussion about the skill or lack thereof, of other musicians, but I
don't
think I ever heard a discussion of music per se. I assume that most of us
on
this list are somewhere at the same level as I am in terms of
understanding
true art or what makes an artist.
Miriam
-----Original Message-----
From: blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Carl Jarvis
Sent: Friday, January 01, 2016 11:34 AM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: [blind-democracy] Re: [blind-democracy]
[blind-democracy] 'Art is incompatible with lies, hypocrisy and
conformity'
Good New Years Day Alice and All,
Probably I haven't much of a grasp on anything. Take my theories
regarding
the Creation of God, or my grasp on the need to have a one people, one
people's government and a united respect for all life, World.
No grasp on any of those topics, and many other crazy notions I conjure
up.
But then I also don't have much of a grasp on this blind democracy list,
either. I figured we might simply toss out ideas and explore our
thinking,
rather than make character judgements. Most of what I put out on this
list
is straight off the top of my mind. I don't often research my opinions,
nor
do I expect you all to do likewise. So having babbled around for a while,
I
want to return to this topic of artistic sensibilities.
Art is created within the brain of individuals. Some folks are far more
creative and talented than others. Still, even the most creative are
influenced by the world around them. In some cultures art is encouraged.
This was the case in the early days of this nation. But Madison Avenue,
an
Oligarchy form of government, a Corporate Empire, pressure to seek
financial
gain as a measure of success, and much more have warped what we consider
to
be Art, or Creative Talent. Indeed, we are far closer to the Roman
Empire
in our creative talents, than to the Glory Days of Greece.
So is this what was bothering you, Alice? If so, then I stand on my
statement.
By the way, anyone wanting to set me straight privately, or tell me to
shut
up, can do so privately. I am at:
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,rebellion.
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
historical plane.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
orders, but by its very essence, cannot tolerate them.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
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
