Alternate Aesthetics
Roger Lustig
>A thought I've been playing with: In thinking of the Soviet system of art
>and the constraints of composing within it, I began to think of it more as
>a challenge.
That it was. Keeping on the good side of the whims of tyrants
always is a challenge.
>How can we say that an aesthetic imposed by a government
>body is any less valid than one imposed by the essentially arbitrary and
>inconsistent nature of personal taste?
Because personal taste is the stuff of art to begin with. We *have*
art because we have taste.
Also, taste never threatens people with permanent unemployment or
jail or death.
>The Soviet system frequently is
>reviled as being antithetical to true art, but varying aesthetics are
>always being imposed on artists.
Generally by themselves, though. Artists in a free society have
a choice of esthetics, and may invent their own.
>Why, besides a certain political bias,
>is the Soviet system any worse an imposition on an artist than, say,
>Dadaism or Romanticism.
Because it's an imposition. Who imposed Dadaism on anyone but them-
selves? Were *all* artists Dadaists at any time? Were even one
percent of artists Dadaists at any one time?
As for Romanticism, consider that it's meant a great many things to
different artists. Who, pray tell, determined what a Romantic artist
should or should not do?
This is an especially distressing argument, considering that Romanticism
began as a *rejection* of community-based esthetics in favor of
personal approaches and tastes.
>Indeed, in applying this political bias are we
>not subscribing to the same politicization of the process that the
>Politburo did?
No.
>I am curious in what directions the Socialist Realist
>school of visual art would have gone
Are you implying that there *was* such a school, and that it had some
set of principles that evolved through the work of artists?
>and am also curious what Soviet
>composers will come to light and in what directions they would have gone
>if the Soviet system was not terminated so quickly.
"so quickly"? Politburo art had a sixty-year run; its main effect
was to obscure the composers who *refused* to knuckle under to the
rules of the moment. Roslavets is an example of a composer who
has only recently come to light; in the 1980's, the SU still
considered it "provocation" for Westerners to ask to do research
on this early Soviet musical visionary. Only now is his music
slowly being unearthed; this is because the Soviet government
banished him in the 1930's for failing to write the "right"
kind of music. (He was a committed Communist, incidentally.)
>Have we really had
>the opportunity to hear much composition from that period or have our own
>political considerations precluded that?
Yes, we have. There have been thousands of recordings from the SU;
thousands of tours by Soviet orchestras and ballets and operas and
quartets and the like; thousands of musical visitors and historians
in the SU, from all manner of countries and musical communities
and interests.
>There's plenty of Prokofiev out
>there, but composers like Lyatoshinsky are just beginning to come to
>light.
That's pathetic. Is there no Gliere, no Shostakovich, Kabalevsky,
Khachaturian, Schchedrin, Schnittke, Gubaidulina, Miaskovsky?
What nation has made a bigger dent in the concert repertory in this
century, pray tell?
>In a tradition as rich as the Russian one, I find it difficult to
>believe that there was not good work being done.
Do you consider those composers to be other than "good work"?
If not, ask yourself whether the "good work" was perhaps not
officially suppressed, or the "good work" that those composers
might have done, simply not composed out of fear?
Consider, also, that the SU was always looking for hard currency,
and never hesitated to export its cultural products. Note that
music was often in the forefront of those products, because it
was easier to make music that did not have an overt political
message (as opposed to, say, a representational painting or novel).
Consider the great Russian writers of this century: Pasternak,
Solzhenitsyn, Medvedev, etc. What of *their* reaction to
strictures?
Consider, finally, Tikhon Khrennikov, the consummate party (and
compositional) hack. He was the president of the Soviet Composers'
Union from its inception in 1948 to the collapse of the SU--the
*only* Stalin appointee never to leave office. Interviewed a
few years before the end of the SU, he defended himself by
pointing out that, on his watch, not a single composer had been
executed.
What an accomplishment. What a complete admission that the
artistic strictures *were* of a completely different nature
there. What a tragedy.
Mr A Swindells
>
> [SNIP] How can we say that an aesthetic imposed by a government
> body is any less valid than one imposed by the essentially arbitrary and
> inconsistent nature of personal taste? The Soviet system frequently is
> reviled as being antithetical to true art, but varying aesthetics are
> always being imposed on artists. Why, besides a certain political bias,
> is the Soviet system any worse an imposition on an artist than, say,
> Dadaism or Romanticism. [SNIP]
Because, if I choose to belong to a Dadaist or Romantic *school* (for want
of a better word) it is because *I* choose to. The choice may be seen by
colleagues as totally misguided but it is *my* choice.
In the Soviet system you conformed, or else. Stalin's apparatchiks decided
what and how you would write. Only the biggest non-conformists survived,
either because of their high existing public profile or because of fancy
footwork (take Shostokovich as an example of both). The smaller names (such
as Lyatochinsky) either conformed, died in the camps or lived out their
lives without money and without performance.
In most societies the only real artistic pressures on an composer are
imposed by their peers or by commercialism. Both these can force conformity
on an artist, true, but it is still their own choice - the alternative might
be a life of poverty or of derision, but it is not the Gulag.
Regards: Alan
--
* 'Curiouser * *
* and * alan...@argonet.co.uk *
* Curiouser' * *
Sean
>A thought I've been playing with: In thinking of the Soviet system of art
>and the constraints of composing within it, I began to think of it more as
>body is any less valid than one imposed by the essentially arbitrary and
>inconsistent nature of personal taste? The Soviet system frequently is
>reviled as being antithetical to true art, but varying aesthetics are
>always being imposed on artists. Why, besides a certain political bias,
>is the Soviet system any worse an imposition on an artist than, say,
>not subscribing to the same politicization of the process that the
>school of visual art would have gone and am also curious what Soviet
>composers will come to light and in what directions they would have gone
>the opportunity to hear much composition from that period or have our own
>there, but composers like Lyatoshinsky are just beginning to come to
>believe that there was not good work being done.
This is Great! I wrote something along these lines a little
while ago (although not very specific)
This is another example of the fact that creativity and progression
florish under an authority.
That puts alot of pressure on that authority, however, because
a bad or out of spirit idea can stiffle the art.
Sean V. Baker
Pultroon
>se...@cinemagraphics.mv.com> kindly offered:
>>pult...@aol.com (Pultroon) wrote:
>>[THESIS SNIPPED]
>This is Great! I wrote something along these lines a little
>while ago (although not very specific)
>This is another example of the fact that creativity and progression
>florish under an authority.
>That puts alot of pressure on that authority, however, because
>a bad or out of spirit idea can stiffle the art.
I'm sorry for being unclear, but that wasn't the point I was attempting to
make. I wasn't supporting an authoritarian model so much as I was
questioning all aesthetic standards, including free will, as being to a
very large degree imposed.
My focus was on the perceiver and the process of filtration that he goes
through, rather than on the creator.
Andy-who misspoke
Roger Lustig
>Mr A Swindells <alan...@argonet.co.uk> writes:
> >Precisely, Roger. That is my point. If art means anything at all it means
> >the expression of the views of the artist. If these views are imposed
> >from the outside, without the possiblilty of choice, then I do not see
> >how the end result can be called art.
>The symphonies--or perhaps an even better example, baryton trios--
>written by Haydn in Esterhazy: isn't that art? The Musikalisches Opfer
>by Bach? Or Schostakovich's works. There is always creative input.
There is more or less input. What do we say about those baryton
trios? Not much in esthetic terms! Likewise, the most excessively
Stalinized Shostakovich (e.g., _Song of the Forests_) excites very
few who listen.
> >See above: any artist worth her or his salt will take that small measure,
> >amplify it (a phrase involving 'small acorns' and 'giant oaks' springs to
> >mind) and go on to express his or her views in an individual way. In what
> >way did Khrennikov do that? Those in the Soviet Union who did that were
> >never heard (or almost never, Shostokovich was a major exception) and are
> >the ones who are only now coming to our notice.
>How long did it take for a number of European composers, working in a
>tonal idiom when it was not fashionable, to come out of undeserved
>obscurity?
Who cares? Fashion has always been with us. Most fashions, however,
are closely related to other things in society, and not imposed from
above or from without by those in power.
Composers and other artists have always known that fashion exists,
and that one may risk a great deal by not heeding it. That is
a risk that every artist takes. The Soviet system involved entirely
different risks.
>Important forces like the BBC are known to have boycotted
>composers for extramusical reasons.
Again, so what? Did they shoot any? Did they seek to have other
performing organizations boycott them too?
>It is more humane to let people live in complete obscurity than to have
>them die in Siberian prison camps, but is it so dissimilar artistically?
Yes. Emphatically so, in fact. Keep in mind that the vast majority
of us will live our lives in obscurity; that fame is capricious and
often fleeting; and that we do not define our art, or our esthetic
standards, by a composer's income or momentary popularity.
Finally, remember that those horrid non-tonal composers tended to be
pretty obscure too, and that they rarely made a lot of money from
their music. "Unfashionable" music has actually been played quite
a lot over the years...
Roger
Peter Herweijer
[a lot of fine things]
> [...] Perhaps one of the most interesting things that resulted from
>this is the tearing away of the assumption that the artist is omnipotent
>creator and it is up to the audience to make the leap to receive him. In
>the Soviet system, the audience assumes the primary role [...]
Forgive me for using this example again, but I'd like to amplify Andy's
point. The "omnipotent" artist is of course a pretty recent phenomenon.
It seems to me that eg for Haydn during the Esterhazy period, the
audience (rather smaller than the Soviet artist's) assumed a similarly
primary role. Yet we have no difficulty in accepting many of these works
as art of the highest order (I hope ;^).
- Peter
Pultroon
>Well, of course art has to have restrictions, or it would not be art
>(some will disagree). Whether the artist is aware of it or not, the art
is
>always created under the influence some defined principle, whatever that
>is. What exactly do you mean by "full freedom"? Are you refering to
>"aesthetic freedom" (an absurdity, ala Cage) or social freedom?
Within the present context, what is the difference? If social freedom is
not integrally tied to aesthetic freedom then it has no significance at
all--again, within the present context. When one focuses on the product
rather than the process both result in similarly imposed and confined art.
Additionally, what of the audience? Be it an atmosphere of social
freedom or social repression, they play a sizable role in dictating to the
artist what he should be presenting.
Andy
Roger Lustig
>>tke...@ix.netcom.com (Timothy P. Kelley) writes:
>>Well, of course art has to have restrictions, or it would not be art
>>(some will disagree). Whether the artist is aware of it or not, the art
>is
>>always created under the influence some defined principle, whatever that
>>is. What exactly do you mean by "full freedom"? Are you refering to
>>"aesthetic freedom" (an absurdity, ala Cage) or social freedom?
>Within the present context, what is the difference? If social freedom is
>not integrally tied to aesthetic freedom then it has no significance at
>all--again, within the present context. When one focuses on the product
>rather than the process both result in similarly imposed and confined art.
Who's focusing on the product here? You were the one who bemoaned
the obscurity of certain products by certain composers; and we *still*
want to hear about the process of Socialist Realism, and its existence
as an esthetic.
Now, what's "esthetic freedom"? What might that term mean?
> Additionally, what of the audience? Be it an atmosphere of social
>freedom or social repression, they play a sizable role in dictating to the
>artist what he should be presenting.
That's always true, but audiences always come in various shapes and
sizes, and often reconstitute themselves in response to works of art
and performances and the like.
Who was the dictating audience in the SU? How did this dictating occur,
and was it like previous dictating?
Roger
Roger Lustig
>ro...@silvertone.Princeton.EDU (Roger Lustig) writes:
> >There is more or less input. What do we say about those baryton
> >trios? Not much in esthetic terms!
>Probably missing out on a couple of very nice pieces...
Could you point out which ones you had in mind? I almost chose
those trios as a dissertation topic, until I realized I'd lose
my mind working on them.
> > Likewise, the most excessively
> >Stalinized Shostakovich (e.g., _Song of the Forests_) excites very
> >few who listen.
>And the fifth symphony?
What about it?
> >>How long did it take for a number of European composers, working in a
> >>tonal idiom when it was not fashionable, to come out of undeserved
> >>obscurity?
> >Who cares? Fashion has always been with us. Most fashions, however,
> >are closely related to other things in society, and not imposed from
> >above or from without by those in power.
>Are the dictates of fashion any less that---dictates?
Yes. "dictates" is a metaphor when applied to fashion, and intende
literally when applied to the edicts of Soviet commissars.
>Who cares if
>they're imposed from above, imposed by the academic establishment,
>imposed by the taste (or lack thereof) of your peers, or imposed by the
>audience?
Who cares? Everyone cares. Everyone who has to decide what to write,
how and for whom to write it, and whether to write at all, will care
deeply about those things and the differences between them.
> >Composers and other artists have always known that fashion exists,
> >and that one may risk a great deal by not heeding it. That is
> >a risk that every artist takes. The Soviet system involved entirely
> >different risks.
>Nobody disputes this; it's a big difference if your life is at stake or
>just your livelihood.
A moment ago it was "who cares?"
>But isn't it a difference in degree rather than a
>fundamental difference?
No. The difference is fundamental. Does one have a *right* to
make one's living as a creative artist?
>Do we have complete artistic freedom?
Now, *there* is a question deserving a "who cares". What might
"complete freedom" entail? Unlimited resources? A guaranteed
audience? Guaranteed approval?
If you wish to claim that, because all artistic freedom is limited
in one way or another, all those limitations are equivalent or
merely different in degree, then I don't know what to say to you.
>And if it's a difference in degree,
It's not.
>isn't the question how this system
>worked just as valid as the question how our system works?
No. For one thing, we're still waiting for evidence that there
*was* such a "system" as Socialist Realism, that the term wasn't
just a convenient label to cover up the bureaucratic control
of music.
Next, ask yourself whether we have a single "system", and how
difficult it is for an artist to work within it or even change
it, and to what degree the "system" actually controls what is
created.
> >>It is more humane to let people live in complete obscurity than to have
> >>them die in Siberian prison camps, but is it so dissimilar artistically?
> >Yes. Emphatically so, in fact. Keep in mind that the vast majority
> >of us will live our lives in obscurity; that fame is capricious and
> >often fleeting; and that we do not define our art, or our esthetic
> >standards, by a composer's income or momentary popularity.
>Good points. I probably wasn't very clear, though; what I'm interested
>in are the pressures.
So all artists work under pressure. Does that make all pressures
equivalent in kind, or "complete freedom" a reasonable yardstick?
>Does working within restrictions necessarily
>produce inferior art
Again: which restrictions? Perhaps there *are* differences in kind.
>---and conversely, does full freedom produce better art?
I'd like to know what full freedom is before I address that question.
> >Finally, remember that those horrid non-tonal composers tended to be
> >pretty obscure too, and that they rarely made a lot of money from
> >their music. "Unfashionable" music has actually been played quite
> >a lot over the years...
>
>Absolutely. Similarly, a lot of music has been composed in the Soviet
>Union that'd never have got the authority's stamp of approval. To these
>ears, a lot of the most exciting music goes against, reacts to, or deals
>with, authority/fashion/whatever.
Indeed. Now ask yourself: what was the difference between the Soviet
system and, say, a despotic feudal system several hundred years earlier?
Was the controlling "audience" not the higher-ups in the CP? Were they
not acting just like an aristocracy gone power-mad, using music for
state ends and social control, and applying their own whims and theories
with little fear of contradiction?
Just what *was* different about the Soviet "system"? Did the audience
*really* have any influence on music--aside from the few in power?
>I'm not trying to say "our" way of treating artists is just as bad/good
>as that of Stalin. Far from it. But I'd like to argue that it's not so
>easy to dismiss the original question initiating this thread.
I'm still waiting for it to be asked in any reasonable way. Grandiose
claims were made for the "audience" having controlled esthetics in
the SU; no evidence has been forthcoming, despite repeated requests.
Any attempt to present--or request--specifics has been met with whining
about how fashionable and easy it is to bash the SU.
Now, let's hear your arguments. Start out by telling us what you
mean by "artistic freedom," and how/why you view all divergence from
this standard to be equal in kind, if not degree. You've made some
pretty strong claims, often in the form of rhetorical questions.
Best,
Roger
Roger Lustig
>pult...@aol.com (Pultroon) writes:
> [a lot of fine things]
Such as?
> > [...] Perhaps one of the most interesting things that resulted from
> >this is the tearing away of the assumption that the artist is omnipotent
> >creator and it is up to the audience to make the leap to receive him. In
> >the Soviet system, the audience assumes the primary role [...]
>Forgive me for using this example again, but I'd like to amplify Andy's
>point. The "omnipotent" artist is of course a pretty recent phenomenon.
I'd like to know where that assumption obtained, and whether it was
ever valid in Russia before it supposedly got "torn away." Who
speaks of an omnipotent artist, or anything like that?
>It seems to me that eg for Haydn during the Esterhazy period, the
>audience (rather smaller than the Soviet artist's) assumed a similarly
>primary role.
In what way? Who placed restrictions on the kind of music Haydn wrote?
Did Esterhazy order him to innovate (which he did, drastically), or
to cease from innovating? The Count certainly had works composed to
order, but this was part of a contractual agreement to do just that.
Note that Haydn could leave Esterhazy's service, but chose not to;
note that there were many other jobs a musician of his caliber could
take.
Note also that the notion of the composer as "creator" of timeless
music did not yet exist in Haydn's day, and that he did not primarily
write for posterity.
Note, finally, that Haydn was hired primarily as a director of
music, composing being only one of his duties.
>Yet we have no difficulty in accepting many of these works
>as art of the highest order (I hope ;^).
How many of the works composed to order do we think of that way?
What are the qualities we associate with our favorite Haydn?
Haydn wrote for a small audience, but for one that valued novelty,
innovation, diversity, and richness.
Roger
Roger Lustig
>|> How can an artist *not* work within restrictions?
>|> =====================================
>|> Tim Kelley
>|> tke...@ix.netcom.com
>Perhaps by making another job than the artist ...
>For example Charles Ives wrote 'freely' astonishing avantgarde music (did you
>ever listen to the Robert Browning Ouverture?) around **1910**, but he got his
>money by working as a financial agent or smthg like that.
He was an insurance executive, and a very influential one. Ives & Myrick
was one of the innovators in the industry; they pioneered family
insurance policies.
>His music was discovered 50 years later ...
Actually, it was always known to some extent, and he won the Pulitzer
Prize in 1947. There were quite a few performances in his last years.
Of course, obscurity and lack of audience response and so on are
restrictions like any others--assuming we accept the premise that
all restrictions are like one another! Human frailty imposes
vast restrictions; we only have a certain amount of time and
energy to compose, our memory and mental skills have their
limits, etc., etc. Our upbringing and outlook on life are
restrictions on what we do; and on and on.
But these things are not comparable to restrictions imposed
from without by censors who do not represent the actual listening
audience--indeed, who perceive the liberty of that audience as
a threat.
Roger
Timothy P. Kelley
>
>|> How can an artist *not* work within restrictions?
>Perhaps by making another job than the artist ...
>For example Charles Ives wrote 'freely' astonishing avantgarde music (did you
>ever listen to the Robert Browning Ouverture?) around **1910**, but he got his
>money by working as a financial agent or smthg like that.
>His music was discovered 50 years later ...
Well, yes, but what I mean was that it is unavoidable for an artist to have
principles by which he creates art. Even Cage and Pollock had guiding
aesthetic principles ("my art has no rules" is in fact, a rule), and hence,
restrictions.
=====================================
Tim Kelley
tke...@ix.netcom.com
Pultroon
> pie...@sci.kun.nl (Peter Herweijer) writes:
>>pult...@aol.com (Pultroon) writes:
> [a lot of fine things]
:Such as?
> > [...] Perhaps one of the most interesting things that resulted from
> >this is the tearing away of the assumption that the artist is
omnipotent
> >creator and it is up to the audience to make the leap to receive him.
In
> >the Soviet system, the audience assumes the primary role [...]
>Forgive me for using this example again, but I'd like to amplify Andy's
>point. The "omnipotent" artist is of course a pretty recent phenomenon.
:I'd like to know where that assumption obtained, and whether it was
:ever valid in Russia before it supposedly got "torn away." Who
:speaks of an omnipotent artist, or anything like that?
I do-right above. You can check. I'm speaking of audience as strictly
receiver and artist as sole creative force. In reality, the audience is
always influencing the creation.
[[snip]]
:Haydn wrote for a small audience, but for one that valued novelty,
:innovation, diversity, and richness.
Assuming you can put a real meaning to those lovely words, it is just
another aesthetic.
Andy
Roger Lustig
>ro...@silvertone.Princeton.EDU (Roger Lustig) writes:
>>In article <4hmp5h$r...@wn1.sci.kun.nl> pie...@sci.kun.nl (Peter
>Herweijer) writes:
>>>ro...@silvertone.Princeton.EDU (Roger Lustig) writes:
>[[snip]]
>> >Who cares? Fashion has always been with us. Most fashions, however,
>> >are closely related to other things in society, and not imposed from
>> >above or from without by those in power.
>>Are the dictates of fashion any less that---dictates?
>:Yes. "dictates" is a metaphor when applied to fashion, and intende
>:literally when applied to the edicts of Soviet commissars.
>First, metaphor is an unclear choice of words.
Could you point out the unclear part? The word is used metaphorically.
Fashion does not issue edicts or pass laws or go around with a gun.
>What do you think
>"dictates" is a metaphor for?
How about "influences"? Is that literal enough for you?
>I think I understand what you're trying to
>say though, and appreciate your offering of your interpretation. Second,
>this is the issue of the whole discussion and an outrageous statement to
>make without any support.
Which statement are you referring to? That "dictate" is used meta-
phorically when referring to fashion? Where's the outrage?
No, the issue of the whole discussion is your claim about the esthetics
supposedly contained in Socialist Realism, speaking of unsupported...
>>Who cares if
>>they're imposed from above, imposed by the academic establishment,
>>imposed by the taste (or lack thereof) of your peers, or imposed by the
>>audience?
>:Who cares? Everyone cares. Everyone who has to decide what to write,
>:how and for whom to write it, and whether to write at all, will care
>:deeply about those things and the differences between them.
>The art produced is the issue, not the melodrama of the artistic process.
Really? The art is more important than the humans who produce it?
That's a pretty impressive statement to make in *this* context!
And what of the "audience-based" esthetic all of a sudden? Is it the
art or the audience?
I'm also impressed by your reduction of the forced immiseration of
artists to "melodrama."
>:No. The difference is fundamental. Does one have a *right* to
>:make one's living as a creative artist?
>"Right" is a political term. The better term is choice, and the answer is
>no. The untalented do not have a choice; nor do those who have never been
>exposed to art; nor do most people who have to go to work and make a
>living and do not have the time or energy. In short, most people do not
>have a choice, that is in any system.
More horseshit. People have plenty of choices; some more than others,
of course. But the forced *restriction* of choice--this is ever a
good thing?
>:Next, ask yourself whether we have a single "system", and how
>:difficult it is for an artist to work within it or even change
>:it, and to what degree the "system" actually controls what is
>:created.
>No, there is a unique system for every audience member, although there are
>some things that do remain remarkably consistent. These separate systems,
>though, do still control what gets produced to a very large extent. It
>begs the rather philosophical question of whether there can be art without
>audience.
a) Note that the Soviet system was the opposite of what you describe:
the audience had nothing to do with the creation of art. Only the
tiny audience in power had influence.
b) Where's the philosophy, outside of a game of definitions?
c) How does that get you any nearer to the evidence for your
original claims?
>> >>It is more humane to let people live in complete obscurity than to
>have
>> >>them die in Siberian prison camps, but is it so dissimilar
>artistically?
>> >Yes. Emphatically so, in fact. Keep in mind that the vast majority
>> >of us will live our lives in obscurity; that fame is capricious and
>> >often fleeting; and that we do not define our art, or our esthetic
>> >standards, by a composer's income or momentary popularity.
>>Good points. I probably wasn't very clear, though; what I'm interested
>>in are the pressures.
>:So all artists work under pressure. Does that make all pressures
>:equivalent in kind, or "complete freedom" a reasonable yardstick?
>Whether they are equivalent in kind is not the issue. The question is
>whether they are equivalent in effect.
No, that is *not* the issue. For all your talk of audiences, you
seem to want to remove humans from the equation altogether. Artists
are no less human than audience members! And, yes, the kind of pressure
is most certainly an issue, especially if that pressure is of the
coercive kind and being exercised by the very people who claim to
be stewards of the operative esthetic.
>:Indeed. Now ask yourself: what was the difference between the Soviet
>:system and, say, a despotic feudal system several hundred years earlier?
>:Was the controlling "audience" not the higher-ups in the CP? Were they
>:not acting just like an aristocracy gone power-mad, using music for
>:state ends and social control, and applying their own whims and theories
>:with little fear of contradiction?
>Why is this not a valid goal in an artistic sense?
Because it's not an artistic sense at all.
>It is simply the
>application of another aesthetic.
Except that it lacks one minor component: the esthetic. Still
waiting for you to show evidence that it existed.
>Also, any audience applies controls, be
>it academics, critics, commerce or the general public.
More leveling. You've tried this so-called argument before.
The *nature* of those controls is crucial. Or are you telling
me that such controls are irrelevant to the esthetics they're
related to?
>:Just what *was* different about the Soviet "system"? Did the audience
>:*really* have any influence on music--aside from the few in power?
>This does not make them any less an audience, the few in power I mean.
Well, if we've come down to that, then you've trivialized your
claims beyond any conceivable interest. They may be an audience,
but they do not interest me as an audience. Why should I (or anyone
else) care about them?
>>I'm not trying to say "our" way of treating artists is just as bad/good
>>as that of Stalin. Far from it. But I'd like to argue that it's not so
>>easy to dismiss the original question initiating this thread.
>:I'm still waiting for it to be asked in any reasonable way. Grandiose
>:claims were made for the "audience" having controlled esthetics in
>:the SU; no evidence has been forthcoming, despite repeated requests.
>:Any attempt to present--or request--specifics has been met with whining
>:about how fashionable and easy it is to bash the SU.
>I guess I'm the whiner. You lay me low. Now, let us consider that the CP
>wheels *were* the audience. It does not hurt my argument about control.
It hurts your argument about the existence of an esthetic.
>Remember, Roger, we're talking art, not politics, here.
Nice try. Especially in light of the proclaimed "esthetic" of the
SU that *began* with the political nature of all art.
Now, could you point me to some art that's *not* related to politics?
Roger
Roger Lustig
>:ro...@silvertone.princeton.edu writes:
>> pie...@sci.kun.nl (Peter Herweijer) writes:
>>>pult...@aol.com (Pultroon) writes:
>> [a lot of fine things]
>:Such as?
>> > [...] Perhaps one of the most interesting things that resulted from
>> >this is the tearing away of the assumption that the artist is
>omnipotent
>> >creator and it is up to the audience to make the leap to receive him.
>In
>> >the Soviet system, the audience assumes the primary role [...]
>>Forgive me for using this example again, but I'd like to amplify Andy's
>>point. The "omnipotent" artist is of course a pretty recent phenomenon.
>:I'd like to know where that assumption obtained, and whether it was
>:ever valid in Russia before it supposedly got "torn away." Who
>:speaks of an omnipotent artist, or anything like that?
>I do-right above. You can check.
In other words--a *really* recent phenomenon. Like, last week.
Who aside from you thinks of artists that way?
>I'm speaking of audience as strictly
>receiver and artist as sole creative force. In reality, the audience is
>always influencing the creation.
a) Not really true.
b) Who aside from you uses that "omnipotent" model? What esthetic
are you referring to?
>[[snip]]
>:Haydn wrote for a small audience, but for one that valued novelty,
>:innovation, diversity, and richness.
>Assuming you can put a real meaning to those lovely words, it is just
>another aesthetic.
a) If you don't know anything about Esterhazy and Haydn, don't snipe.
b) Yes, it's an esthetic. Was Socialist Realism an esthetic? If
so, why?
Roger
Roger Lustig
>:Roger writes:
>:Of course, obscurity and lack of audience response and so on are
>:restrictions like any others--assuming we accept the premise that
>:all restrictions are like one another!
>Nah, we don't have to do all that. Just so we acknowledge that they are
>determinants in an imposed product.
Uh, what's an "imposed product"?
>They do not even have to confine the
>art in an identical manner. The point is that they confine art in just as
>sure a manner as those big nasty Communists.
Why do you say that? What do you mean by "just as sure"? Just as
confining? Just as coercive? Just as arbitrary?
>:Human frailty imposes
>:vast restrictions; we only have a certain amount of time and
>:energy to compose, our memory and mental skills have their
>:limits, etc., etc. Our upbringing and outlook on life are
>:restrictions on what we do; and on and on.
>Exactly. That is why all art is imposed and confined and the reason that
>what the Soviets did is not so different from the process that everybody
>goes through.
Horseshit.
What the Soviets did was to impose arbitrary and vicious restrictions
ON TOP OF the ones we all face, and did so under false pretenses,
and did so in ways that made it extremely risky even to *try* to
produce art in unsanctioned ways.
>:But these things are not comparable to restrictions imposed
>:from without by censors who do not represent the actual listening
>:audience--indeed, who perceive the liberty of that audience as
>:a threat.
>Why? Present your arguments if you choose to make these statements.
Sorry, but you're the one making the extraordinary claims. You
assert that there was some "audience-based esthetic" in the SU,
and that Socialist realism actually had an esthetic component.
I've asked you any number of times to back this up with facts;
you're in no position to demand them from me.
Now, can you with a straight face claim that Soviet censorship
was *not* as I described it?
Roger
Roger Lustig
>Regardless of political orientation, the fact remains that
>the means of musical production are controlled by a tiny minority
>of music publishers, record companies and studio capitalists.
Except for the ones that aren't. Somehow, a good deal of music
gets made without those people.
>Their only concern is making money, not art.
Speaking as someone who writes for a record company, and who works
with record companies, *and* with a "studio capitalist," I can
assure you that this is a gross overgeneralization.
>Much musical
>genius goes unrecognized if it does not fit the mold of academic
>trash or pop garbage.
How did "academic" get in there? Also, is that even slightly
true? Which unrecognized geniuses are you talking about?
>There are economic restraints in capitalist countries which are
>more powerful than political restraints of communist regimes.
Horseshit. Or, more precisely, that sounds like a would-be
artist's excuse.
>Music suffers on all fronts from a lack of concern for new
>orchestral music, and from a general lack of musical literacy
>among music industry professionals.
Was the world *ever* the way it ought to be?
>Add religious and political
>prejudices to "taste" and one quickly discovers that the entire
>history of music is tantamount to a brainwashing.
And only you have escaped it! Remarkable.
If things are so bad, and all of music history is brainwashing,
why do you *care* about the music that's been produced? It
can't any of it be much good...
>Beethoven could name his price and they paid.
Occasionally. And only after he'd worked his way to that
level.
>What composer of
>orchestral music can do this today?
Why should one expect that? The orchestra is basically
an anachronism, one particular way of making music. Is
there some need for music of that type in all societies at
all times?
>He is a dinosaur in the face
>of a new breed of MIDI composers who are for the most part ruining
>the quality of films and new music in general.
Let me guess: you don't like it.
Suffice it to say that Beethoven was accused of ruining orchestral
music, that Verdi was accused of destroying bel canto, that Wagner
was "blamed" for the destruction of tonality, etc.
Oh, and in Beethoven's time, music *meant* new music. You seem
to want it both ways: there should be new music, and it should
be *old-style* new music!
>Invariably there is more grace and dignity in a film which is scored
>with a live orchestra.
Except for the zillions of lousy film scores.
>MIDI reduces music to a cheap fraud, an
>imitation of decadence.
And heaven knows, it's hard to find real decadence any more!
>Add New Age zealots and conductors who demand tapes who cannot read
>a score and one sees the downward spiral of modern orchestral music.
Could it be that the continued popularity of *old* orchestral music
has a little something to do with this crisis?
>People expect the worst when a new orchestral piece is on the program.
>So they would rather continue hearing Beethoven and Mozart.
Or is it the other way around? When Schoenberg composed his first
orchestral work, the orchestras around him were playing four works
by dead composers for every one by a living composer. Why should
composers go after ever-longer odds?
>A three minute orchestral piece should be as commonplace as a pop
>single.
Why? Did someone appoint you to make the rules?
>It should be trivialized to the point where anybody could
>do it just as easily as writing a folk song.
So you could complain about the trivialization of orchestral
music...
>Are there political causes for a complete lack of good new orchestral
>music? Absolutely.
Sure, just as there are political causes for the destruction of our
national forests by whales.
(For the irony-impaired, I'm trying to say that there *is* good
orchestral music. Our friend doesn't seem to like it or know
about it...)
>The lack of quality in new scores is the primary
>reason. A second but equally powerful second reason is the mind
>control of orchestras by their boards of directors who for the most
>part are reactionary musical illiterates.
And who have commissioned a good many excellent works. How do you
explain that?
Let me guess: they haven't commissioned any from *you*...
>Freedom of expression is important and must be preserved.
Especially for *your* expression, eh?
>The most psychotic
>of atonal music deserves to be heard.
Uh, why? What if it's no good?
>One must not be required to *pay*
>for it however. So let it be confined to the academic institutions and
>put good new music on the program of the orchestras of this world.
You kee using a four-letter word: "good." What's good about good
new music? How would I know if I encountered any?
And what about those of us who think that "psychotic atonal music"
is good?
>Let the avant garde continue to vomit up its human waste.
Indeed--much of their puke turns out to be half-decent music.
>Let pundits
>write papers on it. Let the human spirit continue to shrink as the yellow
>race prepares for war.
Anyone else you'd like to insult?
>There must be only one final reason for the lack of good new orchestra
>music: the human race does not deserve it. Let them listen to their
>pop poison, let the divorce rates climb, singe motherhood rise, and
>romance disappear. Let all traditional values of grace and beauty fade.
No, the reason is that you spend all your energy on whining, instead
of WRITING the stuff. What's your excuse?
>Let the stinking rule of mediocrity proclaim its victory over all
>great democratic regimes. Let corporations continue to restructure and
>lay off dedicated employees. Let universities and conservatories train
>egg heads skilled in the art of punditry rather than a serious pursuit
>of knowledge.
In the meantime, you can either put in eight hours of sniveling
every day, or show us that there *is* good orchestral music to
be written. Which will it be?
>The bottom line is that composers must compose whatever comes out of them
>by forces largely not under their control.
It comes out of them by forces? They *must* compose? Funny, but
Beethoven's sketchbooks--or Schoenberg's--don't look that way.
>Whatever a composer has studied
>and listened to entirely determines his output.
Could you explain Beethoven's Ninth in that light?
>Totalitarian repression must
>be resisted on all fronts.
So stop issuing your ukases, OK?
>Whether the repression is in the form of Soviet
>dictatorship or academic peer group pressure, the fact remains that today's
>serious composer is a laughingstock, an ass with big ears upon whom rides the
>mocking masses.
The masses could take mocking lessons from you, sir. Serious composers
may be laughingstocks to you, but you're far more of one--your self-
contradictory babble isn't even music.
>If you are a composer, I would urge you to throw away all your MIDI gear and pick
>up a pencil and music paper. Refuse to make tapes. If people want to evaluate
>your music, let them read your scores. Be prepared for second rate minds
>to be your judges. Keep composing with only one consideration: that it be
>playable. Forget about how it sounds. Worry only about whether a non-virtuoso
>can play it. Then you might have acutally done something constructive.
But, gee, I thought composers were entirely influenced by the music
they heard! How's this going to work?
(Also, haven't you just offered a lot of encouragement to the avant-
gardists and academics who do just the things you prescribe, and whom
you hold in such contempt?)
>The single biggest achievement of the composer is the act of composing music.
>All performances, publishings and recordings are secondary to the act of
>creation. Forget about whether it is atonal or tonal.
A moment ago this was a burning issue! (also, forgetting things like
that is quite a challenge, and too time-consuming for the serious
composer...)
>Just write. Today's
>atonality becomes tomorrow's divine harmonies. The stench of unrefined tastes
>knows no bounds. One man's elixir is another man's poison.
But YOU know what "good orchestral music" is, and know it for everyone,
eh?
>Forget patriotism. Forget gurus and false prophets.
Bye...
>Write, don't scribble.
>Learn by doing. Throw your books away. Study scores and listen to music.
>Talk to musicians and composers. Talk to singers. Quit your day jobs.
>Compose fearlessly and don't let anybody tell you how it should be done,
>lest your music become a shameful exercise in a theory book.
How about platitudes? What should we do with those?
>But most of all, don't be too influenced by the non-entities and 9 to 5ers who
>post to Usenet. Almost none of them are real composers, but rather are
>untalented dilletantes who masquerade as mathematicians, computer scientists
>and pseudo-scientists.
Uh...right. So far you've given a good impression of all those
things except perhaps a mathematician.
>A real artist is he who creates and does nothing but create. If you have
>earned the privilege of independence from universities and corporations,
>congratulations! Use your time wisely and keep creating.
Like you, I suppose?
>To all scribblers and MIDI hacks: enjoy yourselves, as I will enjoy the
>impermanence of all your feeble attempts at composing music.
What if they're writing what they want to, and don't care how
it sounds?
Roger
Roger Lustig
>>>Well, of course art has to have restrictions, or it would not be art
>>>(some will disagree). Whether the artist is aware of it or not, the art
>>is
>>>always created under the influence some defined principle, whatever that
>>>is. What exactly do you mean by "full freedom"? Are you refering to
>>>"aesthetic freedom" (an absurdity, ala Cage) or social freedom?
>>Within the present context, what is the difference? If social freedom is
>>not integrally tied to aesthetic freedom then it has no significance at
>>all--again, within the present context. When one focuses on the product
>>rather than the process both result in similarly imposed and confined
>art.
>:Who's focusing on the product here? You were the one who bemoaned
>:the obscurity of certain products by certain composers; and we *still*
>:want to hear about the process of Socialist Realism, and its existence
>:as an esthetic.
>1. The product was the original subject of the thread.
Funny title you gave it...
And, no, the product was *part* of the original subject. You made
the claims about esthetics in your very first posting.
>Specifically, the
>subject dealt with the controls that dictate what product is created and
>received.
Fine. Now: are all such controls esthetic?
>2. I never "bemoaned". I have, however, complained, had conniptions, and
>on May 4, 1982, I pitched an official hissy. Anyway, I thought you said I
>was whining.
Running out of steam, I see. Or is the above easier than looking for
the esthetic of SR?
>3. Socialist Realism was the aesthetic of the Soviet Union.
That begs the definition of "esthetic." In what way was it an
esthetic?
>It is
>interesting in that it was completely artificial and externally imposed.
And in that it claimed to be an esthetic, even though its stated
principles were overtly self-contradictory and often revised. No
other body of thought with claims to being called "esthetic" resembled
it. Where's the esthetic part?
>It sought to direct art toward the goal of glorifying the regime, and
>keeping the people productive and docile. That is the very rough version.
Which does not make it an esthetic. That makes it a manufacturing plan.
> None of these qualities preclude it from being an artistically valid
>aesthetic.
What precludes that is the lack of the things that make up an esthetic.
>:Now, what's "esthetic freedom"? What might that term mean?
>Outstanding call. That term is a sloppy mess. Perhaps a better one would
>be artistic freedom, meaning the freedom of the artist to produce whatever
>the hell he wants.
Which that term doesn't mean either.
It *does* mean the freedom from assholes with guns telling one to stop
doing X, or start doing Y, or else.
>> Additionally, what of the audience? Be it an atmosphere of social
>>freedom or social repression, they play a sizable role in dictating to
>the
>>artist what he should be presenting.
>:That's always true, but audiences always come in various shapes and
>:sizes, and often reconstitute themselves in response to works of art
>:and performances and the like.
>:Who was the dictating audience in the SU? How did this dictating occur,
>:and was it like previous dictating?
>You said it better than I in your other post. The CP higher ups were the
>dictating audience. I shall not waste space with the other two questions
>because they are irrelevant.
Again, nice try. They're entirely relevant to the big question: was
that an esthetic at all?
>The goal to the artist was externally
>imposed and a whole lot of nastiness occurred.
Little of it related to an esthetic.
>So what? Allow me an
>analogy. Money is artificial and externally imposed, but I don't work for
>free.
Doesn't make money an esthetic, either. What's that an analogy to?
Now, what's an esthetic? Why was Socialist Realism an esthetic?
Roger
Pultroon
>In article <4htqhu$q...@newsbf02.news.aol.com> pult...@aol.com (Pultroon)
writes:
>:Roger writes:
>:Of course, obscurity and lack of audience response and so on are
>:restrictions like any others--assuming we accept the premise that
>:all restrictions are like one another!
>Nah, we don't have to do all that. Just so we acknowledge that they are
>determinants in an imposed product.
:Uh, what's an "imposed product"?
>They do not even have to confine the
>art in an identical manner. The point is that they confine art in just
as
>sure a manner as those big nasty Communists.
:Why do you say that? What do you mean by "just as sure"? Just as
:confining? Just as coercive? Just as arbitrary?
Yes. Why is mechanism so important?
>:Human frailty imposes
>:vast restrictions; we only have a certain amount of time and
>:energy to compose, our memory and mental skills have their
>:limits, etc., etc. Our upbringing and outlook on life are
>:restrictions on what we do; and on and on.
>Exactly. That is why all art is imposed and confined and the reason that
>what the Soviets did is not so different from the process that everybody
>goes through.
:Horseshit.
Gesundheit
:What the Soviets did was to impose arbitrary and vicious restrictions
:ON TOP OF the ones we all face, and did so under false pretenses,
:and did so in ways that made it extremely risky even to *try* to
:produce art in unsanctioned ways.
>:But these things are not comparable to restrictions imposed
>:from without by censors who do not represent the actual listening
>:audience--indeed, who perceive the liberty of that audience as
>:a threat.
>Why? Present your arguments if you choose to make these statements.
:Sorry, but you're the one making the extraordinary claims. You
:assert that there was some "audience-based esthetic" in the SU,
:and that Socialist realism actually had an esthetic component.
:I've asked you any number of times to back this up with facts;
:you're in no position to demand them from me.
:Now, can you with a straight face claim that Soviet censorship
:was *not* as I described it?
I would say that Soviet censorship was exactly as you described it. I
have said the elite imposed the aesthetic and that it was artificial and
arbitrary, but so is ours. Therein lies the point. You seem to view
aesthetics as a pure and universal standard by which everybody can
universally judge and understand art. My argument is that the filters our
perception goes through are so convoluted and skewed to render any
aesthetic arbitrary and imposed. This is the argument for which I have
been trying to present facts. I shall try harder.
Andy
Pultroon
>In article <4httoq$r...@newsbf02.news.aol.com> pult...@aol.com (Pultroon)
writes:
>>ro...@silvertone.Princeton.EDU (Roger Lustig) writes:
>>In article <4hmp5h$r...@wn1.sci.kun.nl> pie...@sci.kun.nl (Peter
>Herweijer) writes:
>>>ro...@silvertone.Princeton.EDU (Roger Lustig) writes:
>[[snip]]
>> >Who cares? Fashion has always been with us. Most fashions, however,
>> >are closely related to other things in society, and not imposed from
>> >above or from without by those in power.
>>Are the dictates of fashion any less that---dictates?
>:Yes. "dictates" is a metaphor when applied to fashion, and intende
>:literally when applied to the edicts of Soviet commissars.
>First, metaphor is an unclear choice of words.
:Could you point out the unclear part? The word is used metaphorically.
:Fashion does not issue edicts or pass laws or go around with a gun.
You mean hyperbole.
>What do you think
>"dictates" is a metaphor for?
:How about "influences"? Is that literal enough for you?
>I think I understand what you're trying to
>say though, and appreciate your offering of your interpretation. Second,
>this is the issue of the whole discussion and an outrageous statement to
>make without any support.
:Which statement are you referring to? That "dictate" is used meta-
:phorically when referring to fashion? Where's the outrage?
:No, the issue of the whole discussion is your claim about the esthetics
:supposedly contained in Socialist Realism, speaking of unsupported...
No, the issue is my idea that the supposedly free aesthetics of our system
are not significantly less arbitrary and artificial than those of the
Soviet system. You seem to want to talk about the aesthetics of Socialist
Realism though, so I've been trying to present my ideas within that
context.
>>Who cares if
>>they're imposed from above, imposed by the academic establishment,
>>imposed by the taste (or lack thereof) of your peers, or imposed by the
>>audience?
>:Who cares? Everyone cares. Everyone who has to decide what to write,
>:how and for whom to write it, and whether to write at all, will care
>:deeply about those things and the differences between them.
>The art produced is the issue, not the melodrama of the artistic process.
:Really? The art is more important than the humans who produce it?
:That's a pretty impressive statement to make in *this* context!
Absolutely.
:And what of the "audience-based" esthetic all of a sudden? Is it the
:art or the audience?
Exactly my point. Why should the audience care about the producer?
However, the product must still meet the perceptions of the audience so
the art is important. In judging it, though, the art must be viewed
through the perceptive filters of the audience, which are just as (more in
my view but certainly arguable) important to the perception of that art
than any quality with which the creator imbued it.
:I'm also impressed by your reduction of the forced immiseration of
:artists to "melodrama."
>:No. The difference is fundamental. Does one have a *right* to
>:make one's living as a creative artist?
>"Right" is a political term. The better term is choice, and the answer
is
>no. The untalented do not have a choice; nor do those who have never
been
>exposed to art; nor do most people who have to go to work and make a
>living and do not have the time or energy. In short, most people do not
>have a choice, that is in any system.
:More horseshit. People have plenty of choices; some more than others,
:of course. But the forced *restriction* of choice--this is ever a
:good thing?
Hell yes. Why would you think otherwise? It goes on everywhere all the
time. I like the "horseshit" comment though. It would have been so much
less effective than if you had used "bullshit".
>:Next, ask yourself whether we have a single "system", and how
>:difficult it is for an artist to work within it or even change
>:it, and to what degree the "system" actually controls what is
>:created.
>No, there is a unique system for every audience member, although there
are
>some things that do remain remarkably consistent. These separate
systems,
>though, do still control what gets produced to a very large extent. It
>begs the rather philosophical question of whether there can be art
without
>audience.
:a) Note that the Soviet system was the opposite of what you describe:
:the audience had nothing to do with the creation of art. Only the
:tiny audience in power had influence.
Why are numbers a significant factor? This isn't an election.
:b) Where's the philosophy, outside of a game of definitions?
:c) How does that get you any nearer to the evidence for your
:original claims?
By pointing out the arbitrariness of the supposedly free aesthetic.
>> >>It is more humane to let people live in complete obscurity than to
>have
>> >>them die in Siberian prison camps, but is it so dissimilar
>artistically?
>> >Yes. Emphatically so, in fact. Keep in mind that the vast majority
>> >of us will live our lives in obscurity; that fame is capricious and
>> >often fleeting; and that we do not define our art, or our esthetic
>> >standards, by a composer's income or momentary popularity.
>>Good points. I probably wasn't very clear, though; what I'm interested
>>in are the pressures.
>:So all artists work under pressure. Does that make all pressures
>:equivalent in kind, or "complete freedom" a reasonable yardstick?
>Whether they are equivalent in kind is not the issue. The question is
>whether they are equivalent in effect.
:No, that is *not* the issue. For all your talk of audiences, you
:seem to want to remove humans from the equation altogether. Artists
:are no less human than audience members! And, yes, the kind of pressure
:is most certainly an issue, especially if that pressure is of the
:coercive kind and being exercised by the very people who claim to
:be stewards of the operative esthetic.
It's not your issue, but it's one facet of my claim. You are right,
though, in saying that I don't view the humanity of the artist as being as
important as you do. Can you show me how the kind of pressure creates a
significantly different effect on the art?
>:Indeed. Now ask yourself: what was the difference between the Soviet
>:system and, say, a despotic feudal system several hundred years earlier?
>:Was the controlling "audience" not the higher-ups in the CP? Were they
>:not acting just like an aristocracy gone power-mad, using music for
>:state ends and social control, and applying their own whims and theories
>:with little fear of contradiction?
>Why is this not a valid goal in an artistic sense?
:Because it's not an artistic sense at all.
What is an artistic sense? Seriously, my definition would be the very
broad one of objects created for the purpose of affecting the audience in
some way. What would yours be?
>It is simply the
>application of another aesthetic.
:Except that it lacks one minor component: the esthetic. Still
:waiting for you to show evidence that it existed.
Perhaps the definition above will provide some clarification if you apply
some thought to it.
>Also, any audience applies controls, be
>it academics, critics, commerce or the general public.
:More leveling. You've tried this so-called argument before.
:The *nature* of those controls is crucial. Or are you telling
:me that such controls are irrelevant to the esthetics they're
:related to?
I disagree that the nature of them is crucial. I'm afraid I don't
understand the rest of the question.
>:Just what *was* different about the Soviet "system"? Did the audience
>:*really* have any influence on music--aside from the few in power?
>This does not make them any less an audience, the few in power I mean.
:Well, if we've come down to that, then you've trivialized your
:claims beyond any conceivable interest. They may be an audience,
:but they do not interest me as an audience. Why should I (or anyone
:else) care about them?
Along the same lines why should they care about anything you have to say?
This also follows.
>>I'm not trying to say "our" way of treating artists is just as bad/good
>>as that of Stalin. Far from it. But I'd like to argue that it's not so
>>easy to dismiss the original question initiating this thread.
>:I'm still waiting for it to be asked in any reasonable way. Grandiose
>:claims were made for the "audience" having controlled esthetics in
>:the SU; no evidence has been forthcoming, despite repeated requests.
>:Any attempt to present--or request--specifics has been met with whining
>:about how fashionable and easy it is to bash the SU.
>I guess I'm the whiner. You lay me low. Now, let us consider that the
CP
>wheels *were* the audience. It does not hurt my argument about control.
:It hurts your argument about the existence of an esthetic.
No. That audience determined the aesthetic of glorifying the Revolution,
getting tractors built, and keeping the people docile. I believe it was
your argument above that that is not artistic.
>Remember, Roger, we're talking art, not politics, here.
:Nice try. Especially in light of the proclaimed "esthetic" of the
:SU that *began* with the political nature of all art.
Yes-their aesthetic.
:Now, could you point me to some art that's *not* related to politics?
How about the poetry of Virginia Hamilton Adair?
Andy
Pultroon
>In article <4htuvp$r...@newsbf02.news.aol.com> pult...@aol.com (Pultroon)
writes:
>:ro...@silvertone.princeton.edu writes:
>> pie...@sci.kun.nl (Peter Herweijer) writes:
>>>pult...@aol.com (Pultroon) writes:
>> [a lot of fine things]
>:Such as?
>> > [...] Perhaps one of the most interesting things that resulted from
>> >this is the tearing away of the assumption that the artist is
>omnipotent
>> >creator and it is up to the audience to make the leap to receive him.
>In
>> >the Soviet system, the audience assumes the primary role [...]
>>Forgive me for using this example again, but I'd like to amplify Andy's
>>point. The "omnipotent" artist is of course a pretty recent phenomenon.
>:I'd like to know where that assumption obtained, and whether it was
>:ever valid in Russia before it supposedly got "torn away." Who
>:speaks of an omnipotent artist, or anything like that?
>I do-right above. You can check.
:In other words--a *really* recent phenomenon. Like, last week.
:Who aside from you thinks of artists that way?
I am aware that this is a different way of looking at things. There is a
leap from knowledge to ideas.
>I'm speaking of audience as strictly
>receiver and artist as sole creative force. In reality, the audience is
>always influencing the creation.
:a) Not really true.
Sure, the art is created with the influence of the creator's assumptions
about the audience.
:b) Who aside from you uses that "omnipotent" model? What esthetic
:are you referring to?
The aesthetic that exalts artistic freedom as the ideal-the predominant
aesthetic today.
>[[snip]]
>:Haydn wrote for a small audience, but for one that valued novelty,
>:innovation, diversity, and richness.
>Assuming you can put a real meaning to those lovely words, it is just
>another aesthetic.
:a) If you don't know anything about Esterhazy and Haydn, don't snipe.
I'm sure I don't know as much about them as you, but that is not central
to my ideas. Oh, and you are avoiding the point.
:b) Yes, it's an esthetic. Was Socialist Realism an esthetic? If
:so, why?
You won't tell me why that is an aesthetic? I've tried to address you
other questions in my other posts.
Andy
Pultroon
>In article <4htv20$s...@newsbf02.news.aol.com> pult...@aol.com (Pultroon)
writes:
That's what I said.
>Specifically, the
>subject dealt with the controls that dictate what product is created and
>received.
:Fine. Now: are all such controls esthetic?
I do believe we would have a different definition of aesthetic. We
already have different spellings.
>2. I never "bemoaned". I have, however, complained, had conniptions,
and
>on May 4, 1982, I pitched an official hissy. Anyway, I thought you said
I
>was whining.
:Running out of steam, I see. Or is the above easier than looking for
:the esthetic of SR?
Don't be so humorless.
>3. Socialist Realism was the aesthetic of the Soviet Union.
:That begs the definition of "esthetic." In what way was it an
:esthetic?
It dictated a way of looking at and judging art.
>It is
>interesting in that it was completely artificial and externally imposed.
:And in that it claimed to be an esthetic, even though its stated
:principles were overtly self-contradictory and often revised. No
:other body of thought with claims to being called "esthetic" resembled
:it. Where's the esthetic part?
It was an aesthetic because the controlling audience deemed it to be such.
See above for the remainder.
>It sought to direct art toward the goal of glorifying the regime, and
>keeping the people productive and docile. That is the very rough
version.
:Which does not make it an esthetic. That makes it a manufacturing plan.
And the amusement of the listener is any more valid?
> None of these qualities preclude it from being an artistically valid
>aesthetic.
:What precludes that is the lack of the things that make up an esthetic.
>:Now, what's "esthetic freedom"? What might that term mean?
>Outstanding call. That term is a sloppy mess. Perhaps a better one would
>be artistic freedom, meaning the freedom of the artist to produce
whatever
>the hell he wants.
:Which that term doesn't mean either.
Please offer a better one.
:It *does* mean the freedom from assholes with guns telling one to stop
:doing X, or start doing Y, or else.
Yeah, that's part of it.
>> Additionally, what of the audience? Be it an atmosphere of social
>>freedom or social repression, they play a sizable role in dictating to
>the
>>artist what he should be presenting.
>:That's always true, but audiences always come in various shapes and
>:sizes, and often reconstitute themselves in response to works of art
>:and performances and the like.
>:Who was the dictating audience in the SU? How did this dictating occur,
>:and was it like previous dictating?
>You said it better than I in your other post. The CP higher ups were the
>dictating audience. I shall not waste space with the other two questions
>because they are irrelevant.
:Again, nice try. They're entirely relevant to the big question: was
:that an esthetic at all?
Yes, see above.
>The goal to the artist was externally
>imposed and a whole lot of nastiness occurred.
:Little of it related to an esthetic.
It did because it certainly affected what got produced.
>So what? Allow me an
>analogy. Money is artificial and externally imposed, but I don't work
for
>free.
:Doesn't make money an esthetic, either. What's that an analogy to?
Why not?
:Now, what's an esthetic? Why was Socialist Realism an esthetic?
Again, a broad definition since my very argument offers a stretch of the
traditional line. An aesthetic is the criteria that we apply to the
creation and appreciation of art that deems it as desirable. Socialist
Realism fits this definition because it was so goal oriented.
Andy