Let us entertain you! - Entertainment in a socialist state?

[I Will Deny You]

I've talked to quite a few socialists in my day, and some of them have said that in a socialist state there would be no entertainment or art. (It's kind of hard to make the distinction sometimes.) There would be no theater, movies, music, etc. that would be funded by the government. Other socialists have said that the arts would be funded by the government. So what I'm wondering is, did any big-name (or simply noteworthy) socialist philosophers have much to say on this issue? It's certainly something that interests me. Thanks comrades.

[Fires of History]

Nobody pops out in my mind as a obvious Socialist/Communist voice on the future of art. I'll look around now, you've got me very curious now too. GOOD QUESTION!!! Get back with you if I find anything.

Although, I consider writing/literature an art form. That will be around no matter what because the production costs are so low :-)

Perhaps film would move into a more 'independent' mode, less million-dollar-Hollywood feel, which in my opinion would be a blessing to film, lol.

I know nothing about the professional world of painting/theatre, so I can't comment there.

YEAH FOR INDY FILM!
Trance

[Michael De Panama]

I haven't heard or read anything specifically about this issue, but I would assume that art and entertainment would be preserved in a socialist society than in any other society. And it wouldn't have all the shallow consumerist stigma added to it like it has here in a capitalist world. Art and entertainment is and has always been a strong foundation of world societies. Socialist workers do not only work on providing food and shelter.

Ask Peaccenicked, he would probably be able to give you something. ;)

[Michael De Panama]

I just remembered that Picasso was a member of the Socialist party.

[cassidy]

There is a bit on the topic of art in "Man and Socialism in Cuba," which I believe can be downloaded on this site somewhere.

[Fires of History]

Yes, well put.

If one believes that art is expression, that expression of the soul, heart, and mind would definitely continue under Socialism.

Perhaps more so than ever before...

People Over Profits,
Trance

[honest intellectual]

Think of all the great communist poets, photographers, writers........

(Edited by honest intellectual at 8:16 pm on April 1, 2002)

[El Che]

In a socialist state it is the comunal duty of all to share in the work it is necessary to do. If besides this work you wish to produce something else you are if anything worthy of praise. Art is such a production. Who will own art? it will be the property of all and non just like everything else.

So to answer your question, an artist that only makes art and does nothing else? no. But an artist that does his share of work just like everybody else and wishes also to produce art? of course yes.

[Malvinas Argentinas]

i think communism is an art

definition: Activity where the man expresses himself with beauty

[Michael De Panama]

Quote: from El Che on 3:14 am on April 2, 2002
In a socialist state it is the comunal duty of all to share in the work it is necessary to do. If besides this work you wish to produce something else you are if anything worthy of praise. Art is such a production. Who will own art? it will be the property of all and non just like everything else.

So to answer your question, an artist that only makes art and does nothing else? no. But an artist that does his share of work just like everybody else and wishes also to produce art? of course yes.


I disagree. Art is as much an important product as anything else. It is not a secondary service.

[rediska]

I do not agree with el che. Being an artist is as much of a labour as doing anything else. in our society art had become separated from the masses and evolved into a sort of a subculture that is understood only by few. Pop culture took the place that was occupied by art in the past. The whole Hollywood industry generates movies that are precisely calculated to make profit. in our society art is dead for the people (how often do you/your friends visit art exhibiitons? do you know the names of the most influential modern painters?). And it shouldn't be. Besides of being a propaganda tool art can be a powerful way to communicate ideas. People should be properly educated to understand the symbols that are used in art.
i don't think that a proper socialist society can function without art. i also strongly disagree that art should be done as a hobby outside of work.
capitalist society rejects artists if they choose to persue their own path instead of making movies such as "Legally Blonde" or doing an ad for Mcdonalds.
and i think that a socialist society - being everything that capitalism is not - should accept and support artists.
One of the good things about Soviet Union was that there were huge government sponsored institutes of Literature and strong Artists Unions.
A socialist society should let people be creative and not necessarily dependant on demand

down with designers who lick corporate ass!!
in a socialist society art would certainly change and become more design oriented=based on the needs of people rather then on the wants of artists themselves,
but it would certainly have much more opportunities for artists then our present western model

[I Will Deny You]

Hello, rediska. Nice first post. Welcome.

In my ideal socialist state, the people would be the ones who decide where money is spent. A certain amount of money would definitely be spent on art. I think that El Che does not realize art's potential in society. Art is a reflection of culture and times. It is important to a lot of people. Obviously it would be stupid to fund every single schmo who wanted to sit in a studio all day instead of working in a field, factory or office, but art shouldn't only be done as a hobby. Artists deserve a lot more recognition than they get.


Quote: from rediska on 11:32 pm on April 1, 2002
how often do you/your friends visit art exhibiitons?I went to one last weekend! Just thought I'd mention that. But I'm not good with names.

[El Che]

Where did I say art is not importante? I did not say this. Nither did I say it is not necessary to society. It is. But art is a creative process and as such it is espontaneous, it comes from the artist not from society`s necessity. You can not say "we need art so start painting", "you will paint this and you will paint that" can you? It must come from the artist him self because he wants to express him self or for whatever reason. So therefore while it is necessary to some extent, it is also something with which the organised (planned) socialist mod of production should have nothing to do with. Because if we were to do what some of you are sugesting we should end up with the sort of state mandanted art of the old soviet union. And I maintain that an artist, like a doctor or a rocket scientist will have to do his share of other types of work in a communal society. This is common knowledge really.

[rediska]

to i will deny: thanx. <smile>i've been reading this forum for a while and only now felt that i cannot leave this discussion unanswered.

Art is not as spontaneous as many people think. This notion of art being done only by special "talented" people and only when they are in a certain unexplainable state of "inspiration" is fairly new. It appeared with Romanticism two centuries ago. Romantic poets are mostly to blame - they supported the myth that a poem can be just "thrown" on paper and left as it is, mostly because for them it symbolized a pure form of feeling . And it's ironic that in fact their poems involved much more work(i.e. constantly changing, restructuring) then they admitted in public. So once the myth was created, the movement in arts appeared called Romanticism. I could write a lot about it but it does not really answer the original I Will Deny's question.
to el che:i don't understand how can you say that art is necessary in a socialist society and at the same time say that "an artist, like a doctor or a rocket scientist will have to do his share of other types of work in a communal society". NO. Then our society will not move forward if all the philosophers, scientists and artists be forced to do their "communal share of work"(whatever that means). Being an artist - or a scientist - is as much of a socially needed profession as anything else. and it involves as much dedication, time etc
I know that the biggest challenge would be to distinguish the "true" artistis from the ones who would want to feed of the government and do nothing behind the mask of being creative. And i will not try to answer the question of what is true art and what is not - this is not the right place for it.
Then another thing: where do you draw a line between the artists who should do other types of work in a communal society and artists who are needed for this society to function properly?.. Do you consider design being an artform? If you do, then our consumer goods will be in a hideous state aesthetically (think Soviet Union. i've lived there and know that people cannot live without beautiful things around them, they would start to rebell and our socialist society will collapse). If socialism is to keep everyone satisfied, then it cannot do so without art and aesthetics.

As to socialist/communist philosophers who wrote about the role of art in a socialist state, i can think only of Oscar Wilde's "The Soul of Man under Socialism". It is utopist and a bit one-dimentional, but we are not here to judge. He has some valid points though.
here's a quote:
"whenever a
community or a powerful section of a community, or a government of
any kind, attempts to dictate to the artist what he is to do, Art
either entirely vanishes, or becomes stereotyped, or degenerates
into a low and ignoble form of craft. A work of art is the unique
result of a unique temperament. Its beauty comes from the fact
that the author is what he is. It has nothing to do with the fact
that other people want what they want. Indeed, the moment that an
artist takes notice of what other people want, and tries to supply
the demand, he ceases to be an artist, and becomes a dull or an
amusing craftsman, an honest or a dishonest tradesman. He has no
further claim to be considered as an artist. Art is the most
intense mode of Individualism that the world has known.
But alone, without any reference to his neighbours,
without any interference, the artist can fashion a beautiful thing;
and if he does not do it solely for his own pleasure, he is not an
artist at all.
And it is to be noted that it is the fact that Art is this intense
form of Individualism that makes the public try to exercise over it
in an authority that is as immoral as it is ridiculous, and as
corrupting as it is contemptible. It is not quite their fault.
The public has always, and in every age, been badly brought up.
They are continually asking Art to be popular, to please their want
of taste, to flatter their absurd vanity, to tell them what they
have been told before, to show them what they ought to be tired of
seeing, to amuse them when they feel heavy after eating too much,
and to distract their thoughts when they are wearied of their own
stupidity. Now Art should never try to be popular. The public
should try to make itself artistic. There is a very wide
difference. Of
course, we have to a very great extent got rid of any attempt on
the part of the community, or the Church, or the Government, to
interfere with the individualism of speculative thought, but the
attempt to interfere with the individualism of imaginative art
still lingers. In fact, it does more than linger; it is
aggressive, offensive, and brutalising.

[Rosa]

Rediska: I agree with your Ortega y Gasset's quote about separating art from the masses, and becoming understandable only by few. (El Che, perhaps you can read it in original? it's in spanish), and that public should make itself more artistic.
But you're forgetting 1 thing: that today's artists are not the masters of technique like artists in history used to be. I mean, today's artist can't even draw coherent sketch...can they say that they express themselves when they can't draw what they have in their heads?
Art is placing the truth of Being into the world. How can someone involve others in his world, or make his world a part of common world, when he can't express himself? Michelangelo, or Picasso didn't needed written texts (like today's work has to) above their works so people can figure out that it kicks in the eye. I mean cow's scum over madonna doesn't stone me, just gives me information about author's social activism. But where the hell is his rythm, his passion, his intelect, his vibration? Where is he? Still inside himself. But than he's not an artist. For it's not an art. It's a joke, witty remark.
El Che is right, they should work for the society, for otherwise, art would be a good excuse for doing nothing. As it is now (when it's about painting).
Oscar Wilde is no expert in art, for he can be beated by simple examples, like Michelangelo's Sixtina, like Partenon etc.

[I Will Deny You]

Quote: from El Che on 5:57 am on April 2, 2002
You can not say "we need art so start painting", "you will paint this and you will paint that" can you? It must come from the artist him self because he wants to express him self or for whatever reason. So therefore while it is necessary to some extent, it is also something with which the organised (planned) socialist mod of production should have nothing to do with. Because if we were to do what some of you are sugesting we should end up with the sort of state mandanted art of the old soviet union. And I maintain that an artist, like a doctor or a rocket scientist will have to do his share of other types of work in a communal society.
Artists plan their work in advance. My boyfriend is the painter who I'm closest with, and he never just gets a canvas in his free time and spontaneously paints. He figures out what he'll do in advance. And when it comes to very large art projects (like sculptures or fountains) the artists always plan things out in advance. If someone plans a sculpture, they should give the plans to a government official and if it's approved they should work on it full-time until they're finished. An official shouldn't just be able to say, "I want a picture of a waterfall. Go have someone draw one." But if they can find a good photographer whose work in nature interests the public, then they should be financed FDR-style.

So you're saying that a rocket scientist or doctor would spend three hours a day in his office and five in a factory? I think that it would be smartest to have the doctors stay in doctors offices all day and have the rocket scientists stay at space centers all day. That would be terribly inefficient, to ship doctors between hospitals and farms or factories. The people who are best at being doctors who want to have careers in medicine should be able to have medical practices full-time. Likewise, artists should be artists full-time.

[El Che]

IWDY especialisation is a capitalist trade. Work should be shared and programed acording to the needs of the community or society in question. People with great skills have non the less more ordinary skills that they can and should use for the good of others, dispite the fact that they have the skills to perform more difficult tasks. The key factor here is need. If the need for doctor work is inferior to the number of doctors then they should share that work among them selves and when it is dont they should help others do their work. It sounds to me IWDY, like you would create priviledge based on skill. In that if I have the inate skill of art or the learned skill of a doctor I need not concern my self with more difficult toils in the certainty that they will be done for me by inferior workers of inferior skills. The capacity to perform complicated tasks does not grant anything but the responsibility to perfrom those tasks for the good of the community, and if that task is not necessary then there are others that need atention.

(Edited by El Che at 9:00 pm on April 3, 2002)

[El Che]

"el che:i don't understand how can you say that art is necessary in a socialist society and at the same time say that "an artist, like a doctor or a rocket scientist will have to do his share of other types of work in a communal society". NO. Then our society will not move forward if all the philosophers, scientists and artists be forced to do their "communal share of work"(whatever that means). Being an artist - or a scientist - is as much of a socially needed profession as anything else. and it involves as much dedication, time etc"


I believe rediska, that response to IWDY should answer your doubts. A philosopher should not sit confortably at home thinking while others toil for him, surely such even the most prodigious of minds does not need a life time of thought to say all it has to say. Surely it can spare some time to help its comrades that have to produce the things his mind and body needs to survive.

[I Will Deny You]

Quote: from El Che on 3:57 pm on April 3, 2002
IWDY especialisation is a capitalist trade.Che should not have been a musician. Paul McCartney should not have been a soldier. Let's face it--everyone is different and has different skills. I don't want to create special privilage beacuse I think that everyone should be paid the same amount of money, but I don't want Cheech and Chong for gynocologists and I don't want my grandmother's gastroenterologist to perfom at the Improv.

[Michael De Panama]

Quote: from El Che on 10:57 am on April 2, 2002
Where did I say art is not importante? I did not say this. Nither did I say it is not necessary to society. It is. But art is a creative process and as such it is espontaneous, it comes from the artist not from society`s necessity. You can not say "we need art so start painting", "you will paint this and you will paint that" can you? It must come from the artist him self because he wants to express him self or for whatever reason. So therefore while it is necessary to some extent, it is also something with which the organised (planned) socialist mod of production should have nothing to do with. Because if we were to do what some of you are sugesting we should end up with the sort of state mandanted art of the old soviet union. And I maintain that an artist, like a doctor or a rocket scientist will have to do his share of other types of work in a communal society. This is common knowledge really.


Hey now, look at Painter Smurf! He works just as hard as Farmer Smurf! (You do know that the Smurfs represent the most ideal communist system, don't you?)

Capitalism runs like a machine. Communism runs like an organ. Let's keep some life into our culture.
I should elaborate on this, but right now I'm feeling a bit tired of typing.

[honest intellectual]

Check out the avatar, Papa Smurf.
OoOoOoOoOoOohhh yeah

Antwa, specialisation increases efficiency. Alexei Stakhanov (a Five year plan-era Russian coal miner) is often called the ideal communist. What he did was to organisise his group of coal miners so that one only, dug coal, one only carted the coal away etc.
It's easier to do only one thing. and you get really good at it. Like IWDY was saying, people have different talents and different traingin. No one person can do everything