When you agree with something it is art, when you don't its propaganda.
-----Original Message-----
From: blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Miriam Vieni
Sent: Sunday, January 3, 2016 10:02 AM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: 'Art is incompatible with lies, hypocrisy and
conformity'
Well, that's a famous painting and everyone thinks it's art. If we accept the
negative definition of propaganda, than I suppose the Fascists would have
considered it to be propaganda back then.
Miriam
________________________________
From: blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Abby Vincent
Sent: Saturday, January 02, 2016 10:54 PM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: 'Art is incompatible with lies, hypocrisy and
conformity'
YYes. A lot ofPicasso's art was one dimensional. It never occurred to me that
he might have seen the world that way.
"Guernica", a depiction of the horrors of the Spanish civil war, was his
protest against war with mass civilion casualties. It was drawings of body
parts. If art expresses an opinion, is it still art and not propaganda
propaganda? Same question for "War is not healthy for children and other living
things".
Abby
From: blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Alice Dampman Humel
Sent: Saturday, January 02, 2016 6:05 PM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: 'Art is incompatible with lies, hypocrisy and
conformity'
the cluelessness of that teacher has nothing to do with art, but rather only
with cruelty and utter lack of imagination, sensitivity, creativity, all
essential components of artistic expression. It is nothing short of tragic that
his/her treatment of you led to your abandonment of art in any or all of its
manifestations.
It has been posited, for example, that great artists like el Greco and Picasso
had some kind of visual conditions that made them see, experience, and express
the world in the way they painted it.
On Jan 2, 2016, at 7:55 PM, Abby Vincent <aevincent@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
What I was taught in the classroom activity called art made it
difficult to
appreciate what we're talking about now. I never had two dimensional
vision. Our teacher tried to teach us how to depict dimension on a flat
paper. There were four shapes placed on a table. We were given
paper
and charcoal and told to draw them. The charcoal helped to show
shading.
I was told my shadows were in the wrong place and going in the wrong
direction. So, the art of sighted kids is real,
So it is art. The experience of a partially sighted kid has no value
because it's wrong. I developed a lack of confidence in my ability to
know
and share what was around me. It carried over to the more subjective
studies such as literature and poetry. I concentrated on math and
social
studies and later, French.
Abby
-----Original Message-----
From: blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Miriam Vieni
Sent: Saturday, January 02, 2016 1:55 PM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: 'Art is incompatible with lies,
hypocrisy and
conformity'
Roger,
I'll start with your last point. I don't remember that scene in The
Grapes
of Wrath. To me, the art of the book is in the way that he tells the
story
of what happens to the family. The book communicates on two levels:
the
intellectual one, i.e. what it was like for this family when they had to
leave their farm and travel west, looking for work, at a time when
everyone
else was also leaving the Dust Bowl and traveling west. And it
communicates
on an emotional level. I felt terrible for the family, for what they
had to
go through, for what was happening to them. For me, one of the most
moving
passages is when they're in a barn and no one has anything to eat, and
they
encounter a stranger there who is hungrier than they are. I won't tell
you
what happens because maybe you'll decide to read the book.
Now, as to symbolism. I don't get it either. But I will tell you that
there
are a lot of wonderful books that are art because of how effectively
they
communicate to the reader, and I don't pay attention to the opinions of
critics or literature professors when I make that judgement. I know
that a
book is really good because of my reading experience and my own
assessment
of the writing. Also, there are times when I can tell that a book is
written very well, that it is fine literature, but I don't enjoy it and
I
stop reading it. However, I don't assume that because I don't like the
book,
it's worthless. I've learned that there are limitations to my ability to
appreciate certain kinds of literature. I've heard interviews with
authors
and it turns out that often, the authors did not have all of the
symbolism
in mind that the interviewers and other self styled experts, attribute
to
their books.
Last but not least, poetry. There are all different kinds of poetry.
Poetry
is not always symbolic. Some of it is very literal. Some of it is
funny. I
have never, however, chosen of my own volition, to read a book of
poetry.
But I read a very long poem in high school which I loved, and I haven't
looked at it since. I think that, perhaps, you might appreciate it if
you
can find it. It is, "The People, Yes" by Carl Sandberg. See if you can
find
it and read it. It is not flowery or symbolic. If I remember correctly
from
so many years ago, it should be right up your alley. By the way, did
you
ever have to read The Illiad in high school or college? It is the story
of
Ulysises' long trip home from the Peloponesian Wars and it is in verse.
There's another one, I think about Helen of Troy.
Miriam
-----Original Message-----
From: blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Roger Loran
Bailey (Redacted sender "rogerbailey81" for DMARC)
Sent: Saturday, January 02, 2016 4:11 PM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: 'Art is incompatible with lies,
hypocrisy and
conformity'
I suppose I could include poetry as art. Like I said, art is
characterized
by patterns that are imparted to it by the artist and in all the meters
and
rhymes poetry does have patterns. As a means of communication, though,
it is
terrible. As I understand poetry it is virtually required for it to be
good
poetry for it to be filled with symbolism and then it is supposed to be
better poetry if the symbolism is represented by more symbolism and
that the
more layers of symbolism the better the poetry is. This sounds like a
word
puzzle and if it was a word puzzle it would have more legitimacy. I
used to
enjoy working crossword puzzles and acrostics. I have even in the past
bought entire puzzle magazines full of word puzzles and logic problems.
It
can be a fun pastime. However, another thing I have always heard about
poetry is that anyone's interpretation is just as good as another
person's
interpretation. That removes all the rules from the puzzle and renders
it
not a puzzle at all. If your solution to the puzzle is correct no matter
what it is then you have not solved anything and you may as well just
make
up interpretations. I could spend all day making up interpretations and
I
would not even have to read the poem. I could skip the poem entirely and
just write up an interpretation for a poem that I had no idea of what
was in
it and my interpretation would be as good as that of anyone who
carefully
read it. But if the author has anything to actually say then he or she
is
defeating him or herself. If you hide what you have to say behind a lot
of
symbolism then you have not communicated. I remember being in an English
class once and we were studying a unit on poetry and I was expressing
some
of these same views.
I was saying that if you have something to say then what is the problem
with
just coming out and saying it instead of engaging in deliberate
obscurantism. The teacher decided to try a bit of comparing to show some
advantage to poetry. She read a line of poetry. I forget now how it was
worded, but she then translated it into straight prose saying how would
this
sound. The translation was, the ship came over the horizon. My response
was,
it wasn't worth saying in the first place. I really was not intending
to be
funny, but the classroom burst into laughter.
Anyway, if some people enjoy poetry for the patterns like they do a
painting, a sculpture or a piece of music then that is okay. Those
forms of
art don't do a lot of communicating either. And, in fact, in certain
forms I
can enjoy poetry too. A song is a poem accompanied by music and, in
fact, in
a song the human voice can be regarded as another instrument
contributing to
the patterns that make music art. There are certainly songs that I
like. In
that sense I enjoy poetry. But I have still noticed that when you strip
a
song of its music and just read the words straight forward as you would
read
a poem songs are simplistic nonsense.
They really do not convey much meaning. So, insofar as anyone claims
that a
poem is communicating some profound message I think they are deluded.
As for prose literature being art, like I have said, when I have read
fiction that has been identified as art I usually find myself reading
something else that is obscurantist. This is the kind of fiction that
wins
awards and I suspect that it is because it is full of symbolism again
and
deliberately filling something up with symbolism serves no real purpose
but
to make it hard to understand. You used The Grapes of Wrath as an
example. I
will have to admit that I have never read that one. It is famous enough
that
I have an idea of what it is about and I think it might be something
that I
might like to read, but I have just never gotten around to it. I did
read a
fairly long excerpt though. I was reading an anthology of nature
writing and
the scene from The Grapes of Wrath describing the turtle crossing the
road
was included. I remember when I was in high school there was a fellow
student exclaiming about how John Steinbeck could write about a turtle
crossing a road and make it interesting. It took me decades before I
finally got around to reading that scene, though, and it was because it
was
a part of that nature writing anthology. It was interesting if only
mildly
interesting to me. It struck me as a straight forward narrative though.
If
there was any hidden symbolism in it I did not detect it and I did not
look
for it. Insofar as I found it interesting it was because it was a
straight
forward narrative. If it had been written in a way such that it had been
hard to understand I would not have found it interesting. So I ask, did
you
find that part of the novel to be art and if you did what about it made
it
art? Bearing in mind that I have not read the rest of the book, but do
have
an idea of what it is about, what made the book as a whole art?
On 1/2/2016 9:55 AM, Miriam Vieni wrote:
I think that this is, you should excuse the expression, your
blind spot.
Certainly, literature is categorized as art and certainly,
poetry is art.
Although you and I may not appreciate poetry, very many
intelligent
and sophisticated, and not so sophisticated people do. There
are all
kinds of poetry, some easier for me to understand than others.
Whole
stories have been told in verse like the famous Greek ones and
Evangeline or, The People, Yes. As for fiction not being
informative
or being poor fiction if it is, that is a very debateable
opinion.
John Steinbeck's Grapes of Wrath is a wonderful novel. It's
art. And
it was written to inform about what was happening to midwestern
farm
families during the Depression.
Miriam
-----Original Message-----
From: blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of ;
Roger Loran
Bailey (Redacted sender "rogerbailey81" for DMARC)
Sent: Friday, January 01, 2016 11:40 PM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: 'Art is incompatible with lies,
hypocrisy and conformity'
I don't discount it. I suppose you can learn something from any
book.
The difference is that in fiction the learning is incidental.
The main
purpose of a work of fiction is to entertain. Insofar as a work
of
fiction tries to teach rather than entertain it becomes poor
writing
and the more it strives to educate the poorer the writing
becomes. If
your intention is to be entertained you read a novel and if you
are
lucky you just might learn something along the way. If your
intention
is to learn something you do not go to a work of fiction. As
for
fiction being art, I have heard that many times and I think it
is
loose use of the word art. However the books that are most
frequently
called works of art are the ones that it is hard to read.
Poetry is
frequently called art and it strikes me as a deliberate effort
to
obscure and to make it hard for the reader to understand.
The prose
that is called art suffers from the same kind of thing. It
tends to be
dense, to make little sense and to be less than entertaining to
myself
at
least.
On 1/1/2016 11:02 PM, Miriam Vieni wrote:
Many people would disagree with you about writing not
being art.
Probably most of the books that I read aren't art, but
great
literature
surely is.
And don't discount the information about real life that
appears in
novels.
I've read pieces of fiction and pieces of non fiction
that told me
precisely the same things about certain issues. But
film has
certainly been used very effectively, as has also video
on TV and now
the internet, to influence people's point of view.
Often, it works
better than words because people respond immediately
and emotionally
to what they see and they don't have to read or try to
comprehend a
spoken argument. I suspect that Trump is as successful
as he is
because he uses few words to create images in people's
heads, like
Mexican rapists or Muslims celebrating on 9/11.
People aren't
persuaded by his
arguments. They just envision what he says.
Miriam
-----Original Message-----
From: blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf ;
Of Roger
Loran Bailey (Redacted sender "rogerbailey81" for
DMARC)
Sent: Friday, January 01, 2016 9:21 PM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: 'Art is incompatible
with lies,
hypocrisy and conformity'
Don't forget that you said that you are reading novels.
That is fiction.
And also don't confuse writing with art. Writing
actually
communicates and so it is an excellent medium for
propaganda.
Nevertheless, nothing else of what you said refutes
that art is used
to reinforce concepts that have already been inculcated
by other
means. Persuasion comes first, then reinforcement.
Note that in the
article that started this thread Trotsky is coming out
against the
misuses of art that you describe
from your novels.
On 1/1/2016 4:14 PM, Miriam Vieni wrote:
I've read fiction that takes place in various
authoritarian states,
nazi gtermany, the Soviet Union for example,
and in those books,
I've read descriptions of how writers and
visual artists and song
writers were used to support the mindset that
the State wanted the
people to have. Certain kinds of books and
music were forbidden.
Artists were encouraged to produce works that
glorified the
political theories that underlay the
government. And here in the US,
there are people who want to forbid certain
kinds of art. There was
a big fuss about an art piece in Brooklyn
several years ago because
some people considered it to be anti Christian.
And remember those
hooten annies I
mentioned?
They were advertised as folk song concerts but
that's not exactly
what they were. They were socialist or
communist talking points
interspersed with songs. And then there was the
rule that
interracial
relationships between men and women could never be
shown in films or
on
TV.
Art is used to support conceptions of public
decency and acceptable
behavior.
Miriam
-----Original Message-----
From: blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Roger ;
Loran Bailey (Redacted sender
"rogerbailey81" for DMARC)
Sent: Friday, January 01, 2016 3:18 PM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: 'Art is
incompatible with lies,
hypocrisy and conformity'
My comments were made in response to Miriam who
said that she didn't
know what art is, so I explained what it is,
basically patterns of
just about anything. I forgot to mention
something else, though. She
also said that art was used as propaganda. I
don't think that is true.
Propaganda is an argument intended to persuade
someone of something.
As an attempt to persuade propaganda is usually
written as an essay
with evidence to back up the main argument.
It is usually explained
by contrasting it to agitation. That is, to put
is simply,
propaganda makes a lot of points for a few
people and agitation
makes one or a very few points to be
distributed to many people.
Rather than get involved in explaining that in
greater detail just
try to think of the
implications of that simplistic way of putting it.
With that in mind, though, art is not really
either agitation nor
propaganda. It is reinforcement. Bear in mind
what I have already
said about how one's taste in art - that is,
one's affinity for
patterns of patterns - is acquired. That shows
that by the time a
person has fixed on a particular genre of art
the person is already
persuaded of the ideology or other milieu of
thinking that the genre
of art is identified with. By indulging in
appreciating the art one
is persistently reminded of what one has
already been persuaded of.
That is, one is reinforced. Think of medieval
European art. It is
almost all religious art. But can you really
imagine anyone who has
not already been indoctrinated in the religion
being persuaded by
looking at the art? It neither persuades as it
would if it was
propaganda nor does
it compel one to take action as it would if it was
agitation.
On 1/1/2016 2:49 PM, Carl Jarvis wrote:
Very interesting, Roger.
All I can say is that I am so very
glad that I was born long, long
before Heavy Metal.
Actually, my brother-in-law, who
just turned 65, immerses himself
in Heavy Metal. I never criticize
others choices in music, but
I'll get down with Benny Goodman or
Ella Fitzgerald. Cathy leans
toward the pop music of the 60's and
70's, and leaves the room if I
stay with the 40's too long. As you
said, it's what we grew up on.
There is no, "Better" nor is there,
"Worse". In music appreciation
it is that which is pleasing to the ear
of the listener.
Carl Jarvis
On 1/1/16, Roger Loran Bailey
<dmarc-noreply@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Art is pattern. This includes visual
and audio art, also known as
music.
I suppose it might also apply to the
other three senses, but it is
harder to create something in a
pattern for touch, taste and
smell, even though some chefs do
consider themselves to be
artists. In visual art a pattern of
colors, lines or whatever is
created that the structure of our
brains happen to find pleasing.
In the case of music it is a pattern of
sound. These patterns can
be highly variable to the point of
near infinitude, so there are
also patterns of
patterns.
The patterns of patterns that are
found to be pleasurable vary
from culture to culture and may vary
from subculture to subculture
and from individual to individual. I
have personally observed that
the favored patterns of patterns
seem to be imprinted on people
when they are in the age range of
about fourteen to eighteen. That
is, once one is exposed to a certain
genre of music or school of
visual art while in that age range
it becomes what one favors for
life. In my case, for example, I
became interested in heavy metal
rock at that age. I think it had
something to do with both what I
was being exposed to and the
subcultures with which I was
identifying at the time. For years
now I have paid very little
attention to music at all, but if I do
hear various samples of
music in my daily life I perk up and
notice and like it if I
happen to
hear some heavy metal.
I have certain ideas of visual art
that I like and had imprinted
on me at the same time too. I favor the
kind of art that used to
appear on the covers of fantasy
paperback novels. I say used to
because I know things like that
change over time and I have not
seen the cover of a paperback book
for many years now. In general
I prefer more abstract art than
realistic art. Of course, I am
talking about personal preference,
but I have noticed that most
everyone's personal preferences were
formed at about the same time
in life and had something to do with
not only what they were
exposed to, but to what subcultural
milieu they identified with.
On a worldwide basis few people
really like the art and music from
another part of the world, but they are
often attracted to it as
an exotic novelty. The main point of
art, though, is that it must
be patterned. If you hear sound
without pattern it is called noise.
If you see something visually with
no pattern it is called a mess.
And even though a lot of people like
sophisticated art - that is,
art with highly complex patterns -
if the patterns become too
complex to the point that the
pattern cannot be discerned quickly
then it is rejected as art and
called noise or a mess. I think I
have seen that tendency even when
the pattern is not overly
complex, but just alien. For
example, I have ever so often heard
the music that I favor called noise.
What I think is going on is
that the person who says that is not
used to it and so
does not detect the patterns immediately.
The patterns are too
complex to be picked out immediately when
hearing something that to
them is
unusual.
An alien music that is simple might be
recognized as music, but
add complexity to it being alien and it
will be heard as noise
while the person who is used to it
and has it imprinted on him or
her will clearly hear music and
enjoyable music too.
On 1/1/2016 12:43 PM, Miriam Vieni
wrote:
I have attended college and graduate
school and I read lots of books.
I've
visited museums and been to europe, in
particular, to Italy twice.
And i don't have a clue about what
art truly is. I know what
music I enjoy hearing and what music I
don't like and what I like
includes folk, country, popular
songs from the days before rock
and roll, and some classical music.
My appreciation of the visual
arts was hampered by poor vision,
but I did like impressionist
paintings, and paintings that tended
toward being representational.
On some of the trips arrange for
blind people in which I
participated, I was subjected to art
and explanations of art by
specialists in various museums, and I
always felt like the
specialists were being patronizing
and I was being stupid. I've
read a number of novels which dealt
with the experience of
artists, particularly contemporary
artists and the ways in which
they express themselves in various
art forms. I haven't been able
to truly relate to most of what I've
read. I'm aware that what
artists do is related to, and
influenced by the societyies in
which they live and the culture that
informs their sensibilities.
And I know that some governments
have used art as propaganda.
Also, many years ago, I had friends who
were professional
classical musicians. Some of their
friends made a steady living
as music teachers in public schools and
they played in orchestras
at concerts when they were able to
get this work. My friends did
not have steady teaching jobs. They
might teach at a community
college for a semester or at a music
school, but making a living
involved a constant scramble for
work. It meant networking and
staying alert to every possibility
for making a bit of money.
True, after a concert, there was
some discussion about the skill
or lack thereof, of other musicians,
but I don't think I ever
heard a discussion of music per se.
I assume that most of us on
this list are somewhere at the same
level as I am in terms of
understanding true art or what makes an
artist.
Miriam
-----Original Message-----
From:
blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Carl ;
Jarvis
Sent: Friday, January 01, 2016 11:34 AM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re:
[blind-democracy] Re:
[blind-democracy] [blind-democracy]
'Art is incompatible with
lies, hypocrisy and conformity'
Good New Years Day Alice and All,
Probably I haven't much of a
grasp on anything. Take my theories
regarding the Creation of
God, or my grasp on the need to have a
one people, one people's
government and a united respect for all
life, World.
No grasp on any of those topics, and
many other crazy notions I
conjure up.
But then I also don't have much of a
grasp on this blind
democracy list, either. I figured
we might simply toss out ideas
and explore our thinking, rather
than make character judgements.
Most of what I put out on this list is
straight off the top of my
mind.
I don't often research my opinions, nor
do I expect you all to do
likewise.
So having babbled around for a
while, I want to return to this
topic of artistic sensibilities.
Art is created within the brain of
individuals. Some folks are
far more creative and talented than
others. Still, even the most
creative are influenced by the world
around them. In some
cultures art
is encouraged.
This was the case in the early days of
this nation. But Madison
Avenue, an Oligarchy form of
government, a Corporate Empire,
pressure to seek financial gain as a
measure of success, and much
more have warped what we consider to be
Art, or Creative Talent.
Indeed, we are far closer to the
Roman Empire in our creative
talents, than to the Glory Days of
Greece.
So is this what was bothering you,
Alice? If so, then I stand on
my statement.
By the way, anyone wanting to set me
straight privately, or tell
me to shut up, can do so privately.
I am at:
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
