Mussolini and Modernist Aesthetics (for E.P.)
Mic...@www.chonju-tc.ac.kr
Mussolini, hardly anyone talks about him anymore. Why? Are we that
discouraged by his accomplishments? Did you know that M. was a violinist?
Well I know. He read all of Shakespeare and most of Moliere and
Corneille. He knew Goethe by heart and read bits of Dante everyday.
Plato's dialogues sat comfortably on the Duce's desk. He even enjoyed
American classic literature: Twain, Longfellow, and Emerson. Mussolini
never got to carry out a Fascist Revolution in the arts. He did intend
to. Fascism needed the arts in order to gain in respectability and he
wanted to give Fascism credibility. The futurists are important in this
respect and in a future post I plan to examine the seminal leadership of
Marinetti.The goal of Fascist art was to be novel and universal. It had
to be aggressive and warlike. For a time he thought the answer lay in the
novecentisi favored by his mistriss Sarfatti. Instinctively he was drawn
to socialist realist experiments in Russia. Artist must be servants of
the Greater Whole. That Whole is controlled by the government. Art
declines when it refuses public service. ART becomes decadent and inward.
There is no place for surrealism, for dadaism, abstractionism. No place
that is in a healthy body politic.
-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet
David Christopher Swanson
The Duce is responsible for the biggest underused and the ugliest works
of architecture in and around Rome. There IS something American
Edge-city-ish about the E.U.R.
DCS
lee
I'll be interested to see how you defend/praise Marinetti - didn't the *Futurist
Manifesto* have a line in it about war being the objective?
Was he drawn to Russian Social Realism? When was that? Which artists?
That Whole is controlled by the government. Art
declines when it refuses public service. ART becomes decadent and inward.
There is no place for surrealism, for dadaism, abstractionism. No place
that is in a healthy body politic.
- Michael
That is interesting: I'm with him/you and Walter Benjamin when it comes to the
Surrealists, and Dada I suppose. But abstraction...I like Kandinsky's
spirituality.
Lee
Puss in Boots
Mic...@www.chonju-tc.ac.kr:
> > Mussolini, hardly anyone talks about him anymore. Why? Are we that
> > discouraged by his accomplishments? Did you know that M. was a violinist?
> > Well I know. [...] Artist must be servants of the Greater Whole. That
> > Whole is controlled by the government. Art declines when it refuses
> > public service. ART becomes decadent and inward. There is no place for
> > surrealism, for dadaism, abstractionism. No place that is in a healthy
> > body politic.
Lee:
> That is interesting: I'm with him/you and Walter Benjamin when it comes to
> the Surrealists, and Dada I suppose. ...
You may be with Michael and Benito (I hope you all have a swell
time), but Benjamin certainly isn't with you -- he had tremendous,
although not unstinting admiration for the Surrealists. He credited
them with the only "radical concept of freedom" in Europe since
Bakunin, called Surrealism "an inspiring dream wave," and wrote that
it pushed "'the poetic life' to the utmost limits of possibility"
("Surrealism"). In a letter to Adorno (5/31/1935), he described the
excitement of reading Aragon: "Evenings, lying in bed, I could
never read more than two to three pages before my heart started to
pound so hard that I had to put the book down." Naturally he's also
got his doubts -- for example, he wonders if the Surrealists have
succeeded in binding "revolt to revolution." But on the whole, B.'s
attitude toward them is unquestionably positive.
"Saint-Pol Roux, retiring to bed about daybreak, fixes a notice
on his door: 'Poet at work.'"
-- Moggin
lee
On Thu, 11 Sep 1997 21:08:31 -0500 mog...@mindspring.com (Puss in Boots) wrote
in <moggin-ya02408000...@news.mindspring.com>:
I trust you know your stuff: didn't Benjamin term surrealism as snobbish,
useless? I'll dig the book out when I've moved (again) for the season.
Lee.
"Saint-Pol Roux, retiring to bed about daybreak, fixes a notice
on his door: 'Poet at work.'"
Bootiful.
-- Moggin
Matt Beckwith
>Mic...@www.chonju-tc.ac.kr:
>> > Mussolini, hardly anyone talks about him anymore. Why? Are we that
>> > discouraged by his accomplishments? Did you know that M. was a violinist?
>> > Well I know. [...]
Having missed your complete post, I don't understand why you're going
on about a Fascist dictator who was a friend of Hitler's.
>> > Artist must be servants of the Greater Whole. That
>> > Whole is controlled by the government. Art declines when it refuses
>> > public service. ART becomes decadent and inward. There is no place for
>> > surrealism, for dadaism, abstractionism. No place that is in a healthy
>> > body politic.
I think artists must be servants of a greater something. Those who
simply allow their imaginations free reign and call it art are not in
the same league with those who spend years perfecting the skill of
representing what they actually see in real life. In other words,
Dali doesn't compare with Whistler, in my book.
But why does that something have to be the state?
Governments are always gardens of mediocrity. What is it that
motivates a civil servant toward greater degrees of excellence in the
performance of his job? If we conceive of artists as subservient to
the bureaucrats, we are truly looking at the world topsy-turvy.
G*rd*n
| ...
beck...@pop.southeast.net (Matt Beckwith):
| I think artists must be servants of a greater something. Those who
| simply allow their imaginations free reign and call it art are not in
| the same league with those who spend years perfecting the skill of
| representing what they actually see in real life. In other words,
| Dali doesn't compare with Whistler, in my book.
Dali has always struck me as tediously representational; but
I assumed this was part of his game, like throwing cats and
glasses around for a photographer. Everyone's got to make a
living, I suppose....
| But why does that something have to be the state?
|
| Governments are always gardens of mediocrity. What is it that
| motivates a civil servant toward greater degrees of excellence in the
| performance of his job? If we conceive of artists as subservient to
| the bureaucrats, we are truly looking at the world topsy-turvy.
I think if you start talking about "real life" or "reality"
you're in the realm of politics, and the State with its
bureaucrats (and cops) is likely to show up pretty soon.
Politics doesn't have to be mediocre (although we're
probably better off when it is). Fascists, for instance,
have come up with some very sharp uniforms which other
folks (like S & M enthusiasts) have been able to make good
use of. If you can get to the Greenwich Village Hallowe'en
Parade in a few weeks, you can see some attractive examples,
but now free from the dreary world of cops, bureaucrats, and
"reality."
--
}"{ G*rd*n }"{ g...@panix.com }"{
Robert Teeter
Matt Beckwith (beck...@pop.southeast.net) wrote:
: I think artists must be servants of a greater something.
Like what? A philosophy? Perfect representation of the
objective reality?
: Those who
: simply allow their imaginations free [rein] and call it art are not in
: the same league with those who spend years perfecting the skill of
: representing what they actually see in real life.
Really? So the photo-realist Chuck Close is a better artist
than Monet?
: In other words,
: Dali doesn't compare with Whistler, in my book.
Dali was trying to represent what he saw in his dreams, which
is part of real life.
: But why does that something have to be the state?
Some of those realistic artists you talk about took money
from the state and, therefore, tried not to offend it at least.
Michelangelo is one example.
: Governments are always gardens of mediocrity. What is it that
: motivates a civil servant toward greater degrees of excellence in the
: performance of his job? If we conceive of artists as subservient to
: the bureaucrats, we are truly looking at the world topsy-turvy.
There are propagandists, who may be akin to civil servants in
the pejorative sense in which you use it. But there are also artists
who receive state grants, who are different.
--
Bob Teeter (rte...@netcom.com) | http://www.wco.com/~rteeter/
"On the Internet, we are not all wise children" -- E. G.-M.
"Government may not reduce the adult population to only what is fit for
children" -- U.S. Supreme Court, Reno v. ACLU, June 26, 1997
Puss in Boots
beck...@pop.southeast.net (Matt Beckwith):
> I think artists must be servants of a greater something. Those who
> simply allow their imaginations free reign and call it art are not in
> the same league with those who spend years perfecting the skill of
> representing what they actually see in real life. In other words,
> Dali doesn't compare with Whistler, in my book. [...]
Isn't that the kind of criticism that Whistler got; for example,
from Ruskin, when he attacked the _Nocturne in Black and Gold_?
(Aside from the part about Dali, I mean -- I don't think he was very
popular with the Victorians.)
-- Moggin
Matt Beckwith
rte...@netcom.com (Robert Teeter) wrote:
>
>Matt Beckwith (beck...@pop.southeast.net) wrote:
>
>: I think artists must be servants of a greater something.
>
> Like what? A philosophy? Perfect representation of the
>objective reality?
Are you asking a question, or implying that anything I answer must be
ridiculous?
>: Those who
>: simply allow their imaginations free [rein] and call it art are not in
>: the same league with those who spend years perfecting the skill of
>: representing what they actually see in real life.
>
> Really? So the photo-realist Chuck Close is a better artist
>than Monet?
If you disagree, I would prefer you just said so. It's difficult for
me to get past my feeling of being insulted in order to carry on a
discussion with you.
>: In other words,
>: Dali doesn't compare with Whistler, in my book.
>
> Dali was trying to represent what he saw in his dreams, which
>is part of real life.
Yes, I thought of this. But objects in dreams are symbols. It
doesn't much matter how exactly the clock is shaped, as long as it's
melty, for the purposes of the dream. But when Van Gogh saw a tree,
the light on it, the energy in it, he was seeing millions of
impressions, each one created by God and translated into oils by the
great Van Gogh.
>: But why does that something have to be the state?
>
> Some of those realistic artists you talk about took money
>from the state and, therefore, tried not to offend it at least.
>Michelangelo is one example.
So what?
>: Governments are always gardens of mediocrity. What is it that
>: motivates a civil servant toward greater degrees of excellence in the
>: performance of his job? If we conceive of artists as subservient to
>: the bureaucrats, we are truly looking at the world topsy-turvy.
>
> There are propagandists, who may be akin to civil servants in
>the pejorative sense in which you use it. But there are also artists
>who receive state grants, who are different.
On the one hand I was talking about the benefit to art of trying to
stay within some higher structure (such as the attempt to depict
nature). On the other, I was suggesting that having the state be that
higher structure is not necessary (and perhaps is even undesirable
since the state comprises bureaucrats, who by and large are champions
of the mediocre). This was all in response to the original poster's
assertion that Mussolini believed that all art should be subservient
to the purposes of the government.
Now you (someone with time on his hands, I presume) respond to my post
by ridiculing my assertion that art should be subservient to something
higher (I can respect your point, since many people believe art should
not subserve anything), then ridiculing my assertion that realism is a
higher art form than surrealism (once again point well taken though
not agreed with), and finally by politely pointing out that there are
artists who are funded by the state but who are not mediocre.
In my opinion, insofar as a given artist is taking what he experiences
of nature and translating it into his medium, he is at least putting
himself in the proximity of the possibility of creating something
worthwhile. This is because he is experiencing and recreating the
beauty created by God. But insofar as an artist uses his craft to
make a statement dictated by his government (which is not by any means
God or god-like), he will not create anything worthwhile.
This does not mean that no artist funded by the state can produce good
art.
By the way, thanks for correcting my use of reign when I should have
said "rein".
Mic...@www.chonju-tc.ac.kr
In article <5vbmku$e...@panix2.panix.com>,
g...@panix.com (G*rd*n) wrote:
>
>
> | ...
>
> beck...@pop.southeast.net (Matt Beckwith):
> | I think artists must be servants of a greater something. Those who
> | simply allow their imaginations free reign and call it art are not in
> | the same league with those who spend years perfecting the skill of
> | Dali doesn't compare with Whistler, in my book.
>
> I assumed this was part of his game, like throwing cats and
> glasses around for a photographer. Everyone's got to make a
> living, I suppose....
>
> | But why does that something have to be the state?
> |
> | Governments are always gardens of mediocrity. What is it that
> | motivates a civil servant toward greater degrees of excellence in the
> | performance of his job? If we conceive of artists as subservient to
> | the bureaucrats, we are truly looking at the world topsy-turvy.
>
> I think if you start talking about "real life" or "reality"
> you're in the realm of politics, and the State with its
> bureaucrats (and cops) is likely to show up pretty soon.
>
>>>> Now here Gordon or G*rd*n has put his own spin on things. In my
>>>> experience the cops show up when: 1.someone has lost control of their
>>>> rational faculty or 2. when firing a pistol into a crowd randomly or
>>>> 3. after discovering the buried bodies of children exploited by
>>>> people pretending to be clowns. I hope we get more prisons and more
>>>> police soon. We need these guys to keep the madness at bay.
>>>> If you don't believe me, ask Mr. Goddard who likes to police web sites.
>
>
> Politics doesn't have to be mediocre (although we're
> probably better off when it is). Fascists, for instance,
> have come up with some very sharp uniforms which other
> folks (like S & M enthusiasts) have been able to make good
> use of. If you can get to the Greenwich Village Hallowe'en
> Parade in a few weeks, you can see some attractive examples,
> but now free from the dreary world of cops, bureaucrats, and
> "reality."
> --
> }"{ G*rd*n }"{ g...@panix.com }"{
>>>>
>>>>No, no, no G*rd*n read your Benjamin. We need to aestheticize politics.
>>>> and the sooner we get busy doing that the better we all will be.
>>>> I hold the reason people no longer vote is due to the campaign bunting...
>>>> so gauche don't you think??? "WE" are not better off with bad bunting.
>>> Shaggy Dog All Wet?
Mic...@www.chonju-tc.ac.kr
In article <341a508c...@news.southeast.net>,
beck...@pop.southeast.net (Matt Beckwith) wrote:
>
> >Mic...@www.chonju-tc.ac.kr:
>
> >> > Mussolini, hardly anyone talks about him anymore. Why? Are we that
> >> > discouraged by his accomplishments? Did you know that M. was a violinist?
> >> > Well I know. [...]
>
> Having missed your complete post, I don't understand why you're going
> on about a Fascist dictator who was a friend of Hitler's.
>
>>> I don't think anyone can talk about modernism without mentioning the
>>> problems posed by mass politics. As for the relation with Hitler it was
>>> not tight. I think Italian fascism is non-racial in ideology and their
>>> sense of humanity did not exclude other peoples in the way the Nazis did.
>
>
> >> > Artist must be servants of the Greater Whole. That
> >> > Whole is controlled by the government. Art declines when it refuses
> >> > public service. ART becomes decadent and inward. There is no place for
> >> > surrealism, for dadaism, abstractionism. No place that is in a healthy
> >> > body politic.
>
> simply allow their imaginations free reign and call it art are not in
> the same league with those who spend years perfecting the skill of
> representing what they actually see in real life. In other words,
> Dali doesn't compare with Whistler, in my book.
>
>>> I also think tradition is a concern something that surrealism perhaps
>>> undervalued. On the other hand the unconscious is a collective memory.
>
> But why does that something have to be the state?
>
> Governments are always gardens of mediocrity. What is it that
> motivates a civil servant toward greater degrees of excellence in the
> performance of his job? If we conceive of artists as subservient to
> the bureaucrats, we are truly looking at the world topsy-turvy.
>
>>> civil service...but the proper order is The Whole, the Government, the
>>> Social Order of Civil Society and the Family. The Government's specific
>>> obligation for better or worse is preservation and health of the Whole.
>>> No other part of society is equiped to protect and nurture the Whole.
>>> For this reason, loyalty to the Greater Whole is everyone's primary
>>> duty.
Mic...@www.chonju-tc.ac.kr
In article <rteeterE...@netcom.com>,> : I think artists must be servants of a greater something.
>
> Like what? A philosophy? Perfect representation of the
> objective reality?
>
>>>> greater than themselves they will serve only THEMSELVES and the
>>>> results will be trivial and disasterous for everyone.
>
>
>> : Those who
> : simply allow their imaginations free [rein] and call it art are not in
> : the same league with those who spend years perfecting the skill of
> : representing what they actually see in real life.
>
> than Monet?
>
> : Dali doesn't compare with Whistler, in my book.
>
> is part of real life.
>>> Artists are incommensurable, why compare?
>>>
>>>
> : But why does that something have to be the state?
>
>>>> Because the state serves the welfare of the Whole of which you too
>>>> are only a part.
>
>
> Some of those realistic artists you talk about took money
> from the state and, therefore, tried not to offend it at least.
> Michelangelo is one example.
>
> : motivates a civil servant toward greater degrees of excellence in the
> : performance of his job? If we conceive of artists as subservient to
> : the bureaucrats, we are truly looking at the world topsy-turvy.
>
> the pejorative sense in which you use it. But there are also artists
> who receive state grants, who are different.
>
>>>> good?
>
>>>> Michael
> --
> Bob Teeter (rte...@netcom.com) | http://www.wco.com/~rteeter/
> "On the Internet, we are not all wise children" -- E. G.-M.
> "Government may not reduce the adult population to only what is fit for
> children" -- U.S. Supreme Court, Reno v. ACLU, June 26, 1997
-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
Mic...@www.chonju-tc.ac.kr
In article <moggin-ya02408000...@news.mindspring.com>,
mog...@mindspring.com (Puss in Boots) wrote:
>
> beck...@pop.southeast.net (Matt Beckwith):
>
> > I think artists must be servants of a greater something. Those who
> > simply allow their imaginations free reign and call it art are not in
> > the same league with those who spend years perfecting the skill of
> > Dali doesn't compare with Whistler, in my book. [...]
>
> Isn't that the kind of criticism that Whistler got; for example,
> from Ruskin, when he attacked the _Nocturne in Black and Gold_?
> (Aside from the part about Dali, I mean -- I don't think he was very
> popular with the Victorians.)
>
> -- Moggin
>
>>> Ruskin, Sestri: November 4th 1840...the clouds were rising gradually
>>> from the Apennines, fragments entangled here and there in the ravines
>>> catching the level sunlight like so many tongues on fire; the dark blue
>>> outlines of the hills clear as crystal against a pale distant purity
>>> of green sky, the sun touching here and there upon their turfy precipices,
>>> and the white, square villages along the gulph gleaming like silver to
>>> the northwest...to the south an expanse of sea...the whole scene such as
>>> can only come once or twice in a lifetime. (Only in Italy?)
>> Shaggy Dog Stories
lee
On Thu, 11 Sep 1997 21:08:31 -0500 mog...@mindspring.com (Puss in Boots) wrote
in <moggin-ya02408000...@news.mindspring.com>:
Mussolini, hardly anyone talks about him anymore. Why?
Because he was a murdering Fascist SOB.
Try talking about Marrinetti, and at least we might get onto Bloomsbury.
Lee
lee
On Fri, 12 Sep 1997 18:17:39 GMT rte...@netcom.com (Robert Teeter) wrote in
<rteeterE...@netcom.com>:
Matt Beckwith (beck...@pop.southeast.net) wrote:
: I think artists must be servants of a greater something.
Like what? A philosophy? Perfect representation of the
objective reality?
Gordon..?
: Those who
: simply allow their imaginations free [rein] and call it art are not in
: the same league with those who spend years perfecting the skill of
: representing what they actually see in real life.
Really? So the photo-realist Chuck Close is a better artist
than Monet?
Strictly speaking, Monet painted what he saw and was the first to do so (though
I'm sure someone will add the name Delacruze - again, forgive my illiterate
speeelling).
: In other words,
: Dali doesn't compare with Whistler, in my book.
Dali was trying to represent what he saw in his dreams, which
is part of real life.
And Whistler got really quite abstract in his later years, after the Mother
business passed - hence the court case and financial problems.
: But why does that something have to be the state?
Some of those realistic artists you talk about took money
from the state and, therefore, tried not to offend it at least.
Michelangelo is one example.
And if we count the Medici family as State - and we really should - the list
will get longer.
Surely there was a place for Social Realism to portray how different groups
within society live - before we had the various cameras, video and still.
Surely now there is need for abstract art of all kinds, from abstracted realism
to Rothco (got a label for that anyone?): surely it's necessary for the
spiritual well-being of a largely secular society (here in Europe)?
: Governments are always gardens of mediocrity. What is it that
: motivates a civil servant toward greater degrees of excellence in the
: performance of his job? If we conceive of artists as subservient to
: the bureaucrats, we are truly looking at the world topsy-turvy.
There are propagandists, who may be akin to civil servants in
the pejorative sense in which you use it. But there are also artists
who receive state grants, who are different.
Bob Teeter (rte...@netcom.com) | http://www.wco.com/~rteeter/
Lee.Goddard @ Jove.u-net.com
G*rd*n
beck...@pop.southeast.net (Matt Beckwith):
| ...
| of nature and translating it into his medium, he is at least putting
| himself in the proximity of the possibility of creating something
| worthwhile. This is because he is experiencing and recreating the
| beauty created by God. But insofar as an artist uses his craft to
| make a statement dictated by his government (which is not by any means
| God or god-like), he will not create anything worthwhile.
Well, I've heard that Hegel said that the State is God's
way or path through the world. And certainly we hear
similar ideas from St. Paul, so it's not just some Germanic
excess we're talking about here. If we have a God fond of
subservience and in the habit of going about creating
things like beauty, it would seem natural to suppose that
he, she, or it would also be responsible for the State
which is so much with us. And if artists found themselves
unable to reach God directly, they could just take State
direction as to God's will for them.
Thinking of Komar & Melamid....
--
}"{ G*rd*n }"{ g...@panix.com }"{
tejas
Old Benito was a real aesthete. He seldom took off his trousers when
boffing
his many amatory conquests. A real sensitive sort, he.
Ted
Matt Beckwith
mog...@mindspring.com (Puss in Boots) wrote:
>beck...@pop.southeast.net (Matt Beckwith):
>
>> I think artists must be servants of a greater something. Those who
>> simply allow their imaginations free reign and call it art are not in
>> the same league with those who spend years perfecting the skill of
>> representing what they actually see in real life. In other words,
>> Dali doesn't compare with Whistler, in my book. [...]
>
> Isn't that the kind of criticism that Whistler got; for example,
>from Ruskin, when he attacked the _Nocturne in Black and Gold_?
>(Aside from the part about Dali, I mean -- I don't think he was very
>popular with the Victorians.)
You mean Whistler was criticized for not being realistic enough?
Quite possibly. My favorite artist is Van Gogh. What I'm angling for
is a maximization of communication between the artist and The Creator.
What this entails would make an interesting subject of analysis. For
example, there would seem to be more of this component in drawing than
photography. So what is it about drawing versus photography that
gives it this property? So, even though impressionism is less
realistic than realism, I suspect there may be more communication
between artist and creator in it. But perhaps not. I wonder whether
anyone has ever explored this idea.
Puss in Boots
beck...@pop.southeast.net (Matt Beckwith):
> >> I think artists must be servants of a greater something. Those who
> >> simply allow their imaginations free reign and call it art are not in
> >> the same league with those who spend years perfecting the skill of
> >> representing what they actually see in real life. In other words,
> >> Dali doesn't compare with Whistler, in my book. [...]
mog...@mindspring.com (Puss in Boots):
> > Isn't that the kind of criticism that Whistler got; for example,
> >from Ruskin, when he attacked the _Nocturne in Black and Gold_?
> >(Aside from the part about Dali, I mean -- I don't think he was very
> >popular with the Victorians.)
Matt:
> You mean Whistler was criticized for not being realistic enough?
Along with the attendant reasoning -- that he was an artist who,
as you would put it, simply allowed his imagination free rein and
called the results "art," even though he hadn't perfected the skills
and submitted to the required discipline. I don't have the quotes
from Ruskin (maybe Michael can supply), but anyway, Whistler sued --
won, too, but he got only a token award (one farthing), and he drove
himself to bankruptcy in the process.
> Quite possibly. My favorite artist is Van Gogh. What I'm angling for
> is a maximization of communication between the artist and The Creator.
> What this entails would make an interesting subject of analysis. [...]
I'm more interested in the premise -- you seem to be suggesting
that this communication has to be of one, specific kind, where
instead of giving imagination free rein, artists bridle it and place
it under the reign of the Lord. In practice, that means
"representing what they actually see in real life." I don't see the
value in that idea. I'm not even sure how it would apply to van
Gogh -- many of his paintings have a strongly hallucinogenic quality.
-- Moggin
Puss in Boots
g...@panix.com (G*rd*n):
> > Politics doesn't have to be mediocre (although we're
> > probably better off when it is). Fascists, for instance,
> > have come up with some very sharp uniforms which other
> > folks (like S & M enthusiasts) have been able to make good
> > use of. If you can get to the Greenwich Village Hallowe'en
> > Parade in a few weeks, you can see some attractive examples,
> > but now free from the dreary world of cops, bureaucrats, and
> > "reality."
> >>>>No, no, no G*rd*n read your Benjamin. We need to aestheticize politics.
> >>>> and the sooner we get busy doing that the better we all will be.
> >>>> I hold the reason people no longer vote is due to the campaign bunting...
> >>>> so gauche don't you think??? "WE" are not better off with bad bunting.
Benjamin was _opposed_ to aestheticizing politics. That's not to
say he was right about it, necessarily -- just to note his position.
Anyway, recent U.S. history hints that people prefer bad bunting -- in
these parts, at least. A few campaigns ago, the Democrats decided to
improve the bunting at their convention so it would look better on t.v.
Of course it still had to be red, white, and blue, but they made a
small change to the shades. I thought it was an improvement, but that
put me in a minority. When the election rolled around, only a
relatively small number of people voted, and an even smaller number of
_them_ voted for the Democrat. (It was the year Dukakis lost big to
Bush, who left the colors of the grand old flag in their traditionally
ugly condition.)
-- Moggin
Robert Teeter
Matt Beckwith (beck...@pop.southeast.net) wrote:
: rte...@netcom.com (Robert Teeter) wrote:
: >
: >Matt Beckwith (beck...@pop.southeast.net) wrote:
: >
: >: I think artists must be servants of a greater something.
: >
: > Like what? A philosophy? Perfect representation of the
: >objective reality?
: Are you asking a question, or implying that anything I answer must be
: ridiculous?
I was asking a question. I was honestly unsure of what you
meant by "a greater something."
: >: Those who
: >: simply allow their imaginations free [rein] and call it art are not in
: >: the same league with those who spend years perfecting the skill of
: >: representing what they actually see in real life.
: >
: > Really? So the photo-realist Chuck Close is a better artist
: >than Monet?
: If you disagree, I would prefer you just said so. It's difficult for
: me to get past my feeling of being insulted in order to carry on a
: discussion with you.
You seemed to be saying that perfect fidelity to the objective
reality of nature was the highest goal. I was asking for a comparison
of two artists -- one of whom might be thought closer to that goal and
one further from it. I see below from your praise of Van Gogh that you
are not looking for perfect representation, of nature, but rather
representation of the artist's view of nature.
So, apparently, you approve of the impressionists and the
post-impressionists. What do you think of Picasso? Jackson Pollack?
I'd honestly like to know.
: >: In other words,
: >: Dali doesn't compare with Whistler, in my book.
: >
: > Dali was trying to represent what he saw in his dreams, which
: >is part of real life.
: Yes, I thought of this. But objects in dreams are symbols. It
: doesn't much matter how exactly the clock is shaped, as long as it's
: melty, for the purposes of the dream. But when Van Gogh saw a tree,
: the light on it, the energy in it, he was seeing millions of
: impressions, each one created by God and translated into oils by the
: great Van Gogh.
: >: But why does that something have to be the state?
: >
: > Some of those realistic artists you talk about took money
: >from the state and, therefore, tried not to offend it at least.
: >Michelangelo is one example.
: So what?
So state support is not necessarily fatal to good art, as you
say below.
: >: Governments are always gardens of mediocrity. What is it that
: >: motivates a civil servant toward greater degrees of excellence in the
: >: performance of his job? If we conceive of artists as subservient to
: >: the bureaucrats, we are truly looking at the world topsy-turvy.
: >
: > There are propagandists, who may be akin to civil servants in
: >the pejorative sense in which you use it. But there are also artists
: >who receive state grants, who are different.
: On the one hand I was talking about the benefit to art of trying to
: stay within some higher structure (such as the attempt to depict
: nature). On the other, I was suggesting that having the state be that
: higher structure is not necessary (and perhaps is even undesirable
: since the state comprises bureaucrats, who by and large are champions
: of the mediocre). This was all in response to the original poster's
: assertion that Mussolini believed that all art should be subservient
: to the purposes of the government.
OK. So would it be fair to say that in your view, it's OK
for an artist to take government money, as long as he or she doesn't
let the government's views become the "higher structure" of his or
her art? (This seems to be what you're saying below.)
: Now you (someone with time on his hands, I presume) respond to my post
: by ridiculing my assertion that art should be subservient to something
: higher
I don't think I was ridiculing your view. I was trying to find
out what you meant.
: (I can respect your point, since many people believe art should
: not subserve anything), then ridiculing my assertion that realism is a
: higher art form than surrealism (once again point well taken though
: not agreed with),
I don't know. I like some realists and some surrealists. Of the
two artists you contrasted, I happen to like Dali better than Whistler.
But I like Rembrandt better than DiChirico. I was just trying to point
out a problem in the distinction you seemed to be making.
: and finally by politely pointing out that there are
: artists who are funded by the state but who are not mediocre.
: In my opinion, insofar as a given artist is taking what he experiences
: of nature and translating it into his medium, he is at least putting
: himself in the proximity of the possibility of creating something
: worthwhile. This is because he is experiencing and recreating the
: beauty created by God. But insofar as an artist uses his craft to
: make a statement dictated by his government (which is not by any means
: God or god-like), he will not create anything worthwhile.
: This does not mean that no artist funded by the state can produce good
: art.
I can understand this, and agree with most of it. Let me ask
you about another case, though. The Greek dramatists (e.g. Aeschylus,
Sophocles, Euripides) were paid by the Athenian state to produce their
dramas as religious and political rituals. (The end of the _Oresteia_
trilogy, for example, ends with a justification of the Athenian
courts.) Do you think this government involvement corrupted their
art?
--
Bob Teeter (rte...@netcom.com) | http://www.wco.com/~rteeter/
Matt Beckwith
rte...@netcom.com (Robert Teeter) wrote:
> I was asking a question. I was honestly unsure of what you
>meant by "a greater something."
Okay, I apologize for taking inappropriate offense.
> You seemed to be saying that perfect fidelity to the objective
>reality of nature was the highest goal. I was asking for a comparison
>of two artists -- one of whom might be thought closer to that goal and
>one further from it. I see below from your praise of Van Gogh that you
>are not looking for perfect representation, of nature, but rather
>representation of the artist's view of nature.
It's the artist's interaction with nature when he attempts to
interpret it that results in energy flow from God into the artist.
How much of that celestial energy which makes it onto the canvas
determines the quality of the final product, in my opinion.
> So, apparently, you approve of the impressionists and the
>post-impressionists. What do you think of Picasso? Jackson Pollack?
>I'd honestly like to know.
I don't hold Picasso in high regard. When I look at his cubist
creations I begin to wonder whether he was at some higher level of
consciousness, and whether these works would, if I were to reach that
level, suddenly begin to make a certain kind of sense. If this is
true, then he was a better artist than he now seems to me.
Pollack I just don't understand.
> So state support is not necessarily fatal to good art, as you
>say below.
I now see what you were saying.
Mussolini said that art must be subservient to the purposes of the
state. There is a subservience necessary in art, in my opinion, but
not to the state. As long as art is subservient to that something
else (which I've described as best I can in previous posts), then I
suppose it could be subservient to the purposes of the state as well
and still be good. Also, state support (by which I presume you mean
financial support) does not imply subservience to the purposes of the
state.
> OK. So would it be fair to say that in your view, it's OK
>for an artist to take government money, as long as he or she doesn't
>let the government's views become the "higher structure" of his or
>her art? (This seems to be what you're saying below.)
Precisely.
> I don't think I was ridiculing your view. I was trying to find
>out what you meant.
Yes, I can see that now.
> I can understand this, and agree with most of it. Let me ask
>you about another case, though. The Greek dramatists (e.g. Aeschylus,
>Sophocles, Euripides) were paid by the Athenian state to produce their
>dramas as religious and political rituals. (The end of the _Oresteia_
>trilogy, for example, ends with a justification of the Athenian
>courts.) Do you think this government involvement corrupted their
>art?
I know little about Greek history, and even less about these
playwrights' works. But they certainly could have been funded by the
state without allowing it to compromise the quality of their works.
It sounds from your question, though, that part of their job was to
make certain political statements. Even these could be worked in
without compromising the quality of the art, I suppose. But it
certainly suggests that an analysis of the works is in order. (Of
course, this has already been done.)
I suspect the most productive way to analyze works of art (in my
approach, that is) which are politically motivated is to analyze them
the same way you'd analyze any other works of art. The politics is
irrelevant to the amount of celestial energy present.
This applies to all art forms. It's why I don't put much value in a
symphony which describes broad conceptual human dramatic emotions like
betrayal. God isn't to be found in human drama, but in the little
things like the play of light on a leaf, a momentary hesitation, a
tear drop, a cat's pose, and a minor seven plus eleven.
Mic...@www.chonju-tc.ac.kr
In article <341B4F...@richmond.infi.net>,
> mistaken if you deny it. Boffing requires two, takes place in the dark
> usually or in public by consent, requires living beings, unlike so much
> grotesque art produced in this century. Sorry, Ted, you lose.
>
>Michael
Mic...@www.chonju-tc.ac.kr
In article <341d01d7...@news.southeast.net>,
beck...@pop.southeast.net (Matt Beckwith) wrote:
>
> rte...@netcom.com (Robert Teeter) wrote:
>
> > I was asking a question. I was honestly unsure of what you
> >meant by "a greater something."
>
>
> >reality of nature was the highest goal. I was asking for a comparison
> >of two artists -- one of whom might be thought closer to that goal and
> >one further from it. I see below from your praise of Van Gogh that you
> >are not looking for perfect representation, of nature, but rather
> >representation of the artist's view of nature.
>
> interpret it that results in energy flow from God into the artist.
> How much of that celestial energy which makes it onto the canvas
> determines the quality of the final product, in my opinion.
>
> >post-impressionists. What do you think of Picasso? Jackson Pollack?
> >I'd honestly like to know.
>
> creations I begin to wonder whether he was at some higher level of
> consciousness, and whether these works would, if I were to reach that
> level, suddenly begin to make a certain kind of sense. If this is
> true, then he was a better artist than he now seems to me.
>
> Pollack I just don't understand.
>
> >say below.
>
>
> Mussolini said that art must be subservient to the purposes of the
> state. There is a subservience necessary in art, in my opinion, but
> not to the state. As long as art is subservient to that something
> else (which I've described as best I can in previous posts), then I
> suppose it could be subservient to the purposes of the state as well
> and still be good. Also, state support (by which I presume you mean
> state.
>
>>>> This is where you are mistaken. The State serves the higher good
>>>> that simply is the totality. The State incorporates everything
>>>> into itself. It is the highest structure. Nothing goes beyond it
>>>> and nothing escapes its control.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
> > OK. So would it be fair to say that in your view, it's OK
> >for an artist to take government money, as long as he or she doesn't
> >let the government's views become the "higher structure" of his or
> >her art? (This seems to be what you're saying below.)
>
> Precisely.
>
> > I don't think I was ridiculing your view. I was trying to find
> >out what you meant.
>
> Yes, I can see that now.
>
> > I can understand this, and agree with most of it. Let me ask
> >you about another case, though. The Greek dramatists (e.g. Aeschylus,
> >Sophocles, Euripides) were paid by the Athenian state to produce their
> >dramas as religious and political rituals. (The end of the _Oresteia_
> >trilogy, for example, ends with a justification of the Athenian
> >courts.) Do you think this government involvement corrupted their
> >art?
>
> I know little about Greek history, and even less about these
> playwrights' works. But they certainly could have been funded by the
> state without allowing it to compromise the quality of their works.
> It sounds from your question, though, that part of their job was to
> make certain political statements. Even these could be worked in
> without compromising the quality of the art, I suppose. But it
> certainly suggests that an analysis of the works is in order. (Of
> course, this has already been done.)
>
> I suspect the most productive way to analyze works of art (in my
> approach, that is) which are politically motivated is to analyze them
> the same way you'd analyze any other works of art. The politics is
> irrelevant to the amount of celestial energy present.
>
> This applies to all art forms. It's why I don't put much value in a
> symphony which describes broad conceptual human dramatic emotions like
> betrayal. God isn't to be found in human drama, but in the little
> things like the play of light on a leaf, a momentary hesitation, a
> tear drop, a cat's pose, and a minor seven plus eleven.
-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------