The duty of the artist

[Faceless]

I've been reading contributions by the Frankfurt School of Marxists recently and have become royally confused so I thought I'd put the questions to you guys.
What is the duty Marxist aesthetics?
To teach? To promote a sense of class-consciousness?
How is this best done?
Should an artist reflect reality faithfully as Lukacs suggected? Should they embrace modernist experimentation as Brecht favoured?
Can reality even be faithfully reflected or is it all illusory? Is exaggeration such as in the work of the Expressionists wrong?

[wet blanket]

Take a red crayon with you wherever you go and draw little hammer and sickles all over the walls of every building you walk into.

[Faceless]

Interesting you should mention that. Personally I consider that to be just defacement. People already have deeply rooted prejudices about communism and when they see that they may only be further reinforced. Communists will be no less the bad guys. I prefer to read clever messages on walls that make me think, that challenge me. I dont know if this can be considered art, maybe.

[ComradeRed]

Wreite couplets in red crayon, e.g.
"Capitalism is crappy,
just like bush and his pappy"
:lol:

[Faceless]

Wreite couplets in red crayon, e.g.
"Capitalism is crappy,
just like bush and his pappy"

lol, very subtle

I was thinking more about what you people think the artist's purpose is when creating a work as well as how best to achieve it, just so this topic doesn't go off on a tangent...

[ComradeRed]

<_< what do you think my purpose was :lol:
I think the best way to get any point across would be through writings, after that it&#39;d be music. Dead last would be sculptures and art and such.

[redstar2000]

I&#39;ve been reading contributions by the Frankfurt School of Marxists recently and have become royally confused...

I don&#39;t blame you a bit&#33; :lol:

I tried to read some of that stuff once and found it thoroughly impenetrable.

The Germans have an idiomatic expression regarding certain books that fits the Frankfurt School perfectly: "they do not permit themselves to be read".


What is the duty [of] Marxist aesthetics?

I doubt if there even is such a "thing"...and if there is, I don&#39;t see that "duty" has anything to do with it.

Marxism isn&#39;t really a "theory" of "aesthetics" and any attempt to make it so will probably result in superficial criticism and bad art.

The only "duty" of the artist is to create good art. And since we really have no idea of why we think a piece of art is "good" or "not good", dragging Marxism into the picture just serves to confuse matters even further.

You understand, of course, that in artistic matters I am a complete "philistine". :lol:

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas

[wet blanket]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2004, 11:23 PM
Interesting you should mention that. Personally I consider that to be just defacement. People already have deeply rooted prejudices about communism and when they see that they may only be further reinforced. Communists will be no less the bad guys. I prefer to read clever messages on walls that make me think, that challenge me. I dont know if this can be considered art, maybe.
I was being facetious.

Anyway, express yourself artistically in any way that you see fit.

anything from logos to realism, anything that you think will strike a chord with someone or cause agitation.

[CubanFox]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16 2004, 07:27 AM
Should an artist reflect reality faithfully as Lukacs suggected?
Lukács was dead wrong here. Old Georg was, in my opinion, pretty much wrong about everything related to art.

What he promoted was stilted, lifeless propaganda (socialist realism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialist_realism)), which suffocated everything that didn&#39;t fit the mould exactly.

Hell, Lukács played a large part in the banning of the works of Franz Kafka, a crime if there ever was one&#33;

[Valkyrie]

Hopefully, the duty of an artist is to create art.
Once art has guidelines or an agenda to follow it ceases to be art.
that&#39;s not to say that those who are naturally revolutionary-motivated should not create revolutionary art and propaganda, like the Situationist International, --- just those who are not should&#39;nt be forced to.

Yeah, I disagree with Lukacs.
The genius of Kafka is that he wrote untainted and uninfluenced by any public acclaim while he was alive.

[Valkyrie]

I like the Frankfurt School. I can really get into Erich Fromm, even though the Frankfurt thought is steeped in Freud, who I think was full of shit. I have a book I&#39;ve been getting ready to read by Horkheimer and Adorno, Dialetics of Enlightenmet, said to be the treatise of the German leftists and homeless population.

[Faceless]

The only "duty" of the artist is to create good art. And since we really have no idea of why we think a piece of art is "good" or "not good", dragging Marxism into the picture just serves to confuse matters even further.
Well, I&#39;ve been infusing Communism, if not Marxism, into my art for a while although not with any fixed agenda. Dada, Expressionism and, yes, realism. You can make "good" art which also raises class consciousness. Bad art also tends to emante from the bourgeoisie. The number of ego trips they feel the need to go on is immense. Art produced for a commercial market is inherently worthless. There is certainly something behind art which needs examining.


I like the Frankfurt School. I can really get into Erich Fromm, even though the Frankfurt thought is steeped in Freud, who I think was full of shit. I have a book I&#39;ve been getting ready to read by Horkheimer and Adorno, Dialetics of Enlightenmet, said to be the treatise of the German leftists and homeless population.
I&#39;ve been recently reading "Enlightenment as Mass Deception". It&#39;s very good and among the more penetrable texts after five read throughs. :lol: But then it is only short so I can afford to read it five times over.


What he promoted was stilted, lifeless propaganda (socialist realism), which suffocated everything that didn&#39;t fit the mould exactly.
I wholly agree with you on this point. Socialist Realism was just that but personally I wouldn&#39;t call it "realism". It betrays any theory of truth or objectivity in its sheer lack of ability to be criticising to the Soviet union. The only Socialist Realist I like are Komar & Melamid because they no how to be even slightly subversive. Some "social" realists though have produced some decent art untainted by the state apparatus yet fit in with some of Lukac&#39;s thinking.

Any thoughts on the social realists?

[Palmares]

I find it funny how some people believe that artists have some sort of obligation to be political. I went to this political forum and I remember this girl (I believe she is a student at my local uni art school) who asked one of the speakers (a famous artist here) what obligation artists have to save the forests (this being what the forum was about).

He simply said, none.

By definition an artist is for art, just as the best art, is art for art sake.

Political art is great though, with my own way being graffitti. No hammer and sickles, more anarchist &#39;a&#39;s and stuff like "Capitalism Kills". Very fun.

[Lacrimi de Chiciură]

I like graffiti too. Where do you put most of your graffiti? In my city there is some (not much) good graffiti at this out door skate park. The reason I say not much of its good is because most of it is just crappily written obcenities. <_<

[Faceless]

I find it funny how some people believe that artists have some sort of obligation to be political.
I can see how you might think that that&#39;s how it seems but personally I&#39;ve also created apolitical art (occasionally). I have liberal beliefs about how people should be able to express themselves. I suppose to clarify, how can an artist who has chosen to be political best use his art to be critical of society? (If there indeed is a best way to do this)

[PRC-UTE]

Here&#39;s a piece that I wrote about Russian Constructivism, a school of design. It relates to the topic.

If you click on the link you can see an example of Constructivism.

http://rosog0.tripod.com/id1.html


A Brief History of El Lizzitsky

and His Contribution to Russian Constructivism

Meithmeamh 2004

El Lizzitsky was a Russian artist who helped push graphic design to new frontiers. Though he started out a Suprematist, he came to be associated with Constructivism par excellence. His work still stands as innovative and exciting to this day.

In the early 20th century, Russias folk art tradition gave way to more modern art forms, such as Avante-Garde and later, constructivism. The religious themes that had dominated Russian art from small icons to architecture was replaced suddenly by modern influences.

Russias Avante-Garde sought a break with the past and to convey the restless, energetic pace of urban life. This work could still be described as Suprematist, the idea that feeling is the overriding truth or most important aspect of art.

Avante-Grade briefly flourished as it became associated with the growing power of the Bolshevik regime. The Bolsheviks promised the world a new start for humanity and most importantly for the modernists, a break with Russias bleak and fatalist past.

The Russian regime quickly evolved into Stalinism. It was clear that what Russia was experiencing was not a workers revolution (indeed the concept would be ludicrous in a society where peasants comprised 80% of the population&#33;) but the type of industrial revolution that had already swept the United States and Western Europe.

The Stalinist state emphasized industrial power and rationality. Soviet Realism became the official art. Feeling was de-emphasized. The new art become strong, described in hard surfaces and sharp angles. Lezzitskys work, was simultaneously rational and full of chaotic quirk. The charm of his work is considerable when you see that he so often used sharp angles and rough textures.

His work (see above) for the book Dlia Golosa reading out loud, was made from rearranging type case in a strange way. The printing house in Berlin to which he was a client, thought he was insane&#33; His mixture of colors and angles mingling with the pureness of the page scream out for attention and radiate a manic energy.

[herr_Nosferatu]

I&#39;m reminded of a quote by Jean-Marie Gustav Le Clézio, a french author whose nomadic life has displayed a great sense of what the world is....

The quote, L&#39;artiste est celui qui montre du doigt une parcelle du monde, roughly translated, says:

The Artist is he who pinpoints parcels of the world.

Now, since many artists have a sense to expose, scrutinize and denounce all sorts of twisted things in the world, one might be inclined to think that art has the only purpose of doing such things. This is not the case. Many artists don&#39;t believe that doing works to change the world is an important mission. I find this rather unfortunate, since it is thanks to the arts that mankind has been able to evolve, survive in confines where others would die.

As an artist myself, musician and painter, I feel this is what art should do. Work for the greater good of humanity.

Here is one of the great examples which reaffirms my thoughts on this;

In Quebec, in the 1940&#39;s, a group of french-Canadian dissident artists founded a group called "Les automatistes". This group was created by painter Paul-Emile Borduas. The name "automatistes" was chosen in such because of the influence of surealism and the theoretical rules of automatism it has in its base.

The group soon after its creation evolved into a movement touching all artistic aspects, theater, poetry and dance.

The notoriety of this band of creators is mainly focused on the collective manifesto they published in 1948. This manifesto, called Refus Global, was a way for these artists to break away from the colonialist ancestry that has crafted the society in which they lived under in that post-war time.

This led, in times following its publication, to the quiet revolution in Quebec, which saw the creation of a secular society, the very important welfare state which allows hundreds of thousands to live, and most obviously this worked for the metamorphosis of national indentity within francophone Quebecers.

These aspects were the forerunners for the creation of the unionisation of civil services, nationalization of hydroelectrical power (one of the most lucrative forces of this land), and the implementation of mesures that allow Quebecers to have a strong and nearly independant control over its economy.

The automatists soon disbanded after the publication of their manifesto, but the changes on society which came about after its publication still prevail today.

[PRC-UTE]

that&#39;s very interesting, didn&#39;t know anything about that before. Thanks for the info.

[Capn An]

I find that the best art is the kind that provokes thought and wonder. I would say that a deep thought question sprayed on a wall is art.

There is also art just for arts sake. Oscar Wilde, a famous artist and author of The Picture of Dorian Gray believed that art was just to be beautiful and nothing else. Some people might agree with that.

[Ziggy]

I believe as an artist I have a duty, but do not have a duty. Artists see the world completely different from others and need to use that gift. On some level I would agree it is the artists duty to be aware of his/her surroundings and to bring that consciousness out through the medium for others to see and interpret. My artworks tends to reflect the larger picture at hand and I do try to be politically, culturally aware in my work. Sometimes I do just want to make something aesthetically pleasing(like the table i&#39;m making, no real point, just pretty) other times i forget all about look and concentrate on the message. Part of the duty is not to just think, breathe, and live art, but to go out and experience the world. If the artist is too caught up in specific beliefs and rules it no longer becomes art but another&#39;s tool using the artist. (i think i&#39;m begining to babble so forgive me, nothing like working on 2 hours of sleep a night for the past 3 weeks)

my duty is to be true to what i feel and express that feeling through my work.

i believe this sums it up very well
my existence is to bring forth change within myself and to reach and with my hands change the world not to as i see fit but just to change

[apathy maybe]

I agree with some of the sentiments already expressed. Art is art is art. As soon as you define art to be something, it looses a lot of what makes it special. Thus major art awards are given for bags of trash etc.

Art can be used for propaganda purposes, however, I generally disagree with this (disliking propaganda in general).

Just like science Art can be used for "good" and "evil", it is up to the community to decide what they will tolerate, and what they shall not.

As to art ever being able to represent life, I say yes. As art covers a wide range of mediums (painting, sculpture, text, voice etc.) in at least some of these mediums it will represent life truly. But remember, art isn&#39;t just about representing life. It is about art first and foremost.

(I don&#39;t know anything about art, but I know what I like.) :)

[refuse_resist]

The art of the artists is something that varies widely from person to person. Certain things can mean different things to different people. Their surroundings can also play a part in what is being said in their art, so it can be their way of telling about what&#39;s going on. When it all comes down to it, it&#39;s really all about the creativity and expressing yourself in whichever way you think is the best way to go at it.

[Palmares]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19 2004, 06:02 AM
I can see how you might think that that&#39;s how it seems but personally I&#39;ve also created apolitical art (occasionally). I have liberal beliefs about how people should be able to express themselves. I suppose to clarify, how can an artist who has chosen to be political best use his art to be critical of society? (If there indeed is a best way to do this)
Be radical I guess. The greatest art movements (I believe) have always been radical, and though they underwent much criticism, many eventually understood it. I believe that can be the same for political art, but I don&#39;t think all of your art should be political, just emphasise it when it is.

Stuff like paintings defacing cappie leaders and symbols are great. Maybe make some artistic banners for rallies.

To answer your answer, if you are a political artist, by all means you then have an obligation to be political in your art (because that is who you are).

Do you do any graf?

[Rasta Sapian]

to paint or express yourself with color on any medium in a abstract political tangent is to invite symbolism and history to your canvess; while diving directly into surrealism and abstactism is to evoke true creativity, allowing your own body and mind to bring new thought to life&#33;

however, it is always temping to allow a red shaded prole working for his or her love of labour for idealism and countryhood :)