Why do you assume it is the right wing who, in your opinion, has perverted the
meaning of propaganda, which, in my opinion has not been perverted, given my
understanding of language? Not politics, language.
Jews call themselves Jews all the time.
Any word can be uttered with derision, and IMO, it is those who allow everyone
from the right wing to playground brats to coerce them into abandoning
perfectly good words, as you call them, who are making the mistake.
We’ve been through this before. You stubbornly cling to your point of view, and
I stubbornly cling to mine, and others cling to theirs.
I have used this, as far as I know, most recent such event as an illustration
before.
Because of playground taunts of “retard,” we’re not allowed to use the word
“retarded” anymore. Also a perfectly good word, unencumbered with negative
connotations if left on its own. Then came “special.” That was also almost
immediately turned into a playground taunt. Then we had the ridiculous
“alternative challenged,” “differently abled,” and well, there was a third one,
but it escapes me right now. And then we got “developmentally delayed.” Well,
what do you think the derivation of the word retarded is?
So I repeat, it is the people who bend themselves into pretzels to come up with
the next temporarily acceptable label who should put an end to this bullshit
once and for all and stop giving in to this crap.
And I’m sure no one has to tell you that in the mouth of the likes of Rush
Limbaugh, any word whatsoever he uses to refer to blacks, browns, people of
color, will be uttered with contempt.
When the Nazis talked about propaganda, they most assuredly were referring to
the junk that incited xenophobia, murderous anti-Semitism, imprisonment of
dissidents, Communists, retarded, oops, I mean developmentally delayed children
and adults, etc. That was the purpose of everything from films like Jud Suss,
the distorted and hideous caricatures of Jews, the blond, blue eyed maidens
and boys, the German hausfrau surrounded by her many children produced for the
Reich, etc. Those things were produced for one purpose and one purpose only: to
incite hatred and stimulate a willingness to persecute those depicted groups.
And it was not art. Real art was called, hmmm, what is the common English
word, degenerate? and banned, destroyed (think of the bonfires of books).
And the Communists knew it was propaganda used to move people’s minds in
whatever they considered the right direction. Those giant portraits of Mao were
not there for aesthetic purposes, nor were the happy workers swinging their
sledge hammers with beautifully muscled arms. And they’re not art either. On
Jan 4, 2016, at 8:36 PM, Roger Loran Bailey (Redacted sender "rogerbailey81"
for DMARC) <dmarc-noreply@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
If certain groups of people freely and openly use a word in reference to
themselves and there are other groups of people who are opposed to those
groups of people then the groups in opposition will frequently use the word
in question to disparage the group who use the word in reference to
themselves. That was done to the word propaganda because communists freely
and openly call their own propaganda propaganda. I think it was done more so
during World War II because the Nazis used the word propaganda the same way.
Didn't they even have a ministry of propaganda? It was used not just to
denigrate Nazis - and that was one group that certainly deserved denigration
- but it was used to denigrate in order to promote xenophobia in the same
way. Listen to Rush Limbaugh and you will hear a lot of words being used to
denigrate even though the words have always been neutral or even words of
praise. It is a favorite tactic of right-wingers. That is why we have to keep
changing the names of racial groups. The polite word negro, for example, has
become a term of derision because the right-wingers have used it as a term of
derision for so long. It has gotten to the point that it is considered more
polite to call someone Jewish because the word Jew has been used so long by
right-wingers to derogate. The trouble with capitulating to the right-wingers
by just blithely going along with their perversions of the language is that
it has exactly the effect that they want it to have. When one just goes along
with them it aids them in promoting their xenophobic hatred and furthers
their cause. I will say that by now I am willing to not call people Negros
because they have thoroughly accomplished their purpose with that word and if
I were to use it no one would realize that I am defying the right rather than
being derogatory myself. In my own political movement I can see that there
has been some amount of capitulation to what they have done to the language
too. For public consumption we most frequently speak of the phrase getting
out our ideas rather than say that we are distributing our propaganda. The
trouble with that, though, is that the word propaganda has been imbedded in
our literature. We have been calling our propaganda by the perfectly good
word propaganda in print for so long that it is really hard to get out our
ideas in the form of our historical documents without getting out the idea of
propaganda. I utterly resent that. Language does change over time and my own
speech does reflect some of the changes. I have been known to call something
cool to express approval and without any intention to comment on its
temperature. I am aware of that meaning of the word cool coming out of jazz
culture in the 1920s and I am aware of how it evolved into an expression of
approval, but I do not resent it. I do not resent it because that meaning of
the word cool had nothing to do with promoting a right-wing ideology. I don't
especially like the fact that the word cool has multiple meanings because,
like I said, the more meanings a word has the vaguer it becomes until it
takes on so many meanings that it becomes meaningless, but at least the word
cool has not taken on that many meanings and the meaning that is intended for
it can be pretty easily determined from context. But I do resent it when
perfectly good words are perverted on purpose to further right-wing ideology.
I am also aghast when people who think they are opposed to right-wing
ideology just blithely go along with right-wing perversions of the language
and thereby aid the right in promoting their ideology. That is one reason I
completely reject the connotations that they have imbued the word propaganda
with. It is a perfectly good word.
On 1/4/2016 10:24 AM, Miriam Vieni wrote:
No, but I can remember unflattering pictures of Japanese people during World
War 2 that were meant to encourage anti Japanese feeling. And I know the
definition of propaganda that you hold to be the correct and only
definition. But not everyone agrees with that precise definition even though
you believe that it is the only one and the correct one. The word,
"propaganda" is generally used to mean words or pictures that try to push a
point of view, one that the speaker who is describing it, disagrees with.
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 10:33 PM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: 'Art is incompatible with lies, hypocrisy and
conformity'
That painting would be a reinforcement for already held anti-war sentiments.
Can you really imagine a person who is not against war looking at a painting
and having a change of mind because of that painting?
On 1/3/2016 4:35 PM, Miriam Vieni wrote:
So if it's a painting that elicits anti war feelings on the part ofwrote:
the viewer, and the painter painted it for that specific purpose?
Miriam
________________________________
From: blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Alice
Dampman Humel
Sent: Sunday, January 03, 2016 3:12 PM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: 'Art is incompatible with lies,
hypocrisy and conformity'
putting content into art or anything else, for that matter, is not
automatically or necessarily propaganda.
Propaganda has one purpose and one purpose only: to incite, dare I say
coerce?, the reader, viewer, listener, observer, to man the
barricades for or against whatever cause is being propagandized.
Propaganda is, by its nature, purposeful and targeted manipulation of
the mind, belief, action, conviction of the audience, recipient, consumer.
It may be true, it may be bold-faced lie or something in-between. But
it is couched in such a way as to make the statements appear irrefutable.
And it is rarely, if ever, art. .
On Jan 3, 2016, at 10:02 AM, Miriam Vieni <miriamvieni@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
of
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
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
