It isn't the letters per se which convey symbolism, though they clearly are
symbols. It is what the symbols convey that is the issue here. In other words
(pun intended here) the organization of these symbols to convey meaning, etc.
is the issue imo. And thus both you and Rodger are correct in varying degrees
here.
Where art comes in to the picture here, again in my mind, and related to
literary art is not just the use of words here, but again in the universal
truths, emotions, meaning, etc. that they convey.
And yes it is complicated.
And, yes definitions are also often quite subjective.
Unlike most on this list I am deeply moved and touched, as well as gaining
insights in the the human psycology through the plays of Shakespeare. (This
doesn't make me superior by the way to anyone.)
I am continually moved and touched by:
-Hamlet
-Merchant of Venice
-Richard II and III
-Lear
-The Henry plays
-Romeo and Juliet
-Othello
I'm not a big fan though of Macbeth or The Tempest though I can see their
literary value.
----- Original Message -----
From: Alice Dampman Humel
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Wednesday, January 06, 2016 7:48 AM
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: 'Art is incompatible with lies, hypocrisy and
conformity'
symbolism and symbol, in the sense that you are using it in the example of
letters being symbols, are not the same or equivalent thing
On Jan 5, 2016, at 10:39 PM, Roger Loran Bailey (Redacted sender
"rogerbailey81" for DMARC) <dmarc-noreply@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Symbolism does have value. As I type I am making symbols in the form of
letters that combined to form words and that communicate. Other symbols have
less value though. When a symbol has meaning only to the creator of the symbol
and then that person leaves it to others to figure out what it is a symbol of
and if after great struggle someone does figure it out and the solution is
something that is very minor and could have been said much easier by just
saying it then I don't think that kind of symbol has much value.
On 1/5/2016 6:44 AM, joe harcz Comcast wrote:
Don't forget the value of symbolism Roger and all. It is one thing that
has always separated man from other species on this planet for good or ill.
----- Original Message ----- From: "Roger Loran Bailey (Redacted sender
"rogerbailey81" for DMARC)" <dmarc-noreply@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Monday, January 04, 2016 8:58 PM
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: 'Art is incompatible with lies, hypocrisy
and conformity'
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> 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> 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] On Behalf Of Roger ;
Loran
Bailey (Redacted sender "rogerbailey81" for DMARC)
Sent: Saturday, January 02, 2016 9:41 PM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: 'Art is incompatible with lies,
hypocrisy
and
conformity'
The grapes of wrath does sound like a book that I would be
interested in
and
I have already known that for a long time. There is only so much
time in
a
person's life, though, and I have just never gotten around to it.
Your
description of why you consider it art, however, does not sound
like
something that has anything to do with art. What it comes down to
is that
you liked it. If I judged things to be art on that basis then the
cup of
camomile tea I had a couple of hours ago was art. When it comes to
applying
the word art to prose fiction I don't really have a precise
criterion for
counting it as art. I just accept the opinions of these literary
professor
types who call it art. If a lot of them call it art then, okay,
it is art
even though it does not fit with what art is in other cases. It
does
occur
to me that they are calling it art only on the basis that they
like it
too
in which case 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,
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
