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.does not detect the patterns immediately. The patterns are too complex to be
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
is encouraged.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
December.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
exhaustive reply.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
impressionism, cubism, futurism. .rebellion.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,
oppressed masses live 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
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
"realism"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
orders, but by its very essence, cannot tolerate them.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
