I never did any of that. And, I repeat, since it seems that nothing I or anyone
here can say seems to mean much, I suggest for one last time that you read
other sources.
On Jan 7, 2016, at 12:21 AM, Carl Jarvis <carjar82@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 1/6/16, Roger Loran Bailey <dmarc-noreply@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
I didn't mean that anyone in this particular discussion used the wordRemember the judge who said, "I can't describe pornography, but I know
spiritual in reference to art. In many situations they do though.
Anyway, if you think I know nothing about art then explain it to me. Let
me request, though, that you not explain it in terms of your own
subjective emotional reactions. That would only express how you,
personally feel about it. Even though the word spiritual has not been
used in reference to art in this particular thread let me request that
you avoid it anyway and that includes references to other vague concepts
like feeling it in your heart, feeling transcendent or floating on a
higher plain or whatever the latest fashionable phrases used to obscure
are. Remember that a subjective experience is just that, something that
you and only you feel. Explain it in a way that anyone can understand.
If you cannot then I will strongly suspect that there is not really
anything to explain.
On 1/6/2016 7:32 AM, Alice Dampman Humel wrote:
I assure you, it is fairly clear that you do not understand art on any
level. I draw this conclusion from almost everything you have written
about it. No one in the course of this long and interesting discussion
has used the word spiritual, as far as I remember. Other contributors
to this discussion have been very clear about what they are saying,
but it is not clear to you, because you do not understand the basic
nature of art, nor do you understand what they are saying. Unlike your
example of someone claiming to be “spiritual,” your lack of
understanding is not necessarily the fault of the writer/speaker. And,
it seems to me that your mind is made up about what art is or is not,
and nothing anyone says is going to make an impression on you. Since
you seem to refute almost everything anyone here has said, I suggested
you read other sources about art, and basically, if I read your
response, you are saying you already know and understand all there is
to know and understand, so you won’t listen to the so-called
“experts” either. You’re sitting on your point of view and refuting
the contributions of others, some of whom are indeed artists of one
sort or another themselves and have a very visceral and real-world and
much better idea of what creativity or art or imagination or all those
other things you seem to dismiss than do you. So where do we go from
here?
On Jan 5, 2016, at 11:09 PM, Roger Loran Bailey (Redacted sender
"rogerbailey81" for DMARC) <dmarc-noreply@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
<mailto:dmarc-noreply@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
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> 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> 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>
[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 whatto
they had
go through, for what was happening to them. For me, one of thethey
most
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. Ithere
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
are a lot of wonderful books that are art because of howbook,
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
it's worthless. I've learned that there are limitations to myPoetry
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.
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 rememberfrom
correctly
so many years ago, it should be right up your alley. By theand
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>
[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,is
though,
it
terrible. As I understand poetry it is virtually required forgood
it to be
poetry for it to be filled with symbolism and then it isthe
supposed to be
better poetry if the symbolism is represented by more symbolism
and that
more layers of symbolism the better the poetry is. This soundsto
like a
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 inin
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
it and my interpretation would be as good as that of anyone whowith
carefully
read it. But if the author has anything to actually say then he
or she
is
defeating him or herself. If you hide what you have to say
behind a lot
of
symbolism then you have not communicated. I remember being in
an English
class once and we were studying a unit on poetry and I was
expressing
some
of these same views.
I was saying that if you have something to say then what is the
problem
just coming out and saying it instead of engaging in deliberatethis
obscurantism. The teacher decided to try a bit of comparing to
show some
advantage to poetry. She read a line of poetry. I forget now
how it was
worded, but she then translated it into straight prose saying
how would
sound. The translation was, the ship came over the horizon. Mywas,
response
it wasn't worth saying in the first place. I really was notbe
intending to
funny, but the classroom burst into laughter.of
Anyway, if some people enjoy poetry for the patterns like they do
a
painting, a sculpture or a piece of music then that is okay.
Those forms
art don't do a lot of communicating either. And, in fact, inI
certain
forms
can enjoy poetry too. A song is a poem accompanied by music and,in
in
fact,
a song the human voice can be regarded as another instrumentto
contributing
the patterns that make music art. There are certainly songsIn
that I like.
that sense I enjoy poetry. But I have still noticed that whenread
you strip
a
song of its music and just read the words straight forward as
you would
a poem songs are simplistic nonsense.a
They really do not convey much meaning. So, insofar as anyone
claims
that
poem is communicating some profound message I think they arebut
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
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 isthat
famous enough
I have an idea of what it is about and I think it might beI
something
that
might like to read, but I have just never gotten around to it.a
I did
read
fairly long excerpt though. I was reading an anthology ofand
nature writing
the scene from The Grapes of Wrath describing the turtlewas
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
a part of that nature writing anthology. It was interesting iflook
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
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 abouthave
it made
it
art? Bearing in mind that I have not read the rest of the book,
but do
an idea of what it is about, what made the book as a whole art?to
On 1/2/2016 9:55 AM, Miriam Vieni wrote:
I think that this is, you should excuse the expression, yourfamilies during the Depression.
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
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 thatarguments. They just envision what he says.
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
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 notrelationships between men and women could never be shown in
exactly
what they were. They were socialist or communist talking points
interspersed with songs. And then there was the rule that
interracial
films or
on
music.Art is used to support conceptions of public decency andimplications of that simplistic way of putting it.
acceptable
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 eitherit compel one to take action as it would if it was agitation.
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
On 1/1/2016 2:49 PM, Carl Jarvis wrote:
Very interesting, Roger.
All I can say is that I am so very glad that I was born
long, long
before Heavy Metal.
Actually, my brother-in-law, who just turned 65, immerses
himself
in Heavy Metal. I never criticize others choices in music,
but
I'll get down with Benny Goodman or Ella Fitzgerald. Cathy
leans
toward the pop music of the 60's and 70's, and leaves the
room if I
stay with the 40's too long. As you said, it's what we
grew up on.
There is no, "Better" nor is there, "Worse". In music
appreciation
it is that which is pleasing to the ear of the listener.
Carl Jarvis
On 1/1/16, Roger Loran Bailey <dmarc-noreply@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
Art is pattern. This includes visual and audio art, also
known as
patterns.I suppose it might also apply to the other three senses,
but it is
harder to create something in a pattern for touch, taste and
smell, even though some chefs do consider themselves to be
artists. In visual art a pattern of colors, lines or
whatever is
created that the structure of our brains happen to find
pleasing.
In the case of music it is a pattern of sound. These
patterns can
be highly variable to the point of near infinitude, so
there are
also patterns of
The patterns of patterns that are found to be pleasurable
vary
from culture to culture and may vary from subculture to
subculture
and from individual to individual. I have personally
observed that
the favored patterns of patterns seem to be imprinted on
people
when they are in the age range of about fourteen to
eighteen. That
is, once one is exposed to a certain genre of music or
school of
visual art while in that age range it becomes what one
favors for
life. In my case, for example, I became interested in
heavy metal
rock at that age. I think it had something to do with both
what I
was being exposed to and the subcultures with which I was
identifying at the time. For years now I have paid very
little
attention to music at all, but if I do hear various samples
of
music in my daily life I perk up and notice and like it if
I happen
hear some heavy metal.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
it when I see it."
I'm sure the judge believed that he could spot pornography. Why, back
in my grandma Jarvis' day, a lady showing her ankle was being lewd.
By the social standards of those days in the late 1800's, the judges
of the day might well believe that a woman holding a drink, or a
cigarette, and giving the camera a beguiling look, was pornographic.
That same promiscuous young woman in today's world might be running
down the beach in a string bikini, and the judge might find it
attractive. And so it is, I believe, that it is thus with art. I am
a product of generations of Working Class People, shaped by the values
and customs handed down through the years. Art, in my mind, is
anything that expands or challenges me. New experiences, stepping out
of the box to examine something different. This is true, for me, in
paintings, photographs, sculptures, doodlings, carvings, music,
poetry, and literature.
Great Expectations and Huckleberry Finn are examples of great art. On
the other hand, Homer never did much for me. My experiences were
increased by the insightful writings of Dickens and Twain. Once, in a
Seattle museum, I saw a painting of a young nobelman. Painted back
around 1800, I looked past his finery, to see in his face the contempt
for whatever he was looking at. I gained a deeper understanding of
how wide a gap exists between "my people", and the rich.
Carl Jarvis
