"All art is political."
Joe Finn
the waiters made the above remark. He was addressing a bartender as they
busied themselves doing what bartenders and waiters do.
"All art is political." he said.
I couldn't help but hear this remark. "That could not have been said by an
artist.", I blurted out without even thinking.
The waiter was a college age kid and continued, "No, this is what my
political science professor says."
So I asked if he thought the music we were performing [the instrumental jazz
variety] was "political" too.
This puzzled the lad and his reply was as confused as it was unsatisfactory.
He did not seem able to consider music in terms of his instructor's model.
Just think of what a young fellow like this might move on to in a few short
years. Law? Government? Public policy? The mind boggles. .............joe
--
Visit me on the web www.JoeFinn.net
moma...@gmu.edu
Well I'd say absolutely that all art is political. It involves choices
about how you govern yourself, how you relate to others, how much you
care about money, what you value in life; these are political choices,
just as much as choosing candidate X over candidate Y. Choosing to play
jazz instead of pop music is absolutely a political choice. How could
it be otherwise? It's choosing one set of ethics, one set of values,
over another. That's political.
Would you argue that Miles,for example, was NOT political--when he
choose to have an intergrated band, was that not a political choice?
When he chose to "go electric"--wasn't that a choice about the politics
of the music business? Surely Bebop was a political act--a rejection of
the Swing era and its racial politics?
Of course all art is political. All art involves a set of moral,
political choices. If you think "political" just means singing protest
songs or endorsing candidates, then you have a really narrow definition
of politics.
Jazz Guy
Although it is generally applied to governments, politics is also
observed in all human group interactions including corporate, academic,
and religious."
"Don't let the bastards grind you down, it's us against them."
But who's them?
Maybe I'm us, maybe you're them?
Maybe I'm them, maybe you're us?
Guy
Texas Pete
wrote:
Like Walt Kelly said - "We have met the enemy and he is us."
Texas Pete
pmfan57
Nobody said "all art is NOT political" or "NO art is political". You
bringing up examples of political art certainly does not prove the
statement quoted by Joe. Some people just can't help it. Art pours
out of them.
I think of the great North Korean posters and Stalin and Mao's 5/10
year plans when I read the original statement.
Kernix
sometimes.
All nothing is nothing. - That's as good as you can state.
mt-50
What music isn't political?
Shak
pmfan57
mt-50 wrote:
> "Politics" doesn't have to only mean Democrats vs. Republicans.
> What music isn't political?
>
> Shak
Then please define "political". If you define it to mean any endeavor
of a human, then you are clearly correct.
hotchkisstrio
is a strong jazz tradition of political statements, whether in the
songs or just proclaimed by the artists.
Certainly Louis Armstrong made some strong political statements, as did
Mingus, and many other jazz artists in the 60's.
I would say a large percentage of art IS political. But I can't find
anything political in the paintings of the "happy tress" fellow from
PBS :-)
-Paul H.
hotchkisstrio
long" or "Turn down the volume man, you're not the lead guitarists"
LOL!
Joe Finn
<moma...@gmu.edu> wrote
>
>
> Well I'd say absolutely that all art is political. It involves choices
> about how you govern yourself, how you relate to others, how much you
> care about money, what you value in life; these are political choices,
> just as much as choosing candidate X over candidate Y. Choosing to play
> jazz instead of pop music is absolutely a political choice. How could
> it be otherwise? It's choosing one set of ethics, one set of values,
> over another. That's political.
>
> Would you argue that Miles,for example, was NOT political--when he
> choose to have an intergrated band, was that not a political choice?
> When he chose to "go electric"--wasn't that a choice about the politics
> of the music business? Surely Bebop was a political act--a rejection of
> the Swing era and its racial politics?
>
> Of course all art is political. All art involves a set of moral,
> political choices. If you think "political" just means singing protest
> songs or endorsing candidates, then you have a really narrow definition
> of politics.
Thanks for your reply.
I personally see art and politics as two very different things. Although
certain artists do address political themes, much [most?] artistic
expression focuses on more humanistic or abstract material.
Getting back to the waiter's issue though, and to answer my own question to
him; I did not see that the music we were performing at the time as any kind
of political statement. I guess I really don't see my work as a musician in
that way. .......joe
Joe Finn
news:1150458924.6...@f6g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> "Politics is the process and method of making decisions for groups.
> Although it is generally applied to governments, politics is also
> observed in all human group interactions including corporate, academic,
> and religious."
The artistic process also involves decisions. These generally pertain to the
medium of expression, the craftsmanship etc. To me art is more about the
originality of human expression.
Decision making on behalf of groups is another dynamic.
Thanks for the definition. ........joe
RickH
I cant, and refuse, to read politics into love songs, takes all the joy
out of what the original artist intended.
Whereas a Bob Dylan intended something political, then I'll look at his
music that way, because it's what he wanted.
I'm much happier letting a love song, remain a love song, love being
the topic of 99 percent of the American jazz songbook legacy. I cant
for the life of me believe that a Lorenz and Hart or a Harold Arlen sat
down to make a political statement with their great songs, but rather
that they wanted to make an emotional statement.
That kids teacher is full of hogwash, (sorry for the outburst).
Joe Finn
"pmfan57" <jwra...@aol.com> wrote
>
> Nobody said "all art is NOT political" or "NO art is political". You
> bringing up examples of political art certainly does not prove the
> statement quoted by Joe. Some people just can't help it. Art pours
> out of them.
Good point. There is a lot of overlap here to be sure. It's not an either/or
proposition. That's why it's interesting. ........joe
Joe Finn
> What music isn't political?
The music I performed last night had no political meaning that I know of.
Things will proceed tonight on the same basis. ......joe
Joe Finn
> I'm much happier letting a love song, remain a love song, love being
> the topic of 99 percent of the American jazz songbook legacy. I cant
> for the life of me believe that a Lorenz and Hart or a Harold Arlen sat
> down to make a political statement with their great songs, but rather
> that they wanted to make an emotional statement.
A lot of the grandeur and universality of art is in the way it addresses the
human condition. These expressions resonate as you suggest on basic
emotional levels: love, joy, sorrow, etc. ..joe
pmfan57
You are clearly a revanchist and likely a capitalist roader. ;-)
Joe Finn
>
> You are clearly a revanchist and likely a capitalist roader. ;-)
I don't know what that is, man.
Is it like a vegetarian? 8-) ....joe
Paul
On 6/16/06 1:00 PM, in article e6uo90$okl$1...@news.datemas.de, "Joe Finn"
<J...@JoeFinn.net> wrote:
>
>
> Getting back to the waiter's issue though, and to answer my own question to
> him; I did not see that the music we were performing at the time as any kind
> of political statement.
But did you see your musical performance as art? you call it "work as a
musician", not art.
Not that I'd want to get into a endless discussion of the definition of art
or politics, but without some notion of what art and politics is, the
sentence "all art is political" has no content. I can certainly imagine a
coherent defense of the "all art is political" comment, given some agreed
upon notion of what each word is supposed to mean. This waiter may have
been exposed to a good argument, and perhaps his understanding of what Art
is doesnt include what you were playing. Maybe he meant visual art. Or pop
music.
I don't think anything I play is political, but I don't think its art
either, at least by my vague notions of what politics and art are. If
someone called me an artist I would find it funny.
Paul K.
Gerry
wrote:
No. Politics is not limited to government management. There is
certainly politics at everybody's job. There is the politics of
sexuality. "Jockying for position" wherever it may take place can be
said to be political. In this respect the poltics of Picasso and Dali
and Pollack may have been triumphant where their peers may have been
"voted out", if you will. There are public opinion polls and
adjustments made relative to such polls whether the polling station
belongs to Diebold or EMI's marketing department.
> The music I performed last night had no political meaning that I know of.
Performance is not only about what you play, but about what you chose
not to play. Think Brecht. There's a perspective, shared by some and
rejected by others, that says that art, including music, should
challenge an audience, make them think out of the box, rattle the cage.
Others that say it shouldn't just surprise, it should provoke. There is
another that says that it most definitely should NOT do these things,
but should be a comfortable and unobtrusive commodity used with drinks
and mood-setting. Still others say the latter is servile and the
domain of somebody--but not an artist.
Right there we have a conspicous divergence that could be said to be
political.
Then there is the finances of the proposition: what do you play and for
how much money and for whom? I doubt you would do a gig for the KKK?
How about the NPR affiliate? How about a local televangelist? It can
get tricky.
Do you, Joe, consider what you do "art", for that matter? Because as
we've cycled through this and related topics many times, quite a few or
adamant that it is "craft" and anything categorized "art" is by
definition obtuse, aggressive, dismissive of the audience and so on.
How much of your music is produced as a product specifically for the
intent of sales (or entertainment) and how much of it is a manfestation
of artistic impulse? That distinction too can be said to be effected
by your chosen political vantage point vis-a-vis influencing the
thinking and appreciation of others.
--
Anyone who claims that God is on their side is dangerous as hell.
Gerry
RickH <pass...@windcrestsoftware.com> wrote:
> I cant, and refuse, to read politics into love songs, takes all the joy
> out of what the original artist intended.
I agree with you. But viewing it another way:
How about a "love song" where the singer, or rapper, calls his woman
his "bitch"? In recent years people have rankled at the phrase "my
woman" as if the woman were chattel. Logically some have been
"sensitive" to this and other related issues of race, power, money,
etc. I'm just saying.
So the lyrics of such songs can be parsed dependent on a political
vantage point, feminist is one, capitalist is another, christianist is
probably the most outspoken right now about such semiotic matters. I'm
not saying it's good or bad, I'm just saying "a love song" can be
written to embrace or reject a certain strat of ideas. As it does so,
it either embraces or rejects a certian political vantage point.
I prefer the age old political dichotomy of an earlier time: Which gets
you into the sack quicker, Sinatra or Mathis. Ah, times were simple.
And those times are long gone...
--
The amount of money one needs is terrifying. -- Ludwig van Beethoven
Kernix
mt-50 wrote:
> "Politics" doesn't have to only mean Democrats vs. Republicans.
> What music isn't political?
>
> Shak
You have to be kidding me - right? Didn't know the Beatles were
political - "I Wanna hold your hand", While My Guitar Gently Weeps"
Didn't know the Grateful Dead were political - "Tennesse Jed", "Mr
Charlie"
Stevie Wonder - "You are the Sunshine of my Life"
Beach Boys - god knows all their songs are political.
Allman Brothers - "Blue Sky"
Do I need to go on?
Jim
Sean
1150475636....@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com, "hotchkisstrio"
<paulyho...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> I see your point about how can an instrumental be political, but there
> is a strong jazz tradition of political statements, whether in the
> songs or just proclaimed by the artists.
>
Just another of my useless inputs, but Hendrix's instrumental version of the
US national anthem seemed pretty political to me. But that's just one case
of a political instrumental.
pmfan57
easy enough to find out with wikipedia!
moma...@gmu.edu
Joe Finn wrote:
> Thanks for your reply.
>
> I personally see art and politics as two very different things. Although
> certain artists do address political themes, much [most?] artistic
> expression focuses on more humanistic or abstract material.
>
> Getting back to the waiter's issue though, and to answer my own question to
> him; I did not see that the music we were performing at the time as any kind
> of political statement. I guess I really don't see my work as a musician in
> that way. .......joe
>
> --
> Visit me on the web www.JoeFinn.net
> >
Joe:
I dunno--how can you NOT see the choice to play jazz rather than, say,
play in a jingle studio as a "political" decision? It's a choice about
what you think matters. You choose jazz, you''re choosing an emphasis
on group interaction, on spontaneity over rigidity, on the spontaneous
rather than the authoriatarian. You didn't choose to be an accountant,
or an arms dealer, or a priest, or a car salesman--these are political
decisions in that they have to do with what you think is right and what
constitues good. Imho you have to be ignoring a lot to see that as not
political?
Maybe you don't think of jazz as ppolitical because so many irish songs
are overtly about political opression? Choosing to keep a heritage of
irish songs alive is clearly a political decision--as is the deecision
about which songs you sing, no?
for years a white man's decision even to listen to hjazz was a
political decisoion--a decision about segregation
Seems to me all acts have a political dimension, you irish politician
you!
pmfan57
Yes, yes. No one is arguing that NO art is ever political. Think
Guernica.
RickH
Some art is the spark in a gas filled room waiting to explode.
Parsing is the key, so doing "The Lady Is A Tramp" at a NOW fundraiser
is probably not a good idea ;) Although I love that song, in a way
it's similar to "Bitch" in that it turns a derrogatory female reference
into a term of endearment.
In the end the art itself may not be political, but listened through
the flawed ears and minds of men (people), it can become political.
With enough parsing even the "I love you, you love me" (Barney the
purple dinosour childrens song), can be made into a political
statement, depending on if the listener takes the high road or the low
road. But in the end Barney knows what he's saying, and it's probably
not political.
Kernix
RickH wrote:
> Some art is the spark in a gas filled room waiting to explode.
And some art is like the gas in your ass waiting to stink up the room
(I mean a generic "you").
> In the end the art itself may not be political, but listened through
> the flawed ears and minds of men (people), it can become political.
Art is sometimes political and sometimes not - can't believe this
thread - and whether it is for art or not doesn't lessen its value -
who wants to deal with politics all the time - relaxing and enjoying
the finer things in life is good too!
Gerry
Kernix <jimke...@gmail.com> wrote:
> You have to be kidding me - right? Didn't know the Beatles were
> political - "I Wanna hold your hand", While My Guitar Gently Weeps"
>
> Didn't know the Grateful Dead were political - "Tennesse Jed", "Mr
> Charlie"
>
> Stevie Wonder - "You are the Sunshine of my Life"
> Beach Boys - god knows all their songs are political.
> Allman Brothers - "Blue Sky"
>
> Do I need to go on?
I know you're kidding, but you actually picked a number of artists,
that had political songs! The Beatles wrote a number of tunes about
peace during the Vietnam war. Of course there were many pro-military
songs during the world wars, though they were vastly lighter in tone.
"Living for the City" and the MLK "Happy Birthday" come to mind first,
but there were numerous others by Stevie Wonder. I'm not a big
Dead-head but surely they had some conspicious political tunes as well.
Paul Simon has a considerable political vantage point. Folk singers and
"protest songs" were all the rage for a good 8-10 years there.
To point: pop songs are rarely political relative to some specific
political *issue*. But avoiding political speech and topics--isn't that
political too? Some patriotic songs have gotten a lot of play in recent
years, and anti-war songs have gotten considerably less. Seems that
the media outlets also take part in what "political process" is related
to pop music. The boycott of the Dixie Chicks, that was because of
something they just said. Madonna has recently struck a christianist
hot-button with her new tour, apparently.
It's out there.
--
Last time we mixed politics with religion, people got burned at the stake.
RickH
Thats right, the world still doesn't have enough silly love songs IMO.
And my art can be pretty good at stinking up a room too.
Gerry
wrote:
Trane's "Alabama", mentioned elsewhere, follows the "political title"
format, as do many others in the 60's. In response to MLK's
assasination Roland Kirk did "I Say a Little Prayer", making a
non-political song political. There were a number of titles (I'm
thinking of Mingus, Ayler and the avant-garde in the 60's and 70's)
that fit the bill.
But using "political" to imply some specific "poltical issue" like "gay
marriage" or "flag-burning" or "the war" may be an unnecessarily narrow
view as indicated upstream.
--
I am feeding my friends beans with pork. I expect some will not stay for
dinner. -- Gertrude Stein
Gerry
RickH <pass...@windcrestsoftware.com> wrote:
> > The amount of money one needs is terrifying. -- Ludwig van Beethoven
Curious the quote my random-selector selected... :-)
> Parsing is the key, so doing "The Lady Is A Tramp" at a NOW fundraiser
> is probably not a good idea ;) Although I love that song, in a way
> it's similar to "Bitch" in that it turns a derrogatory female reference
> into a term of endearment.
It is, bit curiously at a fundraiser it would seem to be okay, in the
respect that the tramp wears "ermine and pearls". There's a certain
class interpretation that has her as a tramp--but an independent and
wealthy woman as well and thus not a "whore". "That's why the lady is a
whore." That wouldn't work as well. Rhymes and sings better though.
> In the end the art itself may not be political, but listened through
> the flawed ears and minds of men (people), it can become political.
> With enough parsing even the "I love you, you love me" (Barney the
> purple dinosour childrens song), can be made into a political
> statement, depending on if the listener takes the high road or the low
> road. But in the end Barney knows what he's saying, and it's probably
> not political.
"Probably"? That's as much podium as you can pound!? :-) And witness
the christianist attacks on "homosexual agenda" as purveyed in
Tele-Tubbies. They are little less judicious on the probabilities.
--
In my hut this Spring, There is nothing-There is everything! -- Sodo
Kernix
Gerry wrote:
> In article <1150482809.0...@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com>,
> Kernix <jimke...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > You have to be kidding me - right? Didn't know the Beatles were
> > political - "I Wanna hold your hand", While My Guitar Gently Weeps"
> >
> > Didn't know the Grateful Dead were political - "Tennesse Jed", "Mr
> > Charlie"
> >
> > Stevie Wonder - "You are the Sunshine of my Life"
> > Beach Boys - god knows all their songs are political.
> > Allman Brothers - "Blue Sky"
> >
> > Do I need to go on?
>
> I know you're kidding, but you actually picked a number of artists,
> that had political songs!
Dude - pay attention - I never said those artist NEVER wrote political
songs. The point is that NOT all music is political like that one dumbo
stated. How could you be so clueless to think that - shit - I even
posted the name of non-political songs - pay attention.
Kernix
Gerry wrote:
> To point: pop songs are rarely political relative to some specific
> political *issue*. But avoiding political speech and topics--isn't that
> political too?
What kind of logic is that? So avoiding evil by doing good makes you
evil - do you have any idea how stupid that is.
> Some patriotic songs have gotten a lot of play in recent
> years, and anti-war songs have gotten considerably less.
So what - the media sucks - most intelligent ppl have the awareness
enough to know to think on their own.
> Seems that
> the media outlets also take part in what "political process" is related
> to pop music.
No really - just figuring that one out - stop posting until you have
something intelligent to say.
Gerry
Kernix <jimke...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > In the end the art itself may not be political, but listened through
> > the flawed ears and minds of men (people), it can become political.
>
> Art is sometimes political and sometimes not - can't believe this
> thread - and whether it is for art or not doesn't lessen its value -
> who wants to deal with politics all the time - relaxing and enjoying
> the finer things in life is good too!
Any art that side-steps all things political has posited itself
specifically to avoid political repercussions--clearly an act that
evidences the presence of political oppression!
Rise up! Rise up you lackies and fight for the dignity of the
proletariat!
--
The secret of managing is to keep the guys who hate you away from the guys who
are undecided. -- Casey Stengel
tomb...@jhu.edu
>
> I'm much happier letting a love song, remain a love song, love being
> the topic of 99 percent of the American jazz songbook legacy. I cant
> for the life of me believe that a Lorenz and Hart or a Harold Arlen sat
> down to make a political statement with their great songs, but rather
> that they wanted to make an emotional statement.
Rodgers' "South Pacific" is an overtly political statement about issues
of racial prejudice and mixed-race marriages.
Gerry
Kernix <jimke...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > I know you're kidding, but you actually picked a number of artists,
> > that had political songs!
>
> Dude - pay attention - I never said those artist NEVER wrote
> political songs.
Dude! Where did I say you did?
> The point is that NOT all music is political like that one dumbo
> stated.
See yonder "I know you're kidding". Get grip!
> How could you be so clueless to think that - shit - I even posted the
> name of non-political songs - pay attention.
Dude, I did. And added something else that you didn't say. I didn't
start off by saying you're "clueless" and that your perspective was
wrong. I provided OTHER information. That's all.
Relax, everything's gonna be fine.
--
Imagination is more important than knowledge. -- Albert Einstein
Kernix
Gerry wrote:
> Any art that side-steps all things political has posited itself
> specifically to avoid political repercussions--clearly an act that
> evidences the presence of political oppression!
What? The question is "Is everything about people, nature, and the
cosmos political?" since art is about either people, things in the
world or things in the "heavens".
Now, tell me how it is political when 2 people are lovers? How is the
song or painting or book about lovers political. How does a song, a
painting, a sculpture, a book - etc - about trees or the ocean or the
vista from a beach or a mountain top - how are those things political.
Get a clue.
There are exceptions to every rule, including the rule "There are
exceptions to every rule."
Absolute statements by anyone on any subject are a sign of an fool
unless you're talking simplistic generic statements - like - "The only
thing sure in life is death and taxes" - and even that isn't true!
Jim
Gerry
Kernix <jimke...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > To point: pop songs are rarely political relative to some specific
> > political *issue*. But avoiding political speech and topics--isn't that
> > political too?
>
> What kind of logic is that? So avoiding evil by doing good makes you
> evil - do you have any idea how stupid that is.
On the scale of stupidity, I know exactly where my reference an your
unrelated example differ. Do you know what the freedom of speech is?
Do you know why some people in more repressive countries don't
excercise it? Do you think their absence of speech is a political act?
Or no?
> > Some patriotic songs have gotten a lot of play in recent
> > years, and anti-war songs have gotten considerably less.
>
> So what - the media sucks - most intelligent ppl have the awareness
> enough to know to think on their own.
Most people think on their own unconnected to the media. An
interesting point. Where do you get your poltical news?
> > Seems that the media outlets also take part in what "political
> > process" is related to pop music.
>
> No really - just figuring that one out - stop posting until you have
> something intelligent to say.
If I did, my not saying anything would be an act of political
submission, wouldn't it?
--
This conversation may be monitored to ensure quality. Tranlation: We are
taping your telephone conversation.
Kernix
Gerry wrote:
> > > I know you're kidding, but you actually picked a number of artists,
> > > that had political songs!
> >
> > Dude - pay attention - I never said those artist NEVER wrote
> > political songs.
>
> Dude! Where did I say you did?
First off I'm amazed ppl even think all art is political. Secondly, you
made the statement:
"I know you're kidding, but you actually picked a number of artists,
that had political songs!"
Duh - I never said that those bands NEVER wrote a political song - I
even listed the non-polical songs of theirs - also, by making that
statement, it's obvious you weren't paying attention - I NEVER said
they never wrote political songs - my response was to the guy who said,
"What music isn't political?"
I'm hungover and have a killer headache - these ppl are pisssing me
off! And no I won't relax!
Gerry
Kernix <jimke...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Any art that side-steps all things political has posited itself
> > specifically to avoid political repercussions--clearly an act that
> > evidences the presence of political oppression!
>
> What? The question is "Is everything about people, nature, and the
> cosmos political?" since art is about either people, things in the
> world or things in the "heavens".
You vacillate between barking and speaking. I'll try to address the
later when there's a gap. And strip out your insults. I'll killfile
you if you can't pare them down. Take a deep breath.
People, nature and cosmos aren't political. Art is a DESCRIPTION of
these and as such is a composite of the thinking of the artist. The
thinking of an artist is political, like it or lump it, in the respect
that they navigate a political world by making decisions regarding what
is good for them.
Admittedly in some realms this can be very discreet indeed. Though I
believe this in the abstract, I don't really actually ascribe to the
idea as I indicated above. That was called a joke. You didn't get it.
> Now, tell me how it is political when 2 people are lovers?
Again: in the abstract as it doesn't really follow my own thinking: One
has to work the other doesn't. The woman does these tasks, the man does
those. These are political decisions arrived at by a lot of little
give-and-takes and "paybacks" and all the rest in a relationship. You
don't want to appear TOO offish to the mother-in-law, but then you
don't want to make like you're crazy about her or you'll be over there
every Saturday. And the list goes on and on.
> How is the song or painting or book about lovers political. How does
> a song, a painting, a sculpture, a book - etc - about trees or the
> ocean or the vista from a beach or a mountain top - how are those
> things political.
It's not the things that are political, it's the person describing
them, to whom they are describing the, for what purpose the description
is tendered, for what price, and so forth. All potentially interpreted
as political.
> Get a clue.
Tsk, tsk.
> There are exceptions to every rule, including the rule "There are
> exceptions to every rule."
>
> Absolute statements by anyone on any subject are a sign of an fool
Like that one?
--
There are still so many beautiful things to be said in C major. -- Sergei
Prokofiev
moma...@gmu.edu
Kernix wrote:
> Dude - pay attention - I never said those artist NEVER wrote political
> songs. The point is that NOT all music is political like that one dumbo
> stated. How could you be so clueless to think that - shit - I even
> posted the name of non-political songs - pay attention.
Dude, you pay attention--choosing to right "silly love songs" is a
political choice--a chouce about what matters. Choosing not to vote is
a political act. Choosing to play silly loves songs as opposed to love
songs is a politcal choice. why DO you choose silly loves
songs--because you think politics sucks. Congrats--you're music is
politcal
dude
Gerry
Kernix <jimke...@gmail.com> wrote:
> First off I'm amazed ppl even think all art is political.
Clearly.
> Secondly, you made the statement:
>
> "I know you're kidding, but you actually picked a number of artists,
> that had political songs!"
>
> Duh - I never said that those bands NEVER wrote a political song
Duh - (once again) I didn't say you DID say this.
--
"If you take out the killings, Washington actually has a very very low crime
rate." -- M. Barry, Mayor of Washington, DC
RickH
I saw a love story there, and love stories always have something to
"overcome". The prejudice aspect would have to be parsed that way by
the audience member. I saw this play about 4 years ago and the racial
aspect was kind of anachronistic to me as I recall, but I suppose in
the 40's it would not have been. Maybe it was the production I saw
that made me see more of a love story.
moma...@gmu.edu
Kernix wrote:
> Gerry wrote:
>
> Now, tell me how it is political when 2 people are lovers? "
Two lovers, one's white, one's black in a context where interracial
lover is forbidden--political. Two gay men in love, trying to get
married--political. Romeo and Juliet--political. Jew falls in love with
a catholic, they marry, families outraged--political. Woman marries guy
for dough--political
"How does a song, a
> painting, a sculpture, a book - etc - about trees or the ocean or the
> vista from a beach or a mountain top - how are those things political."
A song that celbrates the beauties of nature is not celebrating the
beauties of industry is it? A song that extolls the soul-reviivng
freedom of the natgurla worlkd is making a political statement about
nature vs society
> Get a clue."
Clue enough for you, dude?
moma...@gmu.edu
Kernix wrote:
> Gerry wrote:
>
> Now, tell me how it is political when 2 people are lovers? "
Two lovers, one's white, one's black in a context where interracial
lover is forbidden--political. Two gay men in love, trying to get
married--political. Romeo and Juliet--political. Jew falls in love with
a catholic, they marry, families outraged--political. Woman marries guy
for dough--political
"How does a song, a
> painting, a sculpture, a book - etc - about trees or the ocean or the
> vista from a beach or a mountain top - how are those things political."
A song that celbrates the beauties of nature is not celebrating the
beauties of industry is it? A song that extolls the soul-reviivng
freedom of the natural world is making a political statement about
Gerry
RickH <pass...@windcrestsoftware.com> wrote:
West Side Story is a little more direct.
--
Ten years searching in the deep forest. Today great laughter at the edge of the
lake. -- Soen
RickH
Yes, that one has a dancing knife fight, pretty direct. And Bernstein
did write it to be political, but somehow rising out of all the crap is
a love story that transcends.
Now, is the art of flower arranging political in any way?
Gerry
RickH <pass...@windcrestsoftware.com> wrote:
> > West Side Story is a little more direct.
>
> Yes, that one has a dancing knife fight, pretty direct. And Bernstein
> did write it to be political, but somehow rising out of all the crap is
> a love story that transcends.
Actually the idea of "Romeo and Juliet" with Montague/Capulets switched
to Puerto Rican/white was Jerome Robbins "conception", Arthur Laurents
wrote play, and a very yound Stephen Sonheim wrote the marvelous
lyrics.
> Now, is the art of flower arranging political in any way?
You got me! I submit! Though Japanese ikebana does seem to have it's
early roots in a death-cult...
[ JOKE ALERT! LAST LINE NOT FOR THE SUBTLETY-IMPAIRED--NOT THAT THERE
IS ANYTHING *WRONG* WITH BEING SUBTLETY-IMPAIRED... ]
--
Anyone who claims that God is on their side is dangerous as hell.
moma...@gmu.edu
RickH wrote:
>
> Now, is the art of flower arranging political in any way?
Absolutely. You want to arrange flowers you need
A; a supply of flowers
B; the leisure time to arrange them
How do you get the flowers? Somebody has to make a decision to keep
land wild or in flower production, rather than food or housing. That's
a political decision, just like choosing to turn land into a park
rather than a townhouuse complex is a politicaal decision. Somebody
owns the land on which the flowers grow--through a political process.
Somebody cuts the flowers--maybe labor hired through and provided
by--yes--a political process. That's a political decison.
Or make it personal--my wife and i have a lovely flower garden. We
chose not to grow food. that's a political decision.
Let's say your flower arranger is a married woman who chose a wealthy
husband so she could chose not to work, so she could stay home and
raise kids--but she's sent the kids to part time day care so she can
arrange flowers. That's a bunch of political decisions. Congress is
always debating how married women with kids should spend their time.
So while the actual flowers don't say "vote for bush" or "vote for
Kerry", they are the product of a whole range of political choices, and
in that sense, the art of flower arranging is clearly political
Gerry
<moma...@gmu.edu> wrote:
> So while the actual flowers don't say "vote for bush" or "vote for
> Kerry", they are the product of a whole range of political choices, and
> in that sense, the art of flower arranging is clearly political
You're scaring me!
RickH
Cariied this far you could say that "all science is political", "all
human endeavors are political", or "all art is religious" for that
matter, it's all in the parsing. To the flower arranger it's just art.
tomb...@jhu.edu
> In article <1150490759.2...@y41g2000cwy.googlegroups.com>,
> <moma...@gmu.edu> wrote:
>
> > So while the actual flowers don't say "vote for bush" or "vote for
> > Kerry", they are the product of a whole range of political choices, and
> > in that sense, the art of flower arranging is clearly political
>
> You're scaring me!
Yeah, he's really good at this. This line of argument reminds me of
rational choice theory, where the goal is to come up with a post hoc
explanation for why any human behavior is rational given the context
and motives. The same thing occurs in evolutionary psychology--there is
no behavior that cannot be explained in terms of the need to propagate
your genes. Or crude Marxism--there is no social condition that cannot
reduced to economics. Or nationalism--there is no problem that cannot
be blamed on the aliens in our midst. Or fundamentalist religion....
moma...@gmu.edu
RickH wrote:
in that sense, the art of flower arranging is clearly political
>
> Cariied this far you could say that "all science is political", "all
> human endeavors are political", or "all art is religious" for that
> matter, it's all in the parsing. To the flower arranger it's just art.
That's because the flower arranger prefers not to think it through.
Some people would say all art is religious--I'd disagree with that, but
I'd probably enjoy the discussion
I would absolutely say "all science is political." I absolutley agree
that all human endeavors are political. I would not say all art is
religious.
all human acts rest on a bed of politics--that's just unavoidable. All
our freedoms to do or choose rest on politics. All the social forces
that constrain us are political forces. All art in made in a politcal
context, and in that sense it's all political
i honestly have no idea why this is so upsetting to people. It's not an
argument aganst art, or an argumment that art is bad, or an argument
that art has to do x or y. I'm really puzzled why this upsets people
Gerry
<"tomb...@jhu.edu"> wrote:
> > > So while the actual flowers don't say "vote for bush" or "vote for
> > > Kerry", they are the product of a whole range of political choices, and
> > > in that sense, the art of flower arranging is clearly political
> >
> > You're scaring me!
>
> Yeah, he's really good at this. This line of argument reminds me of
> rational choice theory, where the goal is to come up with a post hoc
> explanation for why any human behavior is rational given the context
> and motives. The same thing occurs in evolutionary psychology--there is
> no behavior that cannot be explained in terms of the need to propagate
> your genes. Or crude Marxism--there is no social condition that cannot
> reduced to economics.
Well yeah--but there it's actually TRUE!
> Or nationalism--there is no problem that cannot
> be blamed on the aliens in our midst. Or fundamentalist religion....
I've GOT to get some new hobbies...
--
Talk does not cook rice. -- Chinese saying
bob r
moma...@gmu.edu at moma...@gmu.edu wrote on 6/16/06 5:11 PM:
It upsets me because it's wrong. All art is sexual. And politics is really
all about sex. It's unavoidable.
--
Bob Russell
Web - http://www.bobrussellguitar.com
CDs - http://www.cdbaby.com/all/bobrussell
Soundclick - http://www.soundclick.com/bobrussell
Gerry
<moma...@gmu.edu> wrote:
> all human acts rest on a bed of politics--that's just unavoidable. All
> our freedoms to do or choose rest on politics. All the social forces
> that constrain us are political forces. All art in made in a politcal
> context, and in that sense it's all political
>
> i honestly have no idea why this is so upsetting to people. It's not an
> argument aganst art, or an argumment that art is bad, or an argument
> that art has to do x or y. I'm really puzzled why this upsets people
Surely you can see why it's upsetting. Witness "What the Matter with
Kansas". If those people understood the actual depth of saturation with
politics in their world they'd be more than "upset", far more: They
would lose their sense of identity, loyalty, understanding. Jeez. What
if you didn't know that your leaders were selling you out, and your
children and your nation? Many do not.
It's like the "harmless" joke that pivots on race or nationality. It's
harmless isn't it? Oh come on, no Mexican heard the joke, did they?
Only my kids as they formulate their world view. Don't be so touchy.
I had a friend that went to South Africa during apartheid and told me
she met many black natives in a township with a tour guide. She said
they were happy and healthy and had lovely trinkets to sell.
As we continued to discuss it I gave her more and more information and
got riled by her initial reluctance to understand and her inconceivable
naivete about what she had actually seen, a carefully controlled Disney
concoction for tourist dollars. She met a cop--he was an okay guy!
This, historically, about 20 minutes before the system buckled.
Sadly for us both I convinced her and in short order she was weeping in
the cocktail lounge. A dear friend I hadn't seen in years. I started
backpedaling like crazy saying perhaps I had read inaccurate reports.
But catching her breath she stated the locus of her anguish and
repeated endlessly: "I can't believe I was such a idiot." I wanted to
kill myself. Instead I went to the bathroom and vomited.
Oh boy I won.
--
When somebody says it's not about the money--it's about the money. -- H.L.
Mencken
moma...@gmu.edu
bob r wrote:
>
> It upsets me because it's wrong. All art is sexual. And politics is really
> all about sex. It's unavoidable.
> --
I never like those argument sthat reduce humman actiosn to the
physical--they dehumanize people.
Well if you're serious, you have to show me how a political debate
about originalism in the constitution is actually about sex.
Otherwise, I'm done, and sorry to have offended anyone
tomb...@jhu.edu
>
> Well if you're serious, you have to show me how a political debate
> about originalism in the constitution is actually about sex.
All political debates are about maximizing your status, so that you
have increased opportunities to get laid and spread your genes.
bob r
moma...@gmu.edu at moma...@gmu.edu wrote on 6/16/06 5:39 PM:
> bob r wrote:
>
>>
>> It upsets me because it's wrong. All art is sexual. And politics is really
>> all about sex. It's unavoidable.
>> --
>
> I never like those argument sthat reduce humman actiosn to the
> physical--they dehumanize people.
People do a pretty good job of that themselves sometimes, without benefit of
the arguments.
> Well if you're serious, you have to show me how a political debate
> about originalism in the constitution is actually about sex.
I will if you'll show me how a Georgia O'Keeffe painting of a calla lily is
about politics. I don't see where politics as the root cause of everything
is any more far-fetched than sex. As they say, if all you have is a hammer,
then everything starts looking like a nail.
> Otherwise, I'm done, and sorry to have offended anyone
Same here on both counts.
Gerry
<"tomb...@jhu.edu"> wrote:
That does it! You guys are giving me the Willies.
I need to get out of here before I have some "Manchurian Candidate"
moment where the clear and obvious logic is for me to burn my house
down and wade into an elementary school with an elephant gun...
It's only logical!
--
The amount of money one needs is terrifying. -- Ludwig van Beethoven
googledawg
I remember as a very young music student taking a friends advice about
a graduate class on the "history of musical styles" - which was
permissible with payment of tuition.
I got a C for the class. ho hum. it was based on our "paper".
following the aforementioned friend's advice, i chose ( from a limited
selection) the title
Wagner's Theories on Art as a Revolutionary Weapon.
I could have spent another year going through the massive amounts of
material i found.
The instruction gave me an A on content, and an F on form - seems at
that level, the content is expected as is the correct format for doing
footnotes, et al, ibid.
Wagner was a prolific tunester (sorry), and a writer, designer,
politician, and probably a little over the top. A page in a book
would typically contain only one or two sentences, a lot of thought,
and, well, he probably did his footnotes correctly. i got lost in the
content.
Art=Politics.
Jazz=freedom through structure including non-structured structure.
Sean
1150483154....@h76g2000cwa.googlegroups.com, "pmfan57"
<jwra...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> Sean wrote:
>> On 6/16/06 9:33 AM, in article
>> 1150475636....@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com, "hotchkisstrio"
>> <paulyho...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I see your point about how can an instrumental be political, but there
>>> is a strong jazz tradition of political statements, whether in the
>>> songs or just proclaimed by the artists.
>>>
>>
>> Just another of my useless inputs, but Hendrix's instrumental version of the
>> US national anthem seemed pretty political to me. But that's just one case
>> of a political instrumental.
>
> Yes, yes. No one is arguing that NO art is ever political. Think
> Guernica.
>
Another thought: If you're walking down the street in Jakarta, say, or
Shanghai, and as you pass the Macdonald's burger store you hear Britney
Spears blaring out of the speakers. There's some politics in that, surely.
Sean
160620061222081961%add...@domain.com.invalid, "Gerry"
<add...@domain.com.invalid> wrote:
> In article <1150483647....@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,
> Kernix <jimke...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>> In the end the art itself may not be political, but listened through
>>> the flawed ears and minds of men (people), it can become political.
>>
>> Art is sometimes political and sometimes not - can't believe this
>> thread - and whether it is for art or not doesn't lessen its value -
>> who wants to deal with politics all the time - relaxing and enjoying
>> the finer things in life is good too!
>
> Any art that side-steps all things political has posited itself
> specifically to avoid political repercussions--clearly an act that
> evidences the presence of political oppression!
>
> Rise up! Rise up you lackies and fight for the dignity of the
> proletariat!
Good idea. I'm kind of in the mood for advancing wave upon wave, striking
down the US aggressors and all their running dogs. But wait a minute, I
think I might be living in one of the running dogs. I'll think about it a
bit before I advance wave upon wave.
Sean
<tomb...@jhu.edu> wrote:
> RickH wrote:
>>
>> I'm much happier letting a love song, remain a love song, love being
>> the topic of 99 percent of the American jazz songbook legacy. I cant
>> for the life of me believe that a Lorenz and Hart or a Harold Arlen sat
>> down to make a political statement with their great songs, but rather
>> that they wanted to make an emotional statement.
>
> Rodgers' "South Pacific" is an overtly political statement about issues
> of racial prejudice and mixed-race marriages.
>
"Showboat" comes to mind (Kern and Hammerstein). Miscegenation and all that.
Gerry
wrote:
> "Showboat" comes to mind (Kern and Hammerstein). Miscegenation and all that.
Jeez. It's turning into a hotbed of radical activity!
--
I am a success today because I had a friend who believed in me, and I didn't
have the heard to let them down. -- Abraham Lincoln
Sean
1150486174.6...@c74g2000cwc.googlegroups.com, "Kernix"
<jimke...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Now, tell me how it is political when 2 people are lovers? How is the
> song or painting or book about lovers political. How does a song, a
> painting, a sculpture, a book - etc - about trees or the ocean or the
> vista from a beach or a mountain top - how are those things political.
Lovers: Interesting stories about lovers always involve a conflict of some
kind. Well, any story does. That's what makes it a story. The conflict often
revolves around some reason that the lovers aren't supposed to BE lovers.
They're from different social classes, different religions, different races,
that kind of thing.
Any work of art, it seems to me, implies a value judgment of some kind. The
painting of the beautiful trees implies a sense of the value of nature
beyond the realm of humans; the pastoral landscape or the painting of roses
in a garden implies a sense of the value of nature contained in human order.
And so on.
A value judgment implies that a contrary judgment is possible. The artist
has chosen THIS judgment over THAT judgment. In most cases, value judgments
travel in packets. If I choose THIS as having value, then you might well be
able to predict many of the other value judgments I might make. So, if I
choose, for example, to paint natural landscapes without any human figures
or artifacts depicted within them, then you might get a hint of some of my
attitudes: the stance I might take on environmental issues and so on. Of
course, it's not as simple as that, but this is just an oversimplification
for the sake of argument.
I'm getting the feeling that to fully develop this argument the seed of
which is sprouting in my brain, I'd have to write at great length. But maybe
you can see where it's going, anyway.
David Raleigh Arnold
> I played a gig in a club a year or so ago and during the intermission one
> of the waiters made the above remark. He was addressing a bartender as
> they busied themselves doing what bartenders and waiters do.
>
> "All art is political." he said.
>
> I couldn't help but hear this remark. "That could not have been said by an
> artist.", I blurted out without even thinking.
>
> The waiter was a college age kid and continued, "No, this is what my
> political science professor says."
Perhaps you have found that a poli-sci professional will interpret
everything possible in terms of the field that he knows. Since he knows
nothing of art, art must be political so that he can claim to understand
it.
Economists are the worst. Economics is a science of small numbers, and
an economist can predict what's next in terms of small percentages, but
that doesn't stop them from b*itting about large percentages from which
they can't predict anything and understand nothing. It also means that
their ideas of the possible are restricted to a few points from what's
happening now, so they fear reforms or systemic changes no matter how
rational and necessary they are.
History, archaeology, wherever there are pseudosciences you find this
sort of mind set. daveA
--
Free download of technical exercises worth a lifetime of practice:
"Dynamic Guitar Technique": http://www.openguitar.com/instruction.html
Repertoire and/or licks are ammunition. Tech is a gun.
To email go to: http://www.openguitar.com/contact.html
RickH
I think I figured all this out, art does not equal politics, is still
my belief. But anything created and emerging within society has a
political impact, be that "creation" artistic or scientific. If art =
politics then politics must = art, and, we know thats not true. Also
if art = politics then does a political science degree make you a
guitarist, or a painter? no.
SO art comes first then politics reacts. Or if politics changes first,
then our art will reflect that. But one is not the other. So the
statement "all art is politics" is only valid if we define what the
word "is" means. And we've all seen the quagmire of that political
statement before in the US. The 2 react to each other, just like any
other two things you can name that people share in society.
Sean
1150508841.6...@f6g2000cwb.googlegroups.com, "RickH"
<pass...@windcrestsoftware.com> wrote:
A horse is an animal, but an animal is not necessarily a horse.
Joe Finn
>
> Performance is not only about what you play, but about what you chose
> not to play. Think Brecht. There's a perspective, shared by some and
> rejected by others, that says that art, including music, should
> challenge an audience, make them think out of the box, rattle the cage.
> Others that say it shouldn't just surprise, it should provoke. There is
> another that says that it most definitely should NOT do these things,
> but should be a comfortable and unobtrusive commodity used with drinks
> and mood-setting.
>
> Right there we have a conspicous divergence that could be said to be
> political.
To me those are artistic issues.
> Then there is the finances of the proposition: what do you play and for
> how much money and for whom?
Sometimes I compose just for the love of the music. I know that some of this
work will never make any money.
> Do you, Joe, consider what you do "art", for that matter? Because as
> we've cycled through this and related topics many times, quite a few or
> adamant that it is "craft" and anything categorized "art" is by
> definition obtuse, aggressive, dismissive of the audience and so on.
Art is by definition something that is put forward as such with a high level
of technical skill or craftsmanship if you like. As much as we love
children's finger paintings they are not art. I don't agree with the
"obtuse, aggressive, dismissive " stuff. Those are not my definitions.
> How much of your music is produced as a product specifically for the
> intent of sales (or entertainment) and how much of it is a manfestation
> of artistic impulse? That distinction too can be said to be effected
> by your chosen political vantage point vis-a-vis influencing the
> thinking and appreciation of others.
I only play what I choose to play. The choice is made according to my
artistic judgment. ...joe
--
Visit me on the web www.JoeFinn.net
Joe Finn
> But did you see your musical performance as art? you call it "work as a
> musician", not art.
To me it's creative, self expression. Jazz is a performing art. I call it
"work as a
musician" the same way I'd refer to someone's work as a dancer or work as
an actor. I'm not referring to the kind of work where you punch a clock.
> I don't think anything I play is political, but I don't think its art
> either, at least by my vague notions of what politics and art are. If
> someone called me an artist I would find it funny.
I don't think anything I play is political either. A lot of music does not
rise to the level of art but the best music does. ....joe
Joe Finn
> Joe:
> I dunno--how can you NOT see the choice to play jazz rather than, say,
> play in a jingle studio as a "political" decision? It's a choice about
> what you think matters.
Exactly correct. But decision is based on artistic standards.
> You choose jazz, you''re choosing an emphasis
> on group interaction, on spontaneity over rigidity, on the spontaneous
> rather than the authoriatarian. You didn't choose to be an accountant,
> or an arms dealer, or a priest, or a car salesman--these are political
> decisions in that they have to do with what you think is right and what
> constitues good. Imho you have to be ignoring a lot to see that as not
> political?
Jazz is just the medium of expression. What about the guy that chose dance,
or sculpture, or writing plays? Each followed a muse according to their own
artistic dictates. To me there isn't anything political about it.
> Maybe you don't think of jazz as ppolitical because so many irish songs
> are overtly about political opression? Choosing to keep a heritage of
> irish songs alive is clearly a political decision--as is the deecision
> about which songs you sing, no?
I know about those types of songs. It's not art partly due to the fact that
it is not put forward in earnest as a work of art. It is specifically put
forward to comment on a political situation.
> Seems to me all acts have a political dimension, you irish politician
> you!
That's a good one. Maybe I'll quit music and run for congress. 8-)
....joe
--
Joe Finn
>
> easy enough to find out with wikipedia!
It's obscure enough not to be in my Webster's. ...........joe
Joe Finn
"Gerry" <add...@domain.com.invalid> wrote
> People, nature and cosmos aren't political. Art is a DESCRIPTION of
> these and as such is a composite of the thinking of the artist. The
> thinking of an artist is political, like it or lump it, in the respect
> that they navigate a political world by making decisions regarding what
> is good for them.
Maybe we do and maybe we don't. Maybe people are pursuing expression through
the arts just to express what they can't hold inside. ....joe
Joe Finn
>
> Now, tell me how it is political when 2 people are lovers? How is the
> song or painting or book about lovers political. How does a song, a
> painting, a sculpture, a book - etc - about trees or the ocean or the
> vista from a beach or a mountain top - how are those things political.
That's how I view the arts too. It's the aesthetic frame of reference that
matters. Dealing with beauty and humanity directly through artistic
expression is a big part of what makes the work resonate. The ability of the
artist to tap into these cultural universals is a profound mystery with
eternal implications.
> There are exceptions to every rule, including the rule "There are
> exceptions to every rule."
>
> Absolute statements by anyone on any subject are a sign of an fool
> unless you're talking simplistic generic statements - like - "The only
> thing sure in life is death and taxes" - and even that isn't true!
I like to steer clear of sweeping generalizations too. They are intellectual
dead ends.
One of the temptations in a discussion of this kind is to say "some art is
indeed clearly political" as several contributors have keenly observed.
Example are given.
That's not the point. The idea is that certain creative expression rises
above politics completely. Maybe that's part of how it succeeds. ...joe
Joe Finn
>
> I think I figured all this out, art does not equal politics, is still
> my belief. But anything created and emerging within society has a
> political impact, be that "creation" artistic or scientific. If art =
> politics then politics must = art, and, we know thats not true. Also
> if art = politics then does a political science degree make you a
> guitarist, or a painter? no.
Art does not equal politics. These are two separate things. Amazingly enough
in our intellectualization of this mess, the lumpers are trying to paint us
into a corner. It won't work. Two separate things are still two separate
things. One can't be turned into the other. They can be inter-related and
they can overlap and remain distinct separate dynamics.
I won't even agree that "anything created and emerging within society has a
political impact". That's way too broad a statement for me. Some things get
created and have little significance and no impact whatsoever. Take this
discussion for instance. ...joe
--
Joe Finn
>
> all human acts rest on a bed of politics--that's just unavoidable. All
> our freedoms to do or choose rest on politics. All the social forces
> that constrain us are political forces. All art in made in a politcal
> context, and in that sense it's all political
In the unending drama of the struggle between life's lumpers and splitters,
I hope you won't mind if I think of you as an unabashed lumper of the first
magnitude.
Is the love we have for our children political? What about our respect for
the older generation? Self preservation? Certainly some things are simply
part of the human condition, no?
> i honestly have no idea why this is so upsetting to people. It's not an
> argument aganst art, or an argumment that art is bad, or an argument
> that art has to do x or y. I'm really puzzled why this upsets people
It's just another usenet discussion. It's not upsetting. On the contrary, I
think it's stimulating. Fun, even.
You are not actually arguing against art. The way in which you are putting
art firmly in a political context tends to cheapen and diminish it though.
Art is the highest expression of humanity. It's what history looks back on
as the very best of what people did. When history looks back on tyranny,
injustice and war it's looking at politics. ............joe
Joe Finn
"David Raleigh Arnold" <darn...@cox.net> wrote
>
> Perhaps you have found that a poli-sci professional will interpret
> everything possible in terms of the field that he knows. Since he knows
> nothing of art, art must be political so that he can claim to understand
> it.
As you may have guessed, that is precisely what I think was happening.
Intellectually defective academicians lack the wisdom to stick to what they
know. Some can't refrain from commenting on matters of which they are
ignorant, but that's human nature. The problem comes when people view
everything with blinders on. This results in a sort of tunnel vision where
all human endevours are "political" or "economic" or "spiritual" or
whatever.
To me this results in a lack of perspective. Or it might just be defective
logic. .........joe
thom_j.
"mt-50" <ind...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1150468424.6...@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com...
> "Politics" doesn't have to only mean Democrats vs. Republicans.
> What music isn't political?
the "twist" & the "hully gully?"
> Shak
>
>
>
>
>
> Kernix wrote:
>> That's a ll stupid statement - ppl only see what they want to see
>> sometimes.
>>
>> All nothing is nothing. - That's as good as you can state.
>
David Raleigh Arnold
If only it got better. They might instead put their trust in an 'expert'
who is chosen only to tell them what they want to hear.
Gerry
wrote:
> "David Raleigh Arnold" <darn...@cox.net> wrote
> >
> > Perhaps you have found that a poli-sci professional will interpret
> > everything possible in terms of the field that he knows. Since he knows
> > nothing of art, art must be political so that he can claim to understand
> > it.
>
> As you may have guessed, that is precisely what I think was happening.
> Intellectually defective academicians lack the wisdom to stick to what they
> know.
And some musicians agree, though I suppose by agreement they have
morphed into intellectually defective musicians. Maybe it's better to
think that different folks have different attitudes to both music and
politics and the degree to which they overlap. Neither need be
explicitly "wrong" in a world in which ideas only manage to be
unassailable "truth" in newsgroups.
> Some can't refrain from commenting on matters of which they are
> ignorant, but that's human nature. The problem comes when people view
> everything with blinders on. This results in a sort of tunnel vision where
> all human endevours are "political" or "economic" or "spiritual" or
> whatever.
An interesting perspective, especially when some believe that all those
folks that think art is devoid of politics are doing so explicitly
because they have blinders on!
As so often happens, I don't really think it's about this stupid group
of know-nothings or that deluded group of idiots. Frankly I think their
ideas can coexist without an overarching generalization at all. Call
me crazy... or perhaps stupid.
> To me this results in a lack of perspective. Or it might just be defective
> logic.
I read your viewpoints on your art and wouldn't consider challenging
them. I do think it interesting, though, that you think somebody
else's perspective if art as more than art, that it has additional,
ways to be perceived is an example of a *limitation* of perspective,
rather than an expansion.
--
Ten years searching in the deep forest. Today great laughter at the edge of the
lake. -- Soen
Gerry
Arnold <darn...@cox.net> wrote:
> > To me this results in a lack of perspective. Or it might just be defective
> > logic.
>
> If only it got better. They might instead put their trust in an 'expert'
> who is chosen only to tell them what they want to hear.
You would choose a musician to tell you about the politics of art?
The entire idea of "authority", as we cover periodically, then assumes
that any musician with a face knows what musicians are thinking, what
music is "good", what musician's intent is, and so forth. Then of
course, "better" musicians can over-ride the viewpoints of "lesser"
musicians. Of course a third party has to stratify the "better" and
"more better" musicians in order to see which truth has this week's
greater authority.
I've come to the conclusion after many years at rmmgj that any truth,
all truths, are completely subjective and I have a very hard time
indeed working up a head of steam for the battle of wills between A
makes B wrong and B makes C even more wrong. It's such an endless,
scoreless game.
The ideas are interesting to me, as is this one, until it comes to
proving one or the other completely false for now and the infinite
future.
--
Talk does not cook rice. -- Chinese saying
Joe Finn
"Gerry" <add...@domain.com.invalid> wrote
>
> I read your viewpoints on your art and wouldn't consider challenging
> them. I do think it interesting, though, that you think somebody
> else's perspective if art as more than art, that it has additional,
> ways to be perceived is an example of a *limitation* of perspective,
> rather than an expansion.
Gerry: Thanks for your reply. I hadn't been thinking in terms of the
limitation of perspective at all. My view is simply that it's possible for
art to exist on it's own terms. Placing it in another context isn't
necessary. My opinion is that this can trivialize, taint or otherwise
diminish the expressivity.
I continue to believe that the highest expressions of humanity and many of
history's greatest achievements are to be found in the arts. I don't think
there is a higher calling than that of the artist and I think politics is
mundane; but that's just me. .......joe
David Raleigh Arnold
> In article <e70820$vg5$1...@news.datemas.de>, Joe Finn <J...@JoeFinn.net>
> wrote:
>
>> "David Raleigh Arnold" <darn...@cox.net> wrote
>> >
>> > Perhaps you have found that a poli-sci professional will interpret
>> > everything possible in terms of the field that he knows. Since he
>> > knows nothing of art, art must be political so that he can claim to
>> > understand it.
>>
>> As you may have guessed, that is precisely what I think was happening.
>> Intellectually defective academicians lack the wisdom to stick to what
>> they know.
>
> And some musicians agree, though I suppose by agreement they have morphed
> into intellectually defective musicians. Maybe it's better to think that
> different folks have different attitudes to both music and politics and
> the degree to which they overlap. Neither need be explicitly "wrong" in a
> world in which ideas only manage to be unassailable "truth" in newsgroups.
>
>> Some can't refrain from commenting on matters of which they are
>> ignorant, but that's human nature. The problem comes when people view
>> everything with blinders on. This results in a sort of tunnel vision
>> where all human endevours are "political" or "economic" or "spiritual"
>> or whatever.
>
> An interesting perspective, especially when some believe that all those
> folks that think art is devoid of politics are doing so explicitly because
> they have blinders on!
Who is that? No one averred anything like that. Look at the
*topic*. daveA
David Raleigh Arnold
> In article <pan.2006.06.17....@cox.net>, David Raleigh Arnold
> <darn...@cox.net> wrote:
>
>> > To me this results in a lack of perspective. Or it might just be
>> > defective logic.
>>
>> If only it got better. They might instead put their trust in an
>> 'expert' who is chosen only to tell them what they want to hear.
>
> You would choose a musician to tell you about the politics of art?
????????? I would consult an expert in poli-sci about poli-sci, but
I would not choose one on the basis of what I wanted to hear, and your
rhetorical question is not to any point at all.
>
> The entire idea of "authority", as we cover periodically, then assumes
> that any musician with a face knows what musicians are thinking, what
> music is "good", what musician's intent is, and so forth. Then of
> course, "better" musicians can over-ride the viewpoints of "lesser"
> musicians. Of course a third party has to stratify the "better" and
> "more better" musicians in order to see which truth has this week's
> greater authority.
>
> I've come to the conclusion after many years at rmmgj that any truth,
> all truths, are completely subjective and I have a very hard time indeed
> working up a head of steam for the battle of wills between A makes B
> wrong and B makes C even more wrong. It's such an endless, scoreless
> game.
That conclusion is obviously written in stone. Truth is from experience,
but not authority. Your conclusion is that truth is pointless.
>
> The ideas are interesting to me, as is this one, until it comes to
> proving one or the other completely false for now and the infinite
> future.
You speak only for yourself. Your opinions, such as that there will
be an infinite future, must be accepted without question. daveA
Mike C.
news:C0B847CE.115B9%not...@fake.ca...
> On 6/16/06 9:33 AM, in article
> 1150475636....@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com, "hotchkisstrio"
> <paulyho...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I see your point about how can an instrumental be political, but there
>> is a strong jazz tradition of political statements, whether in the
>> songs or just proclaimed by the artists.
>>
>
> Just another of my useless inputs, but Hendrix's instrumental version of
> the
> US national anthem seemed pretty political to me. But that's just one case
> of a political instrumental.
>
And here is where we may need to define the original statement of this
thread. Do we mean that all art is created to be political, or is all art
interpreted as political? Hendrix stated many times that his version of the
Star Spangled Banana was for no political statement at all. He didn't
bastardize the tune for some political agenda. He was in the airforce and
felt that he did something beautiful. It was the listeners and the
political-minded that felt he was making a statement by adding the sounds of
bombs dropping into our national anthem during wartime. Hendrix's goal was
apparently nothing of the sort.
--
Mike C.
http://mikecrutcher.com
Find your voice, and speak it loudly and clearly.
Everything else is really bullshit in the end.
--Larry Carlton
Mike C.
news:1150483053.7...@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
>
> Joe Finn wrote:
>
>> Thanks for your reply.
>>
>> certain artists do address political themes, much [most?] artistic
>> expression focuses on more humanistic or abstract material.
>>
>> Getting back to the waiter's issue though, and to answer my own question
>> to
>> him; I did not see that the music we were performing at the time as any
>> kind
>> of political statement. I guess I really don't see my work as a musician
>> in
>> that way. .......joe
> I dunno--how can you NOT see the choice to play jazz rather than, say,
> play in a jingle studio as a "political" decision? It's a choice about
> on group interaction, on spontaneity over rigidity, on the spontaneous
> rather than the authoriatarian. You didn't choose to be an accountant,
> or an arms dealer, or a priest, or a car salesman--these are political
> decisions in that they have to do with what you think is right and what
> constitues good. Imho you have to be ignoring a lot to see that as not
> political?
>
> are overtly about political opression? Choosing to keep a heritage of
> irish songs alive is clearly a political decision--as is the deecision
> about which songs you sing, no?
>
> political decisoion--a decision about segregation
>
> Seems to me all acts have a political dimension, you irish politician
> you!
Well, then the statement should be re-worded in order to not be prejudiced
against artists: "everything is political". If you want to argue that angle,
the decision to get out of bed in the morning is political, because you're
planning on having an effect on people that particular day, or planning on
not interacting with people in order to make a political statement.
This thread is rather silly, no?
Mike C.
"Joe Finn" <J...@JoeFinn.net> wrote in message
news:e6up9i$q9i$1...@news.datemas.de...
> "RickH" <pass...@windcrestsoftware.com> wrote
>> I'm much happier letting a love song, remain a love song, love being
>> the topic of 99 percent of the American jazz songbook legacy. I cant
>> for the life of me believe that a Lorenz and Hart or a Harold Arlen sat
>> down to make a political statement with their great songs, but rather
>> that they wanted to make an emotional statement.
>
>
> the human condition. These expressions resonate as you suggest on basic
> emotional levels: love, joy, sorrow, etc. ..joe
Oh, come on. Even a non-political conformist such as yourself can see that
the Barney song "I Love You, You Love Me" is purposely and obviously
Communist? Love thy neighbor, comrade...
;-)
Gerry
Arnold <darn...@cox.net> wrote:
> > ...some believe that all those folks that think art is devoid of
> > politics are doing so explicitly because they have blinders on!
>
> Who is that?
I'm one.
> No one averred anything like that. Look at the *topic*.
Apparetnly not everybody agrees with the topic header as they've
indicated upstream. In fact, loosey-goosey polling in the thread seems
to indicate most disagree with the statement in the topic.
Gerry
Arnold <darn...@cox.net> wrote:
> >> If only it got better. They might instead put their trust in an
> >> 'expert' who is chosen only to tell them what they want to hear.
> >
> > You would choose a musician to tell you about the politics of art?
>
> ????????? I would consult an expert in poli-sci about poli-sci, but
> I would not choose one on the basis of what I wanted to hear, and
> your rhetorical question is not to any point at all.
I'll try again: If a poli-sci expert isn't to be consulted on music and
a musician isn't to be considered on politics then who is to be asked
regarding their intersection or overlap?
> > I've come to the conclusion after many years at rmmgj that any
> > truth, all truths, are completely subjective and I have a very hard
> > time indeed working up a head of steam for the battle of wills
> > between A makes B wrong and B makes C even more wrong. It's such
> > an endless, scoreless game.
>
> That conclusion is obviously written in stone.
No, my conclusions change as do the circumstances presented.
> Truth is from experience, but not authority. Your conclusion is that
> truth is pointless.
That is not my conclusion. My conclusion is jist as I stated,
truth is subjective. It's the subject of the first sentence above.
> > > The ideas are interesting to me, as is this one, until it comes
> > > to proving one or the other completely false for now and the
> > > infinite future.
>
> You speak only for yourself.
Right, that's why I said so in each statement.
> Your opinions, such as that there will be an infinite future, must be accepted without question.
No, they don't have to be accepted at all. They're my view and I assume
others have their own.
You only got 1 out of 5 in reading comprehension.
--
When somebody says it's not about the money--it's about the money. -- H.L.
Mencken
Sean
"Mike C." <Funki...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> "Sean" <not...@fake.ca> wrote in message
> news:C0B847CE.115B9%not...@fake.ca...
>> On 6/16/06 9:33 AM, in article
>> 1150475636....@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com, "hotchkisstrio"
>> <paulyho...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I see your point about how can an instrumental be political, but there
>>> is a strong jazz tradition of political statements, whether in the
>>> songs or just proclaimed by the artists.
>>>
>>
>> Just another of my useless inputs, but Hendrix's instrumental version of
>> the
>> US national anthem seemed pretty political to me. But that's just one case
>> of a political instrumental.
>>
>
> And here is where we may need to define the original statement of this
> thread. Do we mean that all art is created to be political, or is all art
> interpreted as political? Hendrix stated many times that his version of the
> Star Spangled Banana was for no political statement at all. He didn't
> bastardize the tune for some political agenda. He was in the airforce and
> felt that he did something beautiful. It was the listeners and the
> political-minded that felt he was making a statement by adding the sounds of
> bombs dropping into our national anthem during wartime. Hendrix's goal was
> apparently nothing of the sort.
>
>
Really? Well, I don't believe him. :-)
Sean
"Mike C." <Funki...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> This thread is rather silly, no?
>
A political assertion, no?
pmfan57
People are always reading all this stuff into literature as well. All
the meanings in Shakespeare. He couldn't possibly have consciously had
all that stuff in mind while writing, acting, directing, putting on the
plays, advertising, collecting the money, paying the other actors, etc.
He happened to be great so universal truths were in there, but I don't
think he had time to think all that stuff through.
David J. Littleboy
"Gerry" <add...@domain.com.invalid> wrote:
> David Raleigh Arnold <darn...@cox.net> wrote:
>
>> > ...some believe that all those folks that think art is devoid of
>> > politics are doing so explicitly because they have blinders on!
>>
>> Who is that?
>
> I'm one.
Me too. Real art has _intellectual_ content, and is original. That content
may be harmonic, melodic, rhythmical, or about how to use projections to
represent reality (in painting or photography), or something.
But art has thought in it. And as soon as you think about something and put
that thought out in front of an audience, it's going to interact with some
sort of social or historical trend or structure or context, either to
support it (i.e. a conservative work within a tradition supports that
tradition) or deny it (a radical work asserts that the tradition is
inadequate).
So real art (art that is in any way original) can't not be political.
David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan
Gerry
pmfan57 <jwra...@aol.com> wrote:
> > Really? Well, I don't believe him. :-)
>
> People are always reading all this stuff into literature as well. All
> the meanings in Shakespeare. He couldn't possibly have consciously had
> all that stuff in mind while writing, acting, directing, putting on the
> plays, advertising, collecting the money, paying the other actors, etc.
> He happened to be great so universal truths were in there, but I don't
> think he had time to think all that stuff through.
True: he was just one of the most amazingly lucky artists of all time:
myriad levels of complexity and intricacy can be found in his work--but
he didn't even know! It says something about the brilliance of
after-the-fact "reading in" that can be done by teachers and critics,
huh? :-)
--
The secret of managing is to keep the guys who hate you away from the guys who
are undecided. -- Casey Stengel
Gerry
<dav...@gol.com> wrote:
> >> > ...some believe that all those folks that think art is devoid of
> >> > politics are doing so explicitly because they have blinders on!
> >>
> >> Who is that?
> >
> > I'm one.
>
> Me too. Real art has _intellectual_ content, and is original. That content
> may be harmonic, melodic, rhythmical, or about how to use projections to
> represent reality (in painting or photography), or something.
>
> But art has thought in it. And as soon as you think about something and put
> that thought out in front of an audience, it's going to interact with some
> sort of social or historical trend or structure or context, either to
> support it (i.e. a conservative work within a tradition supports that
> tradition) or deny it (a radical work asserts that the tradition is
> inadequate).
>
> So real art (art that is in any way original) can't not be political.
That's about my view. The reality is, as someone noted with flower
arranging and up-the-middle pops sons, you may have to really dig to
find any political inference. But in others it isn't so difficult to
find.
I don't mean this as a dig, but I find the "liberal bias" found in
media by "conservative" commentators as well as the "anti-christian",
"homosexual agenda" and "wiccan feminists" found in everything from
cartoons to Mark Twain by christianists to be entirely in the eye of
the beholder. They are looking for anything that can
reverse-engineered to manifest their world view. They find it.
So back to poli-sci teachers and popular musics: each teacher probably
comes down at a different point in the bell-curve, based on what he/she
believes and what they are looking for.
Joe Finn
>
> Me too. Real art has _intellectual_ content, and is original. That content
> may be harmonic, melodic, rhythmical, or about how to use projections to
> represent reality (in painting or photography), or something.
>
> But art has thought in it. And as soon as you think about something and
> put that thought out in front of an audience, it's going to interact with
> some sort of social or historical trend or structure or context......
I understand what you say about "social and historical" but what about
emotional? Many listeners respond to hearing instrumental music in a very
personal and subjective way. Since it is not a representational art form,
the music is said to evoke certain moods. Sorrow, joy, heartbreak,
you-name-it, etc. These emotions are experienced by each of us in our own
way and each listener's emotional response is unique to their particular
experience.
> So real art (art that is in any way original) can't not be political.
My emotional responses to music are not political in any way that has
revealed itself to me so far. ..............joe
Joe Finn
"Gerry" <add...@domain.com.invalid> wrote
> Apparetnly not everybody agrees with the topic header as they've
> indicated upstream.
I put the topic header forward as an example of something I don't agree
with. To me it's just one of those broad sweeping generalizations that just
hangs there like a bad curve ball begging to be hit out of the ball park.
Here's a thought. Ask yourself if listening to music has caused you to
experience emotions or if it has put you in certain moods. It's a personal
thing so there's no need to reply here but think about it. Most people
report music as an evocative experience. Some certainly experience
"political emotions" listening to anthems and the like, but some emotions
are anything but political.
Or are they? 8-) ............joe
David J. Littleboy
"Joe Finn" <J...@JoeFinn.net> wrote in message
> "David J. Littleboy" <dav...@gol.com> wrote
>
>>
>> Me too. Real art has _intellectual_ content, and is original. That
>> content may be harmonic, melodic, rhythmical, or about how to use
>> projections to represent reality (in painting or photography), or
>> something.
>>
>> But art has thought in it. And as soon as you think about something and
>> put that thought out in front of an audience, it's going to interact with
>> some sort of social or historical trend or structure or context......
>
> I understand what you say about "social and historical" but what about
> emotional? Many listeners respond to hearing instrumental music in a very
> personal and subjective way. Since it is not a representational art form,
> the music is said to evoke certain moods. Sorrow, joy, heartbreak,
> you-name-it, etc.
Well, movie music, "program music", and "smooth jazz", which do all that,
are largely not considered art. If it don't challenge someone or somthing on
some level, it ain't art.