"The Arts"

['Discourse Unlimited']

[ I get the feeling that this topic belongs in the "cultural" section. However, it concerns art and creativity in general, not just "Literature and Films"... So I didn't put it there. If anyone (Mod / Admin / whoever's responsible) wants to move it elsewhere, feel free! :) ]


If we assume, for the moment, that art is a creative extension of the 'self', and that the 'self' is the product of material forces; then what do people think the future holds for "the Arts"? This includes paintings, sculptures, literature, music - anything that comes to mind when someone yells "creativity" at you! (We are also assuming, in this case, that Communism has triumphed...)

If we ('the people') are freed from the tyranny of wage-slavery and are actively encouraged to fully develop our mental and physical potential, can we expect an explosion of creative power "the like of which has never been seen"?

Or, does the victory of the proletariat and the emergence of a classless society, along with the socio-economic equilibria this inevitably entails ("the end of history"), remove a key creative element from the equation, so to speak, thus limiting artistic license?

What do you think?

[encephalon]

I'm not sure why it would limit artistic license. Art is human.. it may be, in fact, the only thing that differentiates people wholly from other animals. We're the only ones that decorate our homes.

[Clarksist]

Well art may become further abstract and "off-the-wall" would come into the foreground because the mainstream of art would lose its ground as people wouldn't be swayed to make something according to what most people want to buy.

[RedSkinheadUltra]

I recently became very interested in this subject too. I've wondered if there's any way of predicting what art would be like in a classless society; or even immediately after a socialist revolution. After October 1917 into the early 1920's there were incredible new forms of art being developed. From theatre to sculpture to film (i.e. Eisenstein).

Honestly I don't know much about art yet but I'm currently reading Trotsky's and other Marxists' writings on the topic.

Leon Trotsky On Literature And Art (http://marxists.org/archive/trotsky/works/art/index.htm)
Literature And Revolution by Leon Trotsky (http://marxists.org/archive/trotsky/works/1924/lit_revo/index.htm)
The Aesthetic Component of Socialism - A lecture by David Walsh (http://www.wsws.org/exhibits/art/index.htm)

[marxist_socialist_aussie]

I suppose a lot would depend on what we call 'art'. Personally, I believe art would flourish. The 'slavery' which exists under capitlaism can only aid in the stifling of art (besides protest art) and hence, with freedom comes expression. Plus, many of the very creative 'artists' of all forms of art ahev been atleast somewhat left.

['Discourse Unlimited']

I'm not sure why it would limit artistic license.


This is "Leon Trotsky on Literature and Art" (the links 'RedSkinheadUltra' posted are really worth checking out! :) ) -



And just as the populists who went to the people were ready to do without clean linen and without a comb and without a toothbrush, so the intelligentsia was ready to sacrifice the "subtleties" of form in its art, in order to give the most direct and spontaneous expression to the sufferings and hopes of the oppressed. [My italics...]




The 'slavery' which exists under capitlaism can only aid in the stifling of art (besides protest art) [My italics...]


Exactly.

The point I was making, perhaps poorly explained, is that art often reflects struggles within reality. In this case, the work by the Russian intelligentsia was a way of expressing emotion regarding, or beliefs concerning, the state of the oppressed masses. And capitalism can at least start protests against itself, which may take on artistic form! :P



After October 1917 into the early 1920's there were incredible new forms of art being developed. From theatre to sculpture to film (i.e. Eisenstein).


Very valid point. In the early years of the Bolshevik regime, before the censors turned from 'necessity' (i.e. military safety) to the domestic front, huge quantities of "art" was turned out. I wonder, though, if this was due to a creative spark ignited by revolution, or to the relaxation of Tsarist oppression?

It IS an interesting topic to discuss!

[Taiga]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2005, 11:45 AM
After October 1917 into the early 1920's there were incredible new forms of art being developed. From theatre to sculpture to film (i.e. Eisenstein).


http://www.hrono.ru/img/muhina.jpg

;)

[Free Spirit]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2005, 03:08 AM
I'm not sure why it would limit artistic license. Art is human.. it may be, in fact, the only thing that differentiates people wholly from other animals. We're the only ones that decorate our homes.
Actually that's not so. There are tropical birds that decorate their nests to attract female birds. One thing to point out art is the aesthetic witch means knowledge of beauty and humans are not the only one attracted to beauty. Birds sing they attract each other with colours and songs.
The difference is they use it only for attraction while humans for endless choices of expression, freedom of mind, self-symbolism (bohemian) and so on and so on.

[Clarksist]

Originally posted by Free [email protected] 10 2005, 05:35 PM
The difference is they use it only for attraction while humans for endless choices of expression, freedom of mind, self-symbolism (bohemian) and so on and so on.
Well, even that isn't specifically human. Many big apes will make "jewelry". In this anthropology class that I took we were given examples of animal's cultures, and animals completely stranded from other animals will still decorate.

[encephalon]

Interesting. So what, then, do you all think makes humanity a unique being amongst other animals, if anything?

[Clarksist]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11 2005, 04:22 AM
Interesting. So what, then, do you all think makes humanity a unique being amongst other animals, if anything?
Well, we are the best inventors, builders, and exploiters. In a short amount of time we have risen to completely dominate the world, faster than any other lifeform in Earth's history.

So... you know, there's that. :blink:

['Discourse Unlimited']

I, for one, would be interested to see whether any "abstract" or "idealist" art remained in a society that was always meant to be "more rational"... And what the reaction to it would be.

Also, if any heroic scenes depicting the overthrow of capitalism were created (akin to the "Storming of the Winter Palace" in Russia). Perhaps they'd be considered unneccesary - or perhaps not! :)

[RevolverNo9]

This is an interesting topic which does occur to me.

In Herbert Marcuse's (superlative) 'A Critique of Soviet Marxism' (the best analysis of the USSR that I have read) there is a fascinating chapter concerning art in Russia. This was the crisis (perhaps half remembered on my part); art reflecting current material reality, in a successful post-revolutionary society all art would be realist, an extension of the objective equilibrium and liberty that existed. Soviet society stood as a successful society yet, as we all know (I hope) this was not the case. The false extension of a realism that didn't in reality exist led to the grotesque catastrophe that was the imposition on the arts of Soviet Realism.

This leads me to state that Soviet Realism is perhaps the easiest evidence to use for not just the failiure of the revolution, but also the reason for it; the imposition of a system is incapable of success. The imposition of an economic system onto society neccessitates its reflection in art, which in turn reflects the economic situation. This art (aided by it being totally devoid in subtley) seems to me to give an immediate diagnosis of the USSR in a way that is so much more of a challange with, say, Gothic art.

My instant reaction is that the new-found wealth of liberated time and a society which bred proper education and intellectual inquiery would lead to an explosion in creativity and a flourishing in the arts. But not perhaps in a way so recognisable to us. I commend to all the Situationist critique(s) and practice(s) of art. (There was a great divergence in their approach.) Where they agree is that in liberated society, the arteficial boundaries between politics, art and life would collapse. This is because society is freed from the determinismof the state and people are free (indeed they have no choice but to be so) in will. This results in the individual creatively living their time, living art... the 'Revolution of Everyday Life', as the Situations called it.

Would we now recognise post-revolutionary 'art', liberated from it's current constraints in state-determined society as a practice isolated from the rest of living? I find it hard to say that we could currently. (A Medieval illiminator surely could not have recognised impressinism, let alone the avant-garde, and the difference in material conditions between feudalism and capitalism is less radical than that between state society (even later state society) and stateless society.)

This is why the nagging temptation to believe that a society free from contradictions would produce art that was uncomplicated is untennable. Currently confilct produces such strong art because its power forces the resistant individual to feel certain emotions and ultimately create (ie. revolutionary activity(in it's most fundamental sense)).

In liberated society the individual does not need to revolt to create - the individual is free to create.

['Discourse Unlimited']

Great post, 'RevolverNo9'. :)



This was the crisis (perhaps half remembered on my part); art reflecting current material reality, in a successful post-revolutionary society all art would be realist, an extension of the objective equilibrium and liberty that existed.


This is what I was trying to get at! You've summed it up well. 'Soviet Realism' - in my mind, this can be represented by the following:

http://members.surfeu.at/horvath/vladi.jpg

Maybe I've gotten the wrong idea somewhere, but this is what always caught my eye when I was looking through all those old history books... The extent to which post-revolutionary art "betrayed" the contemporary situation in Russia at the time is amazing, and also a little scary...



In liberated society the individual does not need to revolt to create - the individual is free to create.


Excellent.

[pingwin]

Art is made by artists. The common man spending time om painting, sculptures, writing or whatever will produce a lot of stuff but not art. So your still looking at a relatively small number of people capable of producing art.

Art, and high-quality art more than anything, requires artists to be able to spend their time on making art. Part-time or full-time, well, for most artists having a day-time job will be a distraction from their artistic works.

How will this be handled in a free, classless society?

[Omri Evron]

I think (or atleast I hope) that in a classless society art would flourish. This is mostly because the amount of human resources spend on the material needs of the society would decrease (as they'll produce only what they need, respect the amount of effort each member can contribute, and use the technological inventions to advance societie's needs), especially if we are talking about a time in the future where machines would be able to relieve man of most phisycal work. In this society more and more people and resources would be spend on things other than the immediate need to survive and get paid. People would have the spare time to invest in making non-phisical contributions to society in fields like: poetry, art, music, litererature, and so on. Additionally, they could allow themselves to be creative without regards to how well the public is going to react to their art, adn they won't have to compremise because they wouldn't be worried about how well they would sell their art. Musicians will create music for the sake of music, and anyone who wants to could listen (this is already becoming possible through the internet). I truly hope there will be an age when the people in the society could advance the human culture instead of worrying about their wealth.


An interesting story:
My grandmother is a successful artist. When she lived in a kibbuts (a sort of village commune) she devided her time between helping out in the different chors of the kibbuts, and her art. She was satisfied with this, and I think it shows that artists can live well in a classless society even if it does not reach a high technological level.

But on another time she participated in a large art festival in eastern Europe hosted by the USSR in the 60's. She commented that all the art was the same, without creativity of personal touch. This is, I think, the product of an oppressive society that oppresses the individual instead of embraceing him and allowing him to fullfil himself. That means that in order for the arts to flurish we most have a non-opressive government (if at all), and pluralism that excepts many art forms and does not try to cencure "reactionary" art forms.

[Organic Revolution]

concert in baku:

composer arseny avraamov created a ruckus by using all the 'instruments' in the city like artillery, steam wistles ect. a few years after this concert arseny was forced to work in the factorys... not make music.

[novemba]

Art is something that exists whether we use it or not.

The thing is, in a communist utopia, art would be non-commercial, and therefore more true, just like any art today.

[Organic Revolution]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29 2005, 08:30 PM
Art is something that exists whether we use it or not.

The thing is, in a communist utopia, art would be non-commercial, and therefore more true, just like any art today.
art today is an expression of anger at the way things are going. under socialism it would bethe same.

[danny android]

The arts will always exist. Art is self expression. Individuality and self expresion must always exist or else we have lost all humanity.

[Malone]

If we assume, for the moment, that art is a creative extension of the 'self', and that the 'self' is the product of material forces; then what do people think the future holds for "the Arts"? This includes paintings, sculptures, literature, music - anything that comes to mind when someone yells "creativity" at you! (We are also assuming, in this case, that Communism has triumphed...)

If we ('the people') are freed from the tyranny of wage-slavery and are actively encouraged to fully develop our mental and physical potential, can we expect an explosion of creative power "the like of which has never been seen"?

Or, does the victory of the proletariat and the emergence of a classless society, along with the socio-economic equilibria this inevitably entails ("the end of history"), remove a key creative element from the equation, so to speak, thus limiting artistic license?

What do you think?

I replied to this without looking at all the replies, but I would suggest reading Oscar Wilde’s “The Soul of Man Under Socialism” for a perspective, then, perhaps, reading Nietzsche on the nature of art under mob-ruled societies.

I’m fairly convinced that art is closer to Nietzsche’s view, though I do believe Wilde has some very valid points, and I can never be sure as Communism has never triumphed in the world. I would, if I were to guess, predict that art would become very effected by the propaganda of the people-oriented ideology that would encompass the entire society, and would probably become, on the one hand, completely non-individualistic, and almost fascist-like in aesthetic appeal (not necessarily an insult, and I need to communists flaming me about the use of that description, I mean group-oriented in nature), and, on the other hand, the society would produce great individuals who would find the great mass of the society ridiculously inferior, and probably isolate themselves from it, creating great works based on inner-contemplation (the aesthetics I would admire more, and I would think most would who have a taste for such things).

The nature of art under capitalism is, though, badly-placed, and ill-kept, as capitalism attempts to make a commodity of art, the way it does all things, and makes a great whore, as Pound and Eliot saw and most Modernists observed, out of the act of spirited creation. I despise capitalism for this, and consider it one of the best aesthetically-based arguments for anti-capitalism.


1. QUOTE

And just as the populists who went to the people were ready to do without clean linen and without a comb and without a toothbrush, so the intelligentsia was ready to sacrifice the "subtleties" of form in its art, in order to give the most direct and spontaneous expression to the sufferings and hopes of the oppressed. [My italics...]




This would be the fascist-based order of art.



QUOTE

The 'slavery' which exists under capitlaism can only aid in the stifling of art (besides protest art) [My italics...]




I agree. You also have to understand that this slavery produces a lot of great art, so I only partly agree. Just the way the herd-mentality would reign under Communism, the commodity-making of art under Capitalism also produces great individuals who would triumph. Under capitalism, this forms what we term “the underground” much of the time, and becomes the most influential and mainstream-producing in the future...for example, the Velvet Underground were flourishing aesthetically under capitalism, and got no respect at the time from most...though, their influence is found in the most unwelcome of places, namely, “alternative music” in general, which is the commodity produced by great art, which waters it down to the most accessible. Under Communism, I’m not sure how this would occur. It would certainly eliminate the commodity-making influence-aspect, but it would also produce a new aspect, which would make art appealing to the general public.


The point I was making, perhaps poorly explained, is that art often reflects struggles within reality. In this case, the work by the Russian intelligentsia was a way of expressing emotion regarding, or beliefs concerning, the state of the oppressed masses. And capitalism can at least start protests against itself, which may take on artistic form!

The thing is, in my opinion, that art doesn’t have anything to do with ideology or the “masses”–it examines life from an aesthetic viewpoint, not a moral viewpoint.

And even when works of art do come from a moral perspective, they can still yield an aesthetic appeal, but it has nothing to do with the morality of the subject, but the humanity and beauty of the subject, which isn’t moral.


humans are not the only one attracted to beauty.

Humans are the only beings which have a consciousness, therefore, we are the only beings which have a consciousness of beauty. All other animals work on instinct.

[Fawkes]

I'm gonna resurrect an 18-month old post.
I personally think that the arts would flourish much more in an anarchist society than in an Authoritarian communist one. I guess this is because I see anarchists as being really creative people while I see most communists as being creative, yes, but the fact that they believe in authority and people telling others what to do makes me feel that they aren't as creative as anarchists who believe in a free society. (that was a very long, very gramatically incorrect sentence).

[phragit]

I think the prague spring is the perfect referance for this, many great films were made durring the de-stalinization of Czechoslovakia. Black Peter, Closely Observed Trains, Loves of a Blonde, Fireman's Ball and The Shop on Main Street were some of the best films that were ever made. Durring this time one of the world's first film schools was founded, which realy shows communism's take on art.

[Angry Young Man]

Wasn't there a vast leftist arts movement in the 1920's and 30's? I believe it didn't constitute a singular genre, but it included surrealism (such as Breton) and folk art (such as Kahlo and Rivera). Also, photography (such as Modotti).
Was Picasso leftist?

[Z[ ] Sputnik]

Comming from someone who has thought extensively on the subject of creativity, I think your definiton is limiting.

The thought process and enviroment beyond material forces has a larger impact on creativity than material forces alone.

If your dad beats you, if you are clinically insane, if you think you're fat, all of this will manifest in your creations.

Communism wouldn't limit creativity.

[jaycee]

I'm not sure if anyone has made this point but I think the best Marxist views of art in the communist future are views from people like William Morris, and obviously Marx as well.

They basically say that the barrier between life and art will be erased and everything will be made in accordance with what Marx called the ' natural laws of beauty'. All human activity would also be truly free and creative, therefore life will become an art form in itself.

Capitalism and commodity production has probably reached the highest levels of this seperation between life and art and alienation in general.