I think I already understand the nature of art on an intellectual level.
It is that vague, emotional, spiritual nonsense that I really don't have
much time for. I hear too much of that anyway. Sometimes I am accused of
redirecting conversations into semantics. I really don't want to do
that. Semantics is an interesting topic in itself, but if the
conversation is about something else and something has come up that is
unclear it is necessary to digress into semantics to clarify and if the
person I am conversing with refuses to clarify then it detracts from the
main conversation. Well, I have learned that someone who is going to say
nothing but vague prattle gives signals and I can stop paying attention.
For example, if someone starts right out claiming to be spiritual it is
a pretty good bet that almost everything else they have to say is not
going to make sense and I can just stop paying attention. I really don't
want to do that though. If someone is speaking to me I want to
understand what they are saying. But when I start asking questions that
should elicit some clarity they persist in being vague and no amount of
semantic questioning can make them clarify. They insist on resisting
clarity. So if I avoid the semantics I don't have much choice but to
just ignore them. Another signal that they are not going to make sense
is that they talk about art. Just talking about art, per se, does not do
it, but when they start claiming that their subjective emotional state
is the only way to approach art and especially when they start using the
word spiritual to describe art then it is a lost cause to even try to
communicate with them. There is no communication no matter how hard I try.
On 1/5/2016 12:17 PM, Alice Dampman Humel wrote:
Roger,
If you wish to address your misconceptions and lack of understanding of art in any or all of its forms, literature, music, painting, sculpture, the different styles of all of those things, I suggest that you read some art history, some art criticism. Read the recent obit of Ellsworth Kelley, read about some of the people generally accepted as “great artists.” Read some of their works. Listen to some of their music.
I do not mean this in any way as insulting or critical, or superior but as I see it, your remarks demonstrate a woeful ignorance (in the true sense of that word, that is, not knowing) of artistic expression, sensibilities, work, existence, life, thought.
It may be that no amount of exposure or education will ever make an art lover of you
But you might understand the nature of art a little better on an intellectual level.
On Jan 4, 2016, at 8:58 PM, Roger Loran Bailey (Redacted sender "rogerbailey81" for DMARC) <dmarc-noreply@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:dmarc-noreply@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
Basically, you are saying that if it causes a subjective emotional reaction for you then it is art. The trouble with that is, again, vagueness. Others may not have the same subjective emotional reaction nor any emotional reaction at all to what you do and if everyone accepted that view of art then one person will say this is art and another person will deny it and no one will agree on what it is that they are calling art. In fact, it is apparent that a lot of that goes on anyway and it goes on for the very reason that people mistake their subjective emotions for reality. If the concept of art is to be discussed among people at all then some kind of objective limitations on what art is has to be made. In another post I mentioned that sculpture that sits in front of the library in Charleston. I can honestly say that it causes no emotional reaction in me at all. I do recognize it as art, though, and I do not recognize it as such to appease emotional reactions in other people. For all I know there might be no other people who have an emotional reaction to it either. I recognize it as art because a person has taken a big hunk of rock and carved it into a patterned big piece of rock. I could look at it and instantly see that it is art without feeling any emotion at all. That is an objective reaction. I can also make reference to it as a piece of art to other people and they will know what I mean and they will call it art and I will know what they mean. Subjectivity is an objective condition itself and so it has to be recognized as a real phenomenon, but to define the rest of objective reality within the context of our own subjectivity interferes with communication.
On 1/4/2016 10:57 AM, Carl Jarvis wrote:
For me, Art is that which transcends the world around it. I might
look at a thousand lovely paintings of farms, forests, mountains, and
find them pleasing. But once in a rare moment some painting reaches
into my Soul and opens an entirely new world for my consideration.
Weegee, Arthur Fellig, presented many photographs that were, to me,
true art. True art because the images in those black and white photos
opened a world, and brought up feelings that I never knew existed
within me.
At the museum at the University of Washington, there existed a large
display of Native Pacific Northwest artifacts. As my friends passed
through with quick glances, I asked if I could "look" at an old dugout
canoe. After a quick consultation the person in charge decided that
it would be okay for a blind man to touch, ever so carefully, the
canoe.
A simple ancient log, hollowed out by fire and stone chisel, this
canoe moved my Soul. For a moment, as my hands felt along the length,
I could sense the presence of those long dead people who built and
used this craft. That, in my mind, was art.
The writings of Charles Dickens move me. I place them in the category
of Art. But many of the more popular authors, some of whom have been
mentioned here, do nothing for me. In fact, many of them are dull,
mechanical, contrived tales. But that is me. Perhaps someone else is
moved into a new awareness by reading a novel by Danielle Steele? But
for me, if it does not come pouring out of the heart of the author, it
usually falls into the category of Pulp.
So as I said, Art is very personal. I wake in the middle of the night
and lay listening to the soft breathing of Cathy, my wife, my love,
and I glow with the sense of how amazing life can be, bringing two
Souls together into one glorious Being. If I were able to put all of
that feeling into a painting or a novel or a sculpture, that would be
Art.
Carl Jarvis
On 1/3/16, Alice Dampman Humel <alicedh@xxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:alicedh@xxxxxxxxxxx>> wrote:Huge numbers of people love the books of Danielle Steele, Harlequin
Romances, Tom Clancy and other assorted writers. That does not make those
books works of great literature or art.
Things that are created with other purposes, usually rather nefarious ones,
don’t often qualify as artistic expression. Be it to make money, sell
cereal, lull the masses into a stupor, such as the TV landscape of stupid,
mindless sit-coms, won’t often be mistaken for great art. Although some
advertising images come quite close…it’s rare.
Even ugliness can be art, things that stir powerful or negative or sad or
shocked or horrified response can also be art. I think one of the absolutely
essential components of art is that it reach into the deeper places of our
intellect, emotion, aesthetic sense, beauty or ugliness, that it open other
avenues of our being, not always positive or happy ones, that it open worlds
for us.
There is a certain consensus about what is, what is not art. But these are
details and geography. A crucifix suspended in a vat of urine? It’s
repugnant, disgusting, repellent, startling, disturbing, whether one is
Catholic or not. Is it art? Yes, I think it is. Would I like to have it in
my living room? No.
And the idea that if we like it, it’s art is nonsense.
Want to hear a dirty little secret? If I never see another Shakespeare play,
that will be fine with me. I can’t stomach them. None of them. Are they
great art? Yes, they are. Will I read them? Yes. But I don’t ever plan to go
to another theater production, and I’ve seen the best (and the worst, I
might add.) Branagh’s Henry V is a notable exception…that was great.
Understanding, appreciating, recognizing, defining art, insofar as that is
possible, demands a certain set of sensibilities. Not everyone has them, not
everyone even wants to have them. That in and of itself does not make
anybody better or worse than anybody else. But I must opine that when those
who neither have nor want to have the requisite sensibilities then go about
denigrating art, dismissing it as superfluous, unnecessary, what have you,
that is a grave error and does an enormous disservice to humankind and to
the denigrator him/herself.
On Jan 3, 2016, at 9:58 AM, Miriam Vieni <miriamvieni@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:miriamvieni@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
Perhaps it isn't helpful to attempt to use precise definitions of art.
Words
can sometimes be barriers to communication, rather than facilitating it.
Certainly, the liking or disliking of books appears to be very
subjective.
But if a huge number of people like a book, than I suppose it's a good
book.
Of course, huge numbers of people like books that I don't like. I like
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 more complicated than that. And its value is in the eye of the
beholder.
Miriam
-----Original Message-----
From: blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto: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 <mailto: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 the word art as applied to prose fiction has no real
meaning.
But I have noticed that what they call art does have something in common.
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 so we
never did get to the best, but instead had to trudge through the boring
ones.
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 they hadto
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't tellthere
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 ability toPoetry
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 isI
funny.
have never, however, chosen of my own volition, to read a book offind
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
it and read it. It is not flowery or symbolic. If I remember correctlyfrom
so many years ago, it should be right up your alley. By the way, didand
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>
[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 <mailto: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, though,is
it
terrible. As I understand poetry it is virtually required for it to begood
poetry for it to be filled with symbolism and then it is supposed to bethe
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 the pastin
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. My responsewas,
it wasn't worth saying in the first place. I really was not intending tobe
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 you stripread
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 anI
example.
will have to admit that I have never read that one. It is famous enoughthat
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 nature writingand
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 it madehave
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?to
On 1/2/2016 9:55 AM, Miriam Vieni wrote:
I think that this is, you should excuse the expression, your blindfamilies during the Depression.
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
Miriamleast.
-----Original Message-----
From: blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto: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 <mailto: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
Miriamfrom your novels.
-----Original Message-----
From: blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto: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 <mailto: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
On 1/1/2016 4:14 PM, Miriam Vieni wrote:mentioned?
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
TV.They were advertised as folk song concerts but that's not exactlyrelationships between men and women could never be shown in films or
what they were. They were socialist or communist talking points
interspersed with songs. And then there was the rule that
interracial
on
music.Art is used to support conceptions of public decency and acceptableimplications of that simplistic way of putting it.
behavior.
Miriam
-----Original Message-----
From: blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto: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 <mailto: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
With that in mind, though, art is not really either agitation norit compel one to take action as it would if it was agitation.
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
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 <mailto: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.books.
unusual.does not detect the patterns immediately. The patterns are tooI 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
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
mind.for making a bit of money.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
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>
[mailto:blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Carl
Jarvis
Sent: Friday, January 01, 2016 11:34 AM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto: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
wrote: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 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 <mailto: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
