Art and the Revolution

[MKS]

I recently read a speech by Che in which he briefly touched on the role of artists and the revolution. The speech made me consider my own views on art and the class struggle and how art can or should be a part of the new order, or revolution.

So, what role should artists and art have in the revolution. Is art just a trapping of the burgoise system or can it be classles, a pure form of communication and expression?

[redstar2000]

I confess frankly that I don't know the answer to your question and I don't think anyone really does.

Begin with a fundamental question: what do you mean by art?

Is it simply entertainment? A pleasant diversion from our "serious work"?

Does it really have some "higher meaning"? Something that only "truly civilized" cultures can produce?

All efforts that I'm aware of to establish a coherent definition of art that will include "all the good stuff" while excluding "all the crap"...have come to grief.

There's a story attributed to the late Katherine Hepburn. She was asked by a reporter what she thought about nudity on the Broadway stage.

"I think it's vulgar and totally unnecessary", she replied in her famous aristocratic voice, "but if I was 25 and had a great body, I'd call it art."

If we don't really know what art is or what it is that artists do, then what can we meaningfully say about what things will be like in communist society in this regard?

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[MKS]

Of course the defnition of art , or what constitues art is subjective but there still is art. Music, paintings, sculpture, etc.

Art to me and I think most people is expression and communication of ideas, emotions etc. Through music, literature, visual art. Of course it is entertainment, but sometimes becomes bigger than that.

For the sake of this discussion and thread, art is the visual, musical, literal expression of man.

[Matthew The Great]

This is a very good quesion. I have asked myself many times what role would art (visual, musical, etc.) play after a revolution. I have never been able to reach an answer for myself.

I am very interested what other people have to say on this topic.

[Pawn Power]

Well...I think it is important to realate everything back to revolutionary ideas. Art, writtings, lyrics; all of these things can get people thinking and exspress ones political views.

[OleMarxco]

Their role would be like the "secret psychiatrists" of society, me thinkesth. Did you ever think of HOW MUCH HELP music can be in your life? I regard artists as a good source of anti-Depressiva - and it lifts the spirit. Not all, of course, but - They have a good purpose. To combat depressivity, artists will have and be given a dedicadated spot in society to amuse workers. How they decide. The point is that sometimes a little escape from reality is not bad.
And musicans do that really well. Entertainers will be just as necessary as workers. A happy tune once in a while keeps your psyche up and the motivation going.

[Parkbench]

art--entertainment, what have you--is an excellent form of education. We talked about how the revolution would be brought about in another thread, and in another about "practicing what one preaches." Education and removal of ignorance is what is needed, and art as a whole is an accessible, poignant way to do this--whether directly through a literary work, or indirectly through a public demonstration (not protest, as in some sort of act).

aesthetic comfort and education are a large part of the revolution i would say.

[MKS]

But what about free expression? Should art be censored or limited to only fit "revolutionary" idealogy?

[Parkbench]

no--and this is part of the reason of the decline of the soviet union. gorbachev and his cabinet made the laws repressing freedom of expression, not just through art, but through educational literature and speeches and so on, much more lax and humane, and thus the anti-soviet sentiment that had been oppressed for years was finally released unto the public, and it no longer became a secret--if we were to repress anti-revolutionary imagery, we would be no better than them--we would be Madame Defarge.

the true test is to pit the forces against each other--and the one with true reason, the one that is most effective will prevail. repression is just cowardice.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Parkbench
we would be Madame Defarge.

This is actually a good illustration of our dilemma regarding "art" in future society.

Is Charles Dickens' reactionary work A Tale of Two Cities "art"? Should we let it disappear into the "basement stacks" of the larger public libraries?

Dickens presents "Madame Defarge" very unsympathetically. She is a victim of aristocratic oppression who plans a bloody revenge on her tormentors...which Dickens clearly disapproves of. He evidently thinks that the proper attitude towards the old ruling class is one of forgiveness...or something like that.

Should we commission a new version of the novel...with Madame Defarge as "the lead character"?

Would that be "better art"?

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[MKS]

In my opinion art is the one thing that is classles, or can be classles. Pure art, expression, creation, is original and although may reflect the artists perspective, it does not always communicate the perspective.

Art during, after a revolution should remain unrestrcited by government and man.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by MKS
In my opinion art is the one thing that is classless...

That can't be right.

Why? Because artists have to eat. Which means that they have to make art that people will buy.

And who's got most of the money?

Especially spare money to purchase art?

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[JazzRemington]

I think he means that art isn't just something that one class of people can create. I tend to agree with this statement.

[Parkbench]

Dickens presents "Madame Defarge" very unsympathetically. She is a victim of aristocratic oppression who plans a bloody revenge on her tormentors...which Dickens clearly disapproves of. He evidently thinks that the proper attitude towards the old ruling class is one of forgiveness...or something like that.

Do you remember the book at all? We don't have to debate it, you can just re-read the book. At the end shes not just impassioned. If you read and inferred you would clearly see that by the end she has simply become what she hated and succumbed into pure reactionary violence.

Note, I hated Tale of Two Cities, but she's a good character.

[MKS]

I think he means that art isn't just something that one class of people can create. I tend to agree with this statement.

exactly. Art can be and usually is an inpartial communication of the reality. while it can be used to communicate a certain ideal or principle, it is usally created without such intent.

While the commericalisation of art is not classles, the creation is.

So, what role will artist play in a post-revolutionary environment, will they be considered special workers, or become a class by themselves? Or will they dissolve into the greater community/commune?

[JazzRemington]

What role do artists have in post-revolution society? The same role htey have in the pre-revolution society: inspiring people, communicating ideas, putting their dreams and desires into physical reality, etc.

[Colombia]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30 2005, 03:28 AM
[QUOTE]

So, what role will artist play in a post-revolutionary environment, will they be considered special workers, or become a class by themselves? Or will they dissolve into the greater community/commune?
Why would they become a separate class? THey should in no way be treated diffrently than the whole. So yes they will go into the greater community?

[MKS]

Why would they become a separate class? THey should in no way be treated diffrently than the whole. So yes they will go into the greater community?

Should they be forced to labour? Wouldnt that be oppression? Sholudnt they be allowed the freedom to create unhindered. Or is that just a trapping of burgoise society?, the seperation and creation of almost another class of people.

[Colombia]

Sorry. Confusion in regards to the previous post.

[MKS]

Why did you just repeat what I said?

didnt repeat what you said.

simply trying to ask and get a true answer or opinion on the role of artisits in a post revolutionary society.

In strict Marxism/Communism there is only one class of people after the revolution. The workers/labour all have a set purpose within the society , all equal, all freedoms are granted through communal agreement. However Marx never comments on the role of artisits in the post era. What becomes of artists? If during the post era, the aritist dont want to labour, they want to continue to create, should that be allowed? Now while I value your opinion, it is not the only opinion on the matter, I was simply restating the question or poin so others could comment. Again I raised the question of suppression.

Should artists be forced into labour?

I originally brought up the thread after reading Che Guevara's essay: Man and Socialism in Cuba. In which he briefly touched on the topic of art and the revolution.

[Colombia]

What must be realized that while art is good, it really does little to benefit the community. So MKS they could create art as a side job. Sort of a hobby if you will. No one would stop them from doing so.

If they do not want to do any "real" labour, than why should they reap from the benefits of the community?

[MKS]

many could argue and do argue art does alot for the community.



If they do not want to do any "real" labour, than why should they reap from the benefits of the community?

thats what i was hoping for an honest answer/ or opinion to my question. So in your view artists who do not want to volunteer into the labour community should be set aside. But isnt that oppression? isnt that sperating work into categories, there is real labour, then there is art.

[Colombia]

Before I deal with the rest of your post I need to ask what art exactly does that benefits the community.

[MKS]

Art creates beauty, it inspires, it speaks to the greater mystery of the human condition. It is a benefit not only asteticly but dare I say spiritualy, that is it becomes a communication of very human ideals, emotions, principles etc.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30 2005, 05:16 PM
Art creates beauty, it inspires, it speaks to the greater mystery of the human condition. It is a benefit not only asteticly but dare I say spiritually, that is it becomes a communication of very human ideals, emotions, principles etc.
Too mystical for my tastes!

I'm more inclined to agree with Colombia...art should be a "low priority" item, at least during the early decades of post-revolutionary society.

Don't forget, we need to get the electricity back on, organize food distribution, get the railroads running again, restore the production of basic necessities, etc.

All this while also establishing organs of workers' self-government, suppressing counter-revolutionaries, making sure that no despot-wannabes get into positions of responsibility, etc.

The tasks will be daunting ones.

In the longer run of things, I've heard it suggested that art will not exist in a communist society at all -- that people's lives will be their art.

An interesting speculation.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[MKS]

In the longer run of things, I've heard it suggested that art will not exist in a communist society at all -- that people's lives will be their art.

Couldnt art communicate the joy of their new world, the better communist one.

All of redstar2000's points were valid, however Im still unsure if it is an oppression of art, or even greater freedom. While the post era is being established are all those who wish not to completley give themselves to the cause (i.e. labour) labled as enemies of the revolution? Would artists fall into this category?

[Colombia]

Just depends on what the artist is doing. If he/she is making pro-capitalist art than yes he would be an enemy.

What do you mean completely give themselves to the cause?

[MKS]

What do you mean completely give themselves to the cause?

To give up their art to join a workers commune. Should they be forced? And what if thier art isnt created as pro-capitalist art. but is viewed to be by others. Such misunderstandings happen all the time in todays world. Shold art be judged in such ways, would such judgement be prelude to censorship?

[Colombia]

So many questions!

No one is forcing them to give up their art. But they shouldn't expect to get anything exept personal pleasure from it. It can be a hobby for them but the idea that making art can be considered work is absurd.

True misunderstandings may happen but it all just depends. If it is a picture of people bowing down to a dollar bill, than that can be considered pro-capitalist. But the artist will be able to explain themselves and if they provide a good explanation for there work, they won't be punished.