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 © 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
