Remember that I said that art is pattern, but that the kind of art you
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.list are somewhere at the same level as I am in terms of understanding true
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
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 mypermission.
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
futurism. .rebellion.
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
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
orders, but by its very essence, cannot tolerate them.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
