Arts under socialism and communism.

[AnarchoMassLineDemarchist]

Communists are seen as robotic theorists, with no interest in normal human passions and interests... for alot of you, this is correct, but for the few of you who do see the nescesity of hearing the strum of a guitar or the vocal melodies of Joan Baez, how would you see the arts being encouraged and promoted under socialism and communism?

Self expression is something that can bring us together, inspire and move us, but it is, under capitalism, a commodity to be sold and bought, for more as soon as you drop dead.

I forsee music taking on a free and open turn, with open mikes in communal cofee houses, music festivals organised by local pople on the field with workers unleashing dazzling dictions and prophetic poetry.

DANCE,ART, MUSIC

When workers control the society, working will become a small part of our lives, the majority of time should be spent giving and recieving, unconditional person to person love and friendship

How do you see the arts and their role in post capitalist society?

[Dimentio]

http://www.news.ucdavis.edu/photos_images/news_images/04-2008/chinese-poster_lg.jpg

[Quail]

I imagine that if people have more time to express themselves, we'll see a lot more art. For example, I draw in my free time, but because I don't have a lot of free time, I don't really do it that often. If I only had to work a few hours a day, I'd definitely be more creative.

[RED DAVE]

One answer by a great socialist and a great artist:

Art and Socialism (http://www.marxists.org/archive/morris/works/1884/as/as.htm)

RED DAVE

[Apoi_Viitor]

Letting a hundred flowers blossom and a hundred schools of thought contend is the policy for promoting the progress of the arts and the sciences and a flourishing socialist culture in our land. Different forms and styles in art should develop freely and different schools in science should contend freely. We think that it is harmful to the growth of art and science if administrative measures are used to impose one particular style of art or school of thought and to ban another. Questions of right and wrong in the arts and sciences should be settled through free discussion in artistic and scientific circles and through practical work in these fields. They should not be settled in summary fashion.

[Ke Pauk]

Arts under a Worker's and State ran model of Government allows for it to fully be free and shared among the community. Instead of art being a simple private interest that is only able to flourish to a tiny point because it is not fully able to come out and be criticized by a vast community of those that simply critique it due to the fact that they enjoy the art and not for the ideas of capital gain or something similar. The same would go for science and other areas too that are able to flourish much more when they're under the direct control of those that create them for the direct reason of increasing the betterment of the community as a whole.

[Antifa94]

Communists are seen as robotic theorists, with no interest in normal human passions and interests... for alot of you, this is correct, but for the few of you who do see the nescesity of hearing the strum of a guitar or the vocal melodies of Joan Baez, how would you see the arts being encouraged and promoted under socialism and communism?

Self expression is something that can bring us together, inspire and move us, but it is, under capitalism, a commodity to be sold and bought, for more as soon as you drop dead.

I forsee music taking on a free and open turn, with open mikes in communal cofee houses, music festivals organised by local pople on the field with workers unleashing dazzling dictions and prophetic poetry.

DANCE,ART, MUSIC

When workers control the society, working will become a small part of our lives, the majority of time should be spent giving and recieving, unconditional person to person love and friendship

How do you see the arts and their role in post capitalist society?


you're such a arse.. communists are NOT robotic theorists, in fact, almost ALL artists, writers, filmmakers, architects, musicians,etc. harbor leftist sympathies and are even blatantly communist, i.e. Bertold brecht, Sergei Eisenstein, picasso, Rodchenko, Popova, Kulagina, Erich Hechel, Walter Gropius...
Communist art is at the forefront of the avant-garde, and was so in the soviet Union until Stalin adopted socialist realism( which can still be avant-garde in the areas of cinema)

Who is the modern vanguard of proletarian revolution today? Who are the theorists that inspire the working classes? intellectuals, theorists, artists, humanists. You're utterly wrong.

and for fuck's sake, look at the amazing posters that came out of russia in the twenties and China.
Even The DPRK has beautiful propaganda.

[IndependentCitizen]

Even The DPRK has beautiful propaganda.
Kim Jong-Il is not photogenic, let alone beautiful enough to paint a picture of.

[scarletghoul]

Kim Jong-Il is not photogenic, let alone beautiful enough to paint a picture of.
google dprk art before you reply please. The Kims rarely appear on the posters

[ContrarianLemming]

the result of an acid high North Korean bureaucrats now dead nephew Wing Wang

http://neorepublica.com/media/blogs/republica/north-korea-poster_washington_chop.jpg

[Dr Mindbender]

the result of an acid high North Korean bureaucrats now dead nephew Wing Wang

http://neorepublica.com/media/blogs/republica/north-korea-poster_washington_chop.jpg


I cant get enough of that picture.

[IndependentCitizen]

google dprk art before you reply please. The Kims rarely appear on the posters
The lack of sense of humour on this forum is concerning.

[The Fighting_Crusnik]

From what I've observed and from what I know about the majority of dialiects and flavors of Socialism and Communism, for the most part, Art would flourish and face no regulation whatsoever. The only thing that would threaten this freedom is Authoritarianism, and even then the chance of interruption is somewhat small. So unless another Stalin were tossed into the world by the powers that be, I don't think artists would have to worry about why they draw, paint, sculpt or etc.

[ContrarianLemming]

I cant get enough of that picture.

then give me some god damn rep :crying:

[Orange Juche]

Kim Jong-Il is not photogenic, let alone beautiful enough to paint a picture of.

Well I think he's a cutie, so THERE.

[ContrarianLemming]

Well I think he's a cutie, so THERE.

never going to forget this post, will haunt you forever

[ContrarianLemming]

edit

[Kuppo Shakur]

the result of an acid high North Korean bureaucrats now dead nephew Wing Wang
Is it racist that I laughed at his name?:(

[ContrarianLemming]

Is it racist that I laughed at his name?:(

completely natural

[Quail]

Is it racist that I laughed at his name?:(
I think Wang is quite a common surname. It's just unfortunate that in English it has another meaning.

[ContrarianLemming]

I think Wang is quite a common surname.

correct, see the credits for films like "The house of flying daggers" or "Hero" or "crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon" and you'll see one of two "Wing Wang"s, theres also "Long Wang" and "Ching Ling Fing".

[RED DAVE]

From what I've observed and from what I know about the majority of dialiects and flavors of Socialism and Communism, for the most part, Art would flourish and face no regulation whatsoever. The only thing that would threaten this freedom is Authoritarianism, and even then the chance of interruption is somewhat small. So unless another Stalin were tossed into the world by the powers that be, I don't think artists would have to worry about why they draw, paint, sculpt or etc.Maoism and Stalinism have both engaged in massive censorship of the arts. I have complete confidence that should either system come to power, they'll do it again.

RED DAVE

[Rakhmetov]

Check this out for revolutionary art:

http://www.abcgallery.com/S/siqueiros/siqueiros9.html

http://www.abcgallery.com/S/siqueiros/siqueiros9.jpg

[mosfeld]

To quote Mao: In the world today all culture, all literature and art belong to definite classes and are geared to definite political lines. There is in fact no such thing as art for art's sake, art that stands above classes, art that is detached from or independent of politics. Proletarian literature and art are part of the whole proletarian revolutionary cause; they are, as Lenin said, cogs and wheels in the whole revolutionary machine.

As Mao correctly points out, there is no art that stands above society nor is there any art detached from politics. When reviewing arts, Marxists often fall into the trap of right-opportunism. So called "Marxists", under the guise of "artistic freedom", reveal their liberalism and are suddenly siding with reactionaries, and defending their right to create arts. What they fail to realize is, that all pieces of art have a class character and all art should be judged in accordance to which class it favors. If the art is progressive, then it will be tolerated. If the art is reactionary, it wont be tolerated. Tolerating backwards and reactionary arts allows backwards and reactionary politics to spread.

[RED DAVE]

Quotes from William Morris about art and socialism and other matters:

http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/w/william_morris.html

RED DAVE

[RED DAVE]

To quote Mao: In the world today all culture, all literature and art belong to definite classes and are geared to definite political lines. There is in fact no such thing as art for art's sake, art that stands above classes, art that is detached from or independent of politics. Proletarian literature and art are part of the whole proletarian revolutionary cause; they are, as Lenin said, cogs and wheels in the whole revolutionary machine.And this is why Maoists and Stalinists are dangerous and full of shit about art. This is about as gross and over-simplification about art, socialism and revolution as can be made.


As Mao correctly points out, there is no art that stands above society nor is there any art detached from politics.And who, pray tell, is to judge? The Maoists and Stalinists?


When reviewing arts, Marxists often fall into the trap of right-opportunism. So called "Marxists", under the guise of "artistic freedom", reveal their liberalism and are suddenly siding with reactionaries, and defending their right to create arts. What they fail to realize is, that all pieces of art have a class character and all art should be judged in accordance to which class it favors. If the art is proletarian, then it will be tolerated. If the art is reactionary, it wont be tolerated. Tolerating backwards and reactionary arts allows backwards and reactionary politics to spread.Incredible that in this year 2010, such a gross and authoritarian attitude is still floating around, like a turd in a sewer.

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history-archaeology/Indelible-Images-Dancing-for-Mao.html

RED DAVE

[mosfeld]

You addressed none of my points. Please, explain to me why reactionary art should be tolerated in a socialist society?

[Homage To Catalonia]

Sorry Mosfeld, but i find your outlook on this subject disgusting and self restricting.

Its like when so called radicals call for the kneecapping of pot dealers or decry non monogomous outlooks on relations as hedonistic.

How can art not be unpolitical, if i draw a mountain with snowy peaks and huge overlapping slabs of rock, is this proletarian art... Is it Bourgeois art.... Or is it just fucking art.

You seem to believe that all desires and outlooks and expressions of self, wether sprawled on canvas, or made of metal, is a direct connection, to politics, which might seem plauisble to an authoritarian, but to a communist, who wishes to see a free and non oppressive society, it just seems like a insane brain fart.

[RED DAVE]

You addressed none of my points. Please, explain to me why reactionary art should be tolerated in a socialist society?(1) What is "reactionary art"? I will be very interested in seeing your definition.

(2) Who is to judge what it is? The Party bureaucracy? Fuck 'em!

(3) Why are you so afraid of it? Don't you think that revolutionary art can compete?

(4) Given the disgusting history of repression of art by Maoists and Stalinist, and their disgusting taste, why are you so cock-fucking-sure about this?

RED DAVE

[Honggweilo]

What is "reactionary art"? I will be very interested in seeing your definition.

http://highbridnation.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2008/04/racist-cartoon.jpg

http://www.hijinxcomics.com/images/unclescrooge.gif
http://www.martinfrost.ws/htmlfiles/april2007/britemp8.jpg


http://edge-img.datpiff.com/m88148d5/Jim_Jones_Money_Clothes_Hos-front-large.jpg

http://designchapel.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2008/12/coca-cola-zero-game.jpg

http://www.treehugger.com/shell-ad.jpg

http://www.parentsforethicalmarketing.org/blog/wp-content/uploads/2008/03/ax.jpg

http://slog.thestranger.com/files/2008/07/nike.jpg

basically, anything with the promotion of exploitation, imperialism, racism, sexism, homophobia, ect

[mosfeld]

@RED DAVE

All non-proletariat art, which promotes reaction and runs contrary to the revolution should be suppressed. The bourgeoisie is to be combatted on all fronts, why are arts the exception? Please explain to me, which you failed to do, why reactionaries should be allowed to promote their reactionary politics and be allowed to express their reactionary ideas under socialism?

[thriller]

From my experince as a musician, my best pieces of music come from anger. If communism came about, what would DK, Nofx, Bob Dylan, and Bob Marley sing about? Music would be free as well as musicians under communism for sure. But if life got better, my favorite artists would have shit to sing/play.

[RED DAVE]

@RED DAVE

All non-proletariat art, which promotes reaction and runs contrary to the revolution should be suppressed.Fuck you!

One more reason why no Maoist should ever be put in a position of authority. Don't get on their bad side. They'll label you "non-proletarian" and it's off somewhere for re-education.


The bourgeoisie is to be combatted on all fronts, why are arts the exception?Becuase neither you, I, or our respective political tendencies or anyone else knows what it means to "combat art." It invariably comes down to suppression, which Maoists and Stalinists have made into an art form.


Please explain to me, which you failed to do, why reactionaries should be allowed to promote their reactionary politics and be allowed to express their reactionary ideas under socialism?Because we are going to promote a higher level of freedom than the bourgeoisie, and unless someone is taking up arms or organizing against the revolution you leave them alone.

Haven't the crimes of Stalinism and Maoism against the arts taught you anything? Do you still think that you can, across the board, judge art politically?

Grow up.

RED DAVE

[manic expression]

From my experince as a musician, my best pieces of music come from anger. If communism came about, what would DK, Nofx, Bob Dylan, and Bob Marley sing about? Music would be free as well as musicians under communism for sure. But if life got better, my favorite artists would have shit to sing/play.
You'll still have heartbreak, deaths of loved ones, social rejection, defeat of your favorite sports team and all that jazz.

[Honggweilo]

i dont like to talk about restricting art in vague generalized terms of "proletarian or bourgeois" art. I like to think in terms in what kind of structual purpose those forms of art pose. I have no problem with modernist abstract art, art for the purpose of art, or provocative art, but it should be funded preference and merit, not unconditionally nor by a strict dictionary discription of what art is.

The main task of art in a socialist society is to get it out of the framework of capitalism. that means getting rid of manipulative advertising and consumer culture (which drives over 90% of all artistic, musical, theatrical, visual, and graphical proffesions). as Brecht said "for art to be unpolitical, means it aligns it self with the ruling class", so this means all non political art shouldnt be any threat and shouldnt be seen as a danger to the ruling political framework. However, outright reactionairy art (promoting racism, sexism, homophobia, glorification of wealth or hyperindividualism) should be actively repressed by a mass democratic organ made up of different sections of society affiliated with art.

[Thirsty Crow]

I imagine that if people have more time to express themselves, we'll see a lot more art. For example, I draw in my free time, but because I don't have a lot of free time, I don't really do it that often. If I only had to work a few hours a day, I'd definitely be more creative.
Well, I don't know what to add, you have expressed an opinion that is very close to mine, on this subject.
Oh yeah, maybe I should add this: it's not a good idea to demonize certain forms/genres of art as bourgeois since there is no clear, linear connection between an art form and ideological conviction. Furthermore, the historical practice of State censorship should be abandoned, by all means necessary.


correct, see the credits for films like "The house of flying daggers" or "Hero" or "crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon" and you'll see one of two "Wing Wang"s, theres also "Long Wang" and "Ching Ling Fing".
This is completely off-topic, but Hero is one of the most beautiful, aesthetically pleasing films I have ever seen :drool:

[RED DAVE]

http://www.hijinxcomics.com/images/unclescrooge.gif

basically, anything with the promotion of exploitation, imperialism, racism, sexism, homophobia, ect [is reactionary]Which just goes to show that you don't know "reactionary art."

The above picture of Scrooge McDuck is from a series of comic books that constantly satirized capitalism and its greed.

RED DAVE

[∞]

http://slog.thestranger.com/files/2008/07/nike.jpg

basically, anything with the promotion of exploitation, imperialism, racism, sexism, homophobia, ect

That wouldn't be "right" even if they were different genders...
I think you're over-acting in this one. Some make sense though.

[Honggweilo]

Which just goes to show that you don't know "reactionary art."

The above picture of Scrooge McDuck is from a series of comic books that constantly satirized capitalism and its greed.

RED DAVE

orly, thats new comming from disney. It doesnt satire capitalism, it ridicules and disarms class conflict and working people as useless idiots who should be gratefull for their employer and loyal no matter how much you get screwed. It glorifies the american dream, and has the christian puritain "money isnt everything, share a few crums" morale. Calling it reactionairy may be over the top, but it is in no way progressive. Besides it was just a gross example.

Anyway it seems like you are trying to deny that art can take on reactionary forms. So people can freely expres these ideas with community subsidy in your opinion then?

[REVLEFT'S BIEGGST MATSER TROL]

Even The DPRK has beautiful propaganda.


http://www.google.co.uk/imgres?imgurl=http://img2.moonbuggy.org/imgstore/north-korea-is-best-korea.jpg&imgrefurl=http://img.moonbuggy.org/north-korea-is-best-korea/&usg=__lNzuzWDtSVGctyXcKSqP6n60174=&h=537&w=730&sz=154&hl=en&start=1&zoom=1&tbnid=GBp4GXUX12bDcM:&tbnh=104&tbnw=141&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dnorth%2Bkorea%2Bbest%2Bkorea%26um%3D1 %26hl%3Den%26safe%3Dactive%26sa%3DN%26rlz%3D1R2ACA W_en%26biw%3D1763%26bih%3D799%26tbs%3Disch:1&um=1&itbs=1

[∞]

http://t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcStodO5nGptw9XMrwd_q0KP6rnx2ItC6 5HyyBbx7gzZtQ4P4PU&t=1&usg=__1-nTiBt9Je2DViYH4w7NMDr5e3g=

http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRqerxqAWEAzak5Bfk9P20NKGoO0-GOzcbqh9aKrNOdrThE734&t=1&usg=__jBRMHBFubZsiiUYlnHi80tKrgYk=

http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTvvFRUT9D2_38oBRSscHu9-RYzVLTGJ3XXa2PHlvEvwlxAfck&t=1&usg=__DLMXdorl6M0KjSFuFfUDoWbZpFg=

http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTZ5eqNiXZJJ1m8r2G_gCUCNqaAH00mP iQY_wbdi4Z95XFG_5s&t=1&usg=__TweJi4x712UxHFeC_HXc4Xy1LrU=

What the fuck???

http://t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcR4XxAQ1QTveEs8TZU1LUiHxi025OaP3 Ilr_4QfVETD8-VZOn8&t=1&usg=__MTi_rkIE2HqkZsmMQYNdFFELmn4=

eh, heres some Pakistani art

http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSi8KDUhkwB9oXOJka0jF_PnyV-xl7Qf_k62O-g3gzmMUGZIPo&t=1&usg=__0VTCS2AadB0by1qzTWEltboRClQ=

http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcR-p_PiRXB1WdScqUzjp-IhVclqkM1b0JxULNrXd4ryOHIEIFk&t=1&usg=__dNFqO7uNQuCeQTR0Jl2MmeIQ1ho=

[RED DAVE]

http://www.hijinxcomics.com/images/unclescrooge.gif

basically, anything with the promotion of exploitation, imperialism, racism, sexism, homophobia, ect [is reactionary]
Which just goes to show that you don't know "reactionary art."

The above picture of Scrooge McDuck is from a series of comic books that constantly satirized capitalism and its greed.
orly, thats new comming from disney.No, it's old coming from Disney. The character of Scrooge McDuck goes back to the 1940s.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scrooge_McDuck


It doesnt satire capitalism, it ridicules and disarms class conflict and working people as useless idiots who should be gratefull for their employer and loyal no matter how much you get screwed. It glorifies the american dream, and has the christian puritain "money isnt everything, share a few crums" morale. Calling it reactionairy may be over the top, but it is in no way progressive. Besides it was just a gross example.By employing this example, you demonstrate the dangers of calling art reactionary.

From the above website:


"Voodoo Hoodoo", first published in August 1949, was the first story to hint at Scrooge's past with the introduction of two figures from it. The first was Foola Zoola, an old African sorcerer and chief of the Voodoo tribe who had cursed Scrooge, seeking revenge for the destruction of his village and the taking of his tribe's lands by Scrooge decades ago.

Scrooge privately admitted to his nephews that he had used an army of "cutthroats" to get the tribe to abandon their lands, in order to establish a diamond-mining colony.Obviously, you are spouting slogans.


Anyway it seems like you are trying to deny that art can take on reactionary forms. So people can freely expres these ideas with community subsidy in your opinion then?As a writer, married to a singer/songwriter, I think I know a thing or two about reactionary and nonreactionary at.

I am stating that I believe that Maoists and Stalin should, as a tendency, and the Left in general should, shut the fuck up about the repression of art.

RED DAVE

[Jimmie Higgins]

@RED DAVE

All non-proletariat art, which promotes reaction and runs contrary to the revolution should be suppressed. The bourgeoisie is to be combatted on all fronts, why are arts the exception? Please explain to me, which you failed to do, why reactionaries should be allowed to promote their reactionary politics and be allowed to express their reactionary ideas under socialism?

- Shakespeare needs to be banned because he mocks workers in his plays and promotes the Monarchy.

- Wagner needs to be banned because he was a racist.

- Milton promotes Christianity and sexism.

- All middle ages art was explicitly pro-Catholocism and pro-monarchy. Renaissance are was mostly promoting a positive view of aristorcrats, the religion, and rich merchants.

So after the revolution the only past products of human cultural achievement that can be enjoyed are Coup, Rage Against the Machine, and Woodie Guthrie songs?


orly, thats new comming from disney. It doesnt satire capitalism, it ridicules and disarms class conflict and working people as useless idiots who should be gratefull for their employer and loyal no matter how much you get screwed.You mean something produced in bourgeois society, reflects bourgoise ideas? So everything ever made by hollywood, bollywood, the music industry, modern literature, Broadway, should be banned in a revolutionary society? Good luck selling that vision of revolution to people.



How can art not be unpolitical, if i draw a mountain with snowy peaks and huge overlapping slabs of rock, is this proletarian art... Is it Bourgeois art.... Or is it just fucking art.If you painted a scene of the US west in the 1800s, you were probably promoting ideas about westward expansion, if you painted european mountains maybe you were promoting the natural glory of your "nation". I actually think everything can be looked at in a political context, but art is also subjective and so it's freaking scary that some people want some kind of monitoring of art production to make sure no unsavory ideas seep in.

Really I think it's pretty simple: unless someone is obviously and openly creating things with the sole purpose of counter-revolution in the immediate aftermath of a revolution, it needs to be left alone.

[RED DAVE]

Woodie Guthrie songsWait a minute!

Woody Guthrie, at the behest of the bourgeois Roosevelt government, wrote a series of songs extolling the Columbia River Project, which was a public works project designed to promote capitalism during the 1930s and reduce revolutionary militancy of the working class.

BAN HIM!

RED DAVE

[Amphictyonis]

One answer by a great socialist and a great artist:

Art and Socialism (http://www.marxists.org/archive/morris/works/1884/as/as.htm)

RED DAVE
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diego_Rivera

[penguinfoot]

Shakespeare needs to be banned because he mocks workers in his plays and promotes the Monarchy.

Forget about that. Balzac - the source of so many of Marx's idioms, the man who was described by Engels as "one of us", and all-round brilliant novelist of social realism - would be banned if the Stalinists got their way, for being a monarchist and arch-conservative.

The whole notion of reactionary art having the potential to reverse capitalism promotes a patronizing view of the working class in which workers are characterized as beings who are so gullible and so lacking in critical appraisal that simply listening to certain kinds of music or watching certain films might cause them to support the restoration of capitalism. Not ignoring the fact that there was nothing non-capitalist about Stalinist Russia and Maoist China, of course. You might as well argue that letting people watch films about King Arthur and medieval gallantry in capitalist societies might make them support the restoration of feudalism. Let me ask the Stalinists here this: what will people who are interested in art history do? what if someone is interested in the history of cinema and they want to watch Triumph of the Will as a key example of the use of film in political propaganda? what if someone wants to study the history of sexism, and wants to examine degrading advertising for that end? will they simply not be able to, or will it be a case of intellectuals being trusted to view things that aren't accessible to working people?

After all, they say that one of Jiang Qing's favourite hobbies was watching Hollywood movies. Same old Stalinism: one rule for the bureaucrats, another for working people.

[RED DAVE]

Fabulous that jazz was semi-proscribed in Stalinist Russia, but in the US is was one of the genres most connected to the Left.

And I wonder what would have happened to you if you got caught with a Miles Davis disc during the Cultural Revolution?

And of course the Western dance form most closely connected to the ruling class, ballet, was highly cultivated in the USSR as well as that bourgeois classical shit.

RED DAVE

[∞]

Fabulous that jazz was semi-proscribed in Stalinist Russia, but in the US is was one of the genres most connected to the Left.

And I wonder what would have happened to you if you got caught with a Miles Davis disc during the Cultural Revolution?

And of course the Western dance form most closely connected to the ruling class, ballet, was highly cultivated in the USSR as well as that bourgeois classical shit.

RED DAVE

Irony? I think not. These states created the new bourgeoisie.

And I guess noone like the art I posted :(

[ckaihatsu]

The Soul of Man under Socialism by Oscar Wilde

http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/1017


The Critic as Artist

http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/887.bibrec.html

[ContrarianLemming]

We should alow reactionary art to be sent about, because if we're in the midst of revolutionary days, we need not worry about this art, just as in the UK the fascist party (BNP) is allowed to sent about it's nonsense, they don't matter and are ignored. It is in nations that are poor and inequal where fascism takes hood, not a radical working class, a working class filled with socialism could be surrounded by reactionary propaganda and it wouldn't matter, because it's not nations that have to much free speech that have reactionary people, it's inequal nations.

[Amphictyonis]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Detalle_de_Lenin.jpg

[Honggweilo]

s a writer, married to a singer/songwriter, I think I know a thing or two about reactionary and nonreactionary at.

"i read a book once, so that makes me an expert.." . Besides i think this discussion has pointed out the line of what reactionary here seems to be quite broad.


I am stating that I believe that Maoists and Stalin should, as a tendency, and the Left in general should, shut the fuck up about the repression of art.
and still he continues the petty flaming. are you really in your 60's? because you sound like your filled with teenage rage.

stop repressing my art to criticize art you totalitarian purge monger :rolleyes:. Oh and since when is Stalin a tendency?

see what i did there? i just killed a decent discussion with ad hominems


- Shakespeare needs to be banned because he mocks workers in his plays and promotes the Monarchy.

- Wagner needs to be banned because he was a racist.

- Milton promotes Christianity and sexism.

- All middle ages art was explicitly pro-Catholocism and pro-monarchy. Renaissance are was mostly promoting a positive view of aristorcrats, the religion, and rich merchants.

So after the revolution the only past products of human cultural achievement that can be enjoyed are Coup, Rage Against the Machine, and Woodie Guthrie songs?

Nowhere did i state it should be banned, i said supress. Is it so wrong to point out the wrongs in historical arts? I'm not promoting banning of works of shakespear or wagner in their historical context (though its reactionairy ellements should be pointed when mentioned), but i do think their should be loose guidelines on actively promoting reactionary position through art in contemporary produced arts. Yes is supporting supressing homophobic lyrics, yes i support supressing sexist/racist advertising/arts, ect. While the hell do we have guidelines for these thing on this forum? and why shouldnt we have them in real life? Its a bit hypocritical supress certain political opinions expressed in public debate, but not in public art (that is if you dont think racism/fascism needs a platform)

[Os Cangaceiros]

If the art is reactionary, it wont be tolerated. Tolerating backwards and reactionary arts allows backwards and reactionary politics to spread.

Gee, I wonder where some people get the idea that the political spectrum is a circle, with the far left and the far right coming together at one end. :rolleyes: Can't let that degener...er, I mean reactionary art be tolerated, now can we?

This thread has made me acutely aware of the fact that many of my favorite films (so long Italian thrillers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giallo#Film)!) and works of art (Scrooge McDuck? Are you fucking kidding me?) wouldn't survive the enlightened reigns of some posters here. :crying:

[Widerstand]

Gee, I wonder where some people get the idea that the political spectrum is a circle, with the far left and the far right coming together at one end. :rolleyes: Can't let that degener...er, I mean reactionary art be tolerated, now can we?

This thread has made me acutely aware of the fact that many of my favorite films (so long Italian thrillers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giallo#Film)!) and works of art (Scrooge McDuck? Are you fucking kidding me?) wouldn't survive the enlightened reigns of some posters here. :crying:

closet republican.

[Honggweilo]

and works of art (Scrooge McDuck? Are you fucking kidding me?) wouldn't survive the enlightened reigns of some posters here
oh it will survive, in another context

http://www.nodo50.org/nucleoterco/images/stories/cartel_g_concierto_banda_bassotti.jpg

:rolleyes:

[Os Cangaceiros]

It will survive in Oi! gigs?

[Os Cangaceiros]

http://media.popculturewilleatitself.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/10/bob-ross.jpg

Firing squad: yay or nay?

[Honggweilo]

http://media.popculturewilleatitself.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/10/bob-ross.jpg

Firing squad: yay or nay?

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2049/2191909656_3d7eb877f6.jpg?v=0
http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:KXtbHVopkKy54M:http://www.ourartsite.com/images/icon-8.jpg&t=1

i say nay, but he's already dead :rolleyes:

[thriller]

Fabulous that jazz was semi-proscribed in Stalinist Russia, but in the US is was one of the genres most connected to the Left.

And I wonder what would have happened to you if you got caught with a Miles Davis disc during the Cultural Revolution?

And of course the Western dance form most closely connected to the ruling class, ballet, was highly cultivated in the USSR as well as that bourgeois classical shit.

RED DAVE

This.
I think I'd kill every single "revolutionary" during a cultural "revolution" if they took away my Miles Davis, John Coltrane and Charlie Parker. Parker was one of the most amazing, talented, influential musician of all time. Fuck anyone who'd suppress him.

[RED DAVE]

I think I'd kill every single "revolutionary" during a cultural "revolution" if they took away my Miles Davis, John Coltrane and Charlie Parker. Parker was one of the most amazing, talented, influential musician of all time. Fuck anyone who'd suppress him.
John Hammond] was also, along with Charles Edward Smith and other jazz proponents on the radical Left, in opposition to the Communist Party hierarchy’s doctrinaire view of jazz as a debased commercial mass culture and secular opiate of the masses. Smith, writing in the Daily Worker, argued that spirituals, the blues, and hot jazz were the authentic folk musical forms of the black working class and that the Marxist critique was more properly aimed at popular sweet music. Hammond was part of a group of young blacks and Jews associated with the Harlem branch of the CPUSA who, in tandem with radical student movements on college campuses across New York City, diverged from the party line in embracing jazz as an authentic, unadulterated popular art. While some on the Communist Left—including many at the New Masses—continued to regard jazz as irredeemably bourgeois, the Popular Front opened up a space for jazz as a politically expedient tool of interracial coalition-building. Hammond adroitly used this opportunity to publicize his interlocking campaigns on behalf of black jazz musicians, integration, and social justice. “The people at the New Masses just hated jazz,” Hammond said, “but, since it was the days of the United Front …they thought [it] would be good for their cultural image to have somebody write about jazz, particularly black jazz.”(emph. added)

http://www.press.uchicago.edu/Misc/Chicago/289222.html

The whole article is well worth reading.

RED DAVE

[RED DAVE]

If you think this is biased, refute it.


With Mao's death in 1976, what remained in Chinese music was a cultural wasteland. Mao called it a Cultural Revolution. For ten years under Mao, music production effectively ceased. What was permitted by the state was the performance of a handful of model operas and ballets. All other music, dances, gatherings and cultural festivals were shut down. Artists and intellectuals were shot or put to work in the fields. When Mao died, the Cultural Revolution ended. Deng Xiao Ping, dismissed by Mao's government, came to power and eased many of the cultural restrictions. What filled the musical void was a sickly sweet Westernized ballad style currently popular in Taiwan and Hong Kong. To this day-with the exception of the rock music of Cui Jen and his recent influences-these escapist love songs can be heard on every bus, taxi and streetcar throughout the major cities, and well into the countryside.http://www.rootsworld.com/rw/feature/china.html

RED DAVE

[thriller]

Interesting article. Must be why I am not a member of the CPUSA. Music in American culture represents what the bourgeoisie does: Steals it from the workers and makes it there own ie: rock 'n roll, jazz, country, you name it.

[Antifa94]

This is ENOUGH. Art can exist for art's sake and I am entirely against any of it being banned. Even if they are reactionary they can be retained as part of a museum or historical record. ATR kitsch art can be destroyed en masse, but not BANNED, that is to say what's to stop revolutionary artists from destroying the likes of souvenir shops in cities? At the same time, that crap art shouldn't be removed from the face of the earth, some of it should be preserved as a historical record.

[Antifa94]

Also, Madonna and Cyndi Lauper can be viewed as an act of rebellion against the social conservatism of the Reagan years. Material Girl is ironic, ffs.
All pre-revolutionary art shall be retained. And by the way, crappy homophobic/sexist rap artists work will naturally fall into the dustbin of history. By worrying about its possibility to "corrupt the minds of youth" you start sounding, nay, becoming a conservative.
avant-garde artists may do things like attack an Ilya Repin exhibit, as art is a struggle, but that doesn't mean that such things as art in the style of repin should be proscribed and attacks on them state-sponsored.

[black magick hustla]

early russian art has some cool shit like futurism but unfortunately a few years later moscow adopted the policy of socialist realism which was horrible, boring and banal. fortunately, mayakovsky was too good and too popular to be supressed by a bunch of boring party farts.

also some of that cultural revolution shit is cool because it reminds me of anime