Roger,
When I said that I don't know what art is, I was actually responding
emotionally to something that Alice said to Carl. I was not making a literal
statement. One of the problems with communicating by email is that the
nuances get lost. If we were in a face to face conversation, the timing of
what I said and my tone of voice would have conveyed my meaning to everyone.
However, I'm not sure that it would have conveyed the meaning to you because
when you communicate, and I suspect that this is also in face to face
communications, you seem to strip out the emotional content. That is why, as
you once told us, someone told you that you don't pick up the nuances. I'm
not sure that was the precise word that was used, but that was the meaning
of what was said. The thing is that not only are words used differently by
people as time goes on, but the same word can mean different things when
said in different tones of voice. Because so much of the meaning in our
spoken communication is dependent on context, on facial expression, gesture,
tone of voice, etc. words just cannot be viewed as static entities. But
trying to have facsimile of a normal conversation on an email list is
tricky, and it has gotten me, and lots of other people, into difficulty
because what we think that we are saying, comes out very differently when it
is trapped in written, unchangeable words on a screen.
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: Sunday, January 03, 2016 10:15 PM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: 'Art is incompatible with lies, hypocrisy and
conformity'
I don't understand your saying that it might not be helpful to have a
precise definition of the word art and then immediately say that words can
be a barrier to communication. The second part is true, but that occurs when
you don't have precise definitions. There are many words that have multiple
definitions and the more definitions a word has the less efficient it is at
communicating. There are just too many opportunities for the word to be
misunderstood when one person may have one definition in mind and another
person has another in mind. As I have said before, when you let a word mean
more and more things it becomes vaguer and vaguer and when you let a word
mean everything it ends up meaning nothing at all. In that case, it would be
extremely helpful to have a precise definition for the word art. Now, let's
look at the reason I tried to pin down the word in the first place. You
flatly said that you don't know what art is. So I stepped in and tried to
explain it. Now you are saying that art is something that communicates to
you.
If you don't know what art is then how can you know that it is something
that communicates to you? But if that is what it is then I suppose you would
count a phone call from your bank as art. If someone warns you that you are
about to step in a hole then that would be art too. If you find that kind of
communication to be art then you really have a communication problem because
when you talk about art no one else will have the slightest idea of what you
are talking about because no one else considers simple communication to be
art. Again, if we look at what the vast majority of people call art, even if
they do not explicate what it is about it that makes it art, they are
talking about patterns that some human or set of humans have created. There
are, of course, patterns in nature. A simple salt crystal has all of its
molecules arranged in a pattern, but that would not be considered art. To be
art it has to be a pattern made by someone. I fail to see why it would be
helpful to make any word more vague than it already might be. Making a vague
word less vague is what facilitates communication. It leads to clarity.
On 1/3/2016 9:58 AM, Miriam Vieni wrote:
Perhaps it isn't helpful to attempt to use precise definitions of art.it.
Words can sometimes be barriers to communication, rather than facilitating
Certainly, the liking or disliking of books appears to be very subjective.book.
But if a huge number of people like a book, than I suppose it's a good
Of course, huge numbers of people like books that I don't like. I likemore complicated than that. And its value is in the eye of the beholder.
the way in which certain authors write or I am interested in the
subject of the book. Also, I've realized over the years that authors
communicate their political and social views, purposefully or
inadvertently, through their fiction. If I can't identify with the
author's point of view, I probably won't like the book. Also, there
are styles of writing. I've begun some of these chic lit books and
jusst disliked the writing. They seemed like trash to me. The story
was predictable and they were filled with stereotypes and I just
stopped reading them for that reason. I've also tried some books which
received excellent reviews, whose authors are considered to be fine
writers, and I couldn't get them at all, and I stopped reading them. A
few of the latter, I finished, but I never did get the point of the
book. I've been drawn into books, unable to stop reading until the
end, that I never would have chosen to read if I'd known what they
were actually about, like The Fixer, which I just finished. It was
mentioned as a book of note in the NYT and then it was on BARD. But I
had no idea that it was a suspense story dealing with graft in Boston.
If it had been described that way, I wouldn't have chosen to read it.
But I didn't know what it was actually about and I ended up being
fascinated. So I think that art is human expression that communicates
thought and feeling to other people. I don't know why it needs to be any
the word art as applied to prose fiction has no real meaning.
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 9:41 PM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: 'Art is incompatible with lies,
hypocrisy and conformity'
The grapes of wrath does sound like a book that I would be interested
in and I have already known that for a long time. There is only so
much time in a person's life, though, and I have just never gotten
around to it. Your description of why you consider it art, however,
does not sound like something that has anything to do with art. What
it comes down to is that you liked it. If I judged things to be art on
that basis then the cup of camomile tea I had a couple of hours ago
was art. When it comes to applying the word art to prose fiction I
don't really have a precise criterion for counting it as art. I just
accept the opinions of these literary professor types who call it art.
If a lot of them call it art then, okay, it is art even though it does
not fit with what art is in other cases. It does occur to me that they
are calling it art only on the basis that they like it too in which case
But I have noticed that what they call art does have something in common.so we never did get to the best, but instead had to trudge through the
That commonality is that it is dense and boring. As for symbolism in
fiction, I have heard the same thing that you describe. Robert
Heinlein was once asked about the symbolism some professors were
finding in his writing and he said that they were imagining it, that
he did not write with any symbolism in mind at all. What you saw was
what he wrote and he wrote in a straight forward way. From what I have
seen of his writing it is clear to me that he was being honest with us
and the literature professors were just making up things. That is what
I suspect is going on with poetry too. In that case you can just make
up any interpretation of a poem you want and call it an academic
analysis. That tends to confirm to me that if there is any art to
poetry then it is in the patterns that the rhythm and rhymes make up
just like it is the patterned sound that makes music. If you like
poetry for that then it is the same kind of liking that one has for
music and that is okay. It just means that you like certain kinds of
patterns. All of this interpreting as if you are solving a word puzzle
without rules, though, strikes me as just pretentiousness. As for the
Iliad, I think that I have read parts of it, but I did not study it in
school. Instead, I found myself studying the Odyssey in high school. I
found it somewhat boring, but not nearly as boring as Great
Expectations or Silas Marner. By the way, it was in my tenth grade
English class that I studied those very items. It is interesting that
one of the books we were going to cover was The Old Man and the Sea by
Hemingway. We got so bogged down in Silas Marner and Great
expectations that we never did get to The Old Man and the sea in the
classroom. I did read it on my own, though, and I liked it. It struck
me as ironic that the teacher apparently was saving the best for last and
verse.
On 1/2/2016 4:55 PM, Miriam Vieni wrote:
Roger,everyone
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
else was also leaving the Dust Bowl and traveling west. And itcommunicates
on an emotional level. I felt terrible for the family, for what theyto
had
go through, for what was happening to them. For me, one of the mostthey
moving passages is when they're in a barn and no one has anything to
eat, and
encounter a stranger there who is hungrier than they are. I won'tthere
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
are a lot of wonderful books that are art because of how effectivelybook,
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
it's worthless. I've learned that there are limitations to my abilityPoetry
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.
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.find
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
it and read it. It is not flowery or symbolic. If I rememberfrom
correctly
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
example.There's another one, I think about Helen of Troy.and
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
conformity'and
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
rhymes poetry does have patterns. As a means of communication,is
though, it
terrible. As I understand poetry it is virtually required for it togood
be
poetry for it to be filled with symbolism and then it is supposed tothe
be better poetry if the symbolism is represented by more symbolism
and that
more layers of symbolism the better the poetry is. This sounds like ato
word puzzle and if it was a word puzzle it would have more
legitimacy. I used
enjoy working crossword puzzles and acrostics. I have even in thein
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
it and my interpretation would be as good as that of anyone whowith
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
just coming out and saying it instead of engaging in deliberatethis
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
sound. The translation was, the ship came over the horizon. Mywas,
response
it wasn't worth saying in the first place. I really was not intendingbe
to
funny, but the classroom burst into laughter.of
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
art don't do a lot of communicating either. And, in fact, in certainI
forms
can enjoy poetry too. A song is a poem accompanied by music and, inin
fact,
a song the human voice can be regarded as another instrumentto
contributing
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 youread
strip a song of its music and just read the words straight forward as
you would
a poem songs are simplistic nonsense.a
They really do not convey much meaning. So, insofar as anyone claims
that
poem is communicating some profound message I think they are deluded.but
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
to make it hard to understand. You used The Grapes of Wrath as an
Iart.
will have to admit that I have never read that one. It is famousthat
enough
I have an idea of what it is about and I think it might be somethingI
that
might like to read, but I have just never gotten around to it. I dida
read
fairly long excerpt though. I was reading an anthology of natureand
writing
the scene from The Grapes of Wrath describing the turtle crossing thewas
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
a part of that nature writing anthology. It was interesting if onlylook
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
for it. Insofar as I found it interesting it was because it was ayou
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
find that part of the novel to be art and if you did what about ithave
made it art? Bearing in mind that I have not read the rest of the
book, but do
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
fiction.Although you and I may not appreciate poetry, very many intelligentfamilies during the Depression.
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
Miriamleast.
-----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
On 1/1/2016 11:02 PM, Miriam Vieni wrote:novels.
Many people would disagree with you about writing not being art.surely is.
Probably most of the books that I read aren't art, but great
literature
And don't discount the information about real life that appears in
I've read pieces of fiction and pieces of non fiction that told mearguments. They just envision what he says.
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
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
forbidden.And also don't confuse writing with art. Writing actuallyfrom your novels.
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
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
think that is true.mentioned?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
TV.They were advertised as folk song concerts but that's not exactlyrelationships between men and women could never be shown in films
what they were. They were socialist or communist talking points
interspersed with songs. And then there was the rule that
interracial
or on
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
people.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
persuaded of.Rather than get involved in explaining that in greater detail justimplications of that simplistic way of putting it.
try to think of the
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
identified with.tomusic.That is, one is reinforced. Think of medieval European art. It isit compel one to take action as it would if it was agitation.
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
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
patterns.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
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
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
noise.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
representational.books.unusual.does not detect the patterns immediately. The patterns are tooIf 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
complex to be picked out immediately when hearing something that
to them is
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
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
sensibilities.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
judgements.for making a bit of money.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
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
Creative Talent.mind.Most of what I put out on this list is straight off the top of
my
likewise.I don't often research my opinions, nor do I expect you all to
do
is encouraged.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
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
wrote: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>
impudence. .him.society.December.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
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
exhaustive reply.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
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
academy.rebellion.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
life and death.impressionism, cubism, futurism. .Through these stages passed classicism, romanticism,
realism, naturalism, symbolism,
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
oppressed masses live their own life.The
surprising here!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
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
"brilliant""realism"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
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
revolution. .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
orders, but by its very essence, cannot tolerate them.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