Music/Art in a Communist society

[Ready4Revolution]

Post-revolution, what place will art and music have in the new society? Could artists and musicians make their money doing what they do best?
I have always wondered this.
Thanks,
Ty:hammersickle:

[southernmissfan]

Post-revolution, what place will art and music have in the new society? Could artists and musicians make their money doing what they do best?
I have always wondered this.
Thanks,
Ty:hammersickle:

First off, there will be no "money". The means of production will be democratically and collectively owned. From each according to his ability, to each according to his need, and all that jazz.

In all likelihood, both art and music will readily expand. With more leisure time, people will have the ability to pursue such things when they wouldn't have been able to previously. It's also likely that without profit motive behind such pursuits, art and music will be created for personal enjoyment and for the enjoyment of our fellow humans--art for art's sake, not for careerist or profit motives. Keep in mind that speculating about this or that attribute of a "post-revolution" society is just that, speculative (if not utopian).We have no way of knowing how such a system will specifically take shape. We can make rational estimates but that's about as far as it goes.

[Tommy4ever]

Just look at the artistic explosion in the early USSR and the encouragement the new regime initially had for it. Art does have a place in a socialist society. The initial idea was to make art as free and modern as possible whilst giving everyone access to see it and even participate in it.

[OhYesIdid]

Southernmissfan has a good point, and his post has been thanked. I do, however, take issue with some of the wording here.



art and music will be created for personal enjoyment and for the enjoyment of our fellow humans--art for art's sake, not for careerist or profit motives

That seems like a rather bourgeois philosophy of art, no? Art should always be revolutionary. Cuba, I believe, offers a good example of artists using their work, for art is work, as a tool, if not a weapon, against the forces of Capital.
Either way, the whole world will achieve Communism in the future, so there's really no way of knowing what will become of art in such a society. Though I believe there will be no end to political debate (the left is already divided) and art will remain a way to express and protest.

[x371322]

That seems like a rather bourgeois philosophy of art, no? Art should always be revolutionary.

No. This is nonsense. Sure, art can be a tool of protest. But it's far from only that. I'd get quite sick of both politics and art, pretty quick, if all art was political. No thanks.

[black magick hustla]

you are out of your mind if you think im gonna be fixing your ceiling while you art all day

[Arilou Lalee'lay]

Art will be realized in its negation.


No. This is nonsense. Sure, art can be a tool of protest. But it's far from only that. I'd get quite sick of both politics and art, pretty quick, if all art was political. No thanks.

I agree with this. All art is political in some sense, that it helps to create a certain world view, and to legitimate it, however.

[psgchisolm]

what about philharmonics and orchestras. Who will decide who is good enough to play in them?

[#FF0000]

what about philharmonics and orchestras. Who will decide who is good enough to play in them?

The conductor who's leading it, same as always. :mellow:

[psgchisolm]

The conductor who's leading it, same as always. :mellow:who will appoint the conductor.

[#FF0000]

who will appoint the conductor.

Do people appoint conductors now? I'm seriously asking.

Regardless, yeah, there'd probably just be try-outs for orchestras carried out by whoever or whatever group wanted to organize an orchestra.

[psgchisolm]

Do people appoint conductors now? I'm seriously asking.

Regardless, yeah, there'd probably just be try-outs for orchestras carried out by whoever or whatever group wanted to organize an orchestra.Yes
They are usually paid and appointed by whoever owns the orchestra or phil.

[Hoipolloi Cassidy]

Yes
They are usually paid and appointed by whoever owns the orchestra or phil.
No. In most major orchestras (Berlin Philharmonic, for instance) the musicians decide as a group on new hires of musicians. Conductors are usually imposed from above (especially in America), but often the musicians have their ways of getting an incompetent or unpopular conductor out - except where, as in America, the whole thing is run like an American-style business. As for the conductor: there have been plenty of experiments in "self-conducting" orchestras. (NYC's Jupiter Symphony was one).

Bottom line: no use talking about what would happen "under Communism." Communism is already here in many workplaces, you just won't hear it from the boss...

[psgchisolm]

No. In most major orchestras (Berlin Philharmonic, for instance) the musicians decide as a group on new hires of musicians. Conductors are usually imposed from above (especially in America), but often the musicians have their ways of getting an incompetent or unpopular conductor out - except where, as in America, the whole thing is run like an American-style business. As for the conductor: there have been plenty of experiments in "self-conducting" orchestras. (NYC's Jupiter Symphony was one).

Bottom line: no use talking about what would happen "under Communism." Communism is already here in many workplaces, you just won't hear it from the boss...Well for the berlin phil who auditions the musicians? I understand that the European way is different from the american way, but that I'm perplexed as to how that works.:confused:

[Obs]

you are out of your mind if you think im gonna be fixing your ceiling while you art all day
This is literally the only valid response to the "art" question.

[Gorilla]

Post-revolution, what place will art and music have in the new society?

WHAT PLACE??? A TOTALLY AWESOME PLACE!!!!!!!!!!!!!

http://lonestarpolitics.files.wordpress.com/2010/12/north_korea_mass_games_1998.jpg%3Fw%3D300%26h%3D12 3

YES YES YES YES

[southernmissfan]

Southernmissfan has a good point, and his post has been thanked. I do, however, take issue with some of the wording here.



That seems like a rather bourgeois philosophy of art, no? Art should always be revolutionary. Cuba, I believe, offers a good example of artists using their work, for art is work, as a tool, if not a weapon, against the forces of Capital.
Either way, the whole world will achieve Communism in the future, so there's really no way of knowing what will become of art in such a society. Though I believe there will be no end to political debate (the left is already divided) and art will remain a way to express and protest.


Yeah I understand that. Art for art's sake is too narrow. Basically I meant artistic endeavors would no longer be for commercial purposes, thus they would inherently be created for more artistic reasons.


Originally Posted by maldoror
you are out of your mind if you think im gonna be fixing your ceiling while you art all day

I don't think that's been implied.

[black magick hustla]

I don't think that's been implied.

My point is that there will be a set of socially necessary tasks that will probably be decided collectively somehow and partitioned collectively somehow, and beyond that people can do whatever the hell they want.

[Hoipolloi Cassidy]

Well for the berlin phil who auditions the musicians?

The musicians. Who but the bassoon player would know what's needed in a bassoon player? Just about any long-standing orchestra has a "sound," a continuity that predates whatever conductor comes and goes. And, BTW, remember that in theory, this is also how college faculty chose colleagues. On certain levels it's how museum curators run the show - not so much, actually.

Bottom line: I would beware of assuming that the way the capitalists run institutions (or pretend to run institutions) is the way it's always been, let alone the way it works.

[southernmissfan]

My point is that there will be a set of socially necessary tasks that will probably be decided collectively somehow and partitioned collectively somehow, and beyond that people can do whatever the hell they want.

Basically. Which is why these types of threads are largely pointless and not much more than mental masturbation.

OP, hopefully we've answered your question. Whether someone could only create art or music or film or whatever is hard to say. But really, it wouldn't be that hard to contribute to socially necessary tasks, even if your main focus is your art. "Work" in such a society will take on such a different form as to not resemble work presently. Not only that, even the most die-hard artists/musicians/whatever have other interests beyond their art and could thus participate in that manner (such as the community garden, cooking, whatever).