Art in socialism

[yns_mr]

Where does the art stand in a socialist society? Does an artist have to work at a factory to be able to obtain the facilities or his performing art is just enough?

[Tower of Bebel]

It is hard to predict what socialist society will look like. Most even think it is impossible or not necessary at all. Yet, I think it's a good question to answer.

For artists, it is hard to predict how they will live under socialisme. I guess there will be more freedom of thought and 'freedom of art. But I'm inable to think of how an artist could live through socialism.

[BobKKKindle$]

Well given that all forms of art will no longer exist to be bought and sold (i.e. they will not be commodities) art will be based entirely on the creative expression and exploration of the individual. It is possible that the change in the character and psychology of every being that results from changes in the dynamic of work and consumption will be such that it will no longer be sensible to speak of 'artists' as a small and seperate social group - every individual may feel the desire and need to express themselves artistically - I would really like that to happen.

[Janus]

Does an artist have to work at a factory to be able to obtain the facilities or his performing art is just enough?
I don't see why an artist would have to work in a factory when s/he is probably more suited to other types of jobs such as design, etc.

As far as how art, music, film, and other creative enterprises would work and be created in a socialism, here are some past threads that go into more detail:
Entertainment (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?act=ST&f=36&t=48415)
entertainment (http://www.revleft.com/lofiversion/index.php/t55381.html)
entertainment (http://www.revleft.com/lofiversion/index.php/t36382.html)
entertainment (http://www.revleft.com/lofiversion/index.php/t32895.html)

[redflag32]

Art has been robbed by a certain section of society, during socialism i would like to see it move towards an expression that is for all.

[Goatse]

Under communism, at least, wouldn't people just make art and films etc as a hobby?

[yns_mr]

one needs money if s/he wants to perform art. So will a socialist government provide citizens with the tools needed to be able to perform the arts which are expensive to perform such as movie making?

[BobKKKindle$]

I don't see why it would be necessary or beneficial to have a system of private ownership of creative equipment - in fact, it may be necessary to have a system of community/collective use and management, because such equipment requires large quantities of resources to produce, and there may exist other goods and services that are considered higher priorities, and so it may not be possible for everyone to have their own personal equipment, at least in the short term. Community art centres may be an important characteristic of Socialist society.

[Janus]

So will a socialist government provide citizens with the tools needed to be able to perform the arts which are expensive to perform such as movie making?
It depends on what type of government system you're envisioning. If the means of production are socialized, then artists, musicians,etc. should just be able to extract what they need. But within a transitional state/system, it may be necessary to place certain controls on various sectors.

[Anarchovampire]

I don't see why they wouldn't be considered working or providing a service/product to the community. Art, films, shows, books all bring a very necessary service to the people... that is entertainment. The gift that the arts bestow upon the society is a very important one, for a people who are not entertained and unproductive and gloomy.

The art work is created for the greater good of society, for their enjoyment and as a way to express the people's opinion and beliefs... so the artist is very important.

[Chicano Shamrock]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29, 2007 02:15 am
one needs money if s/he wants to perform art. So will a socialist government provide citizens with the tools needed to be able to perform the arts which are expensive to perform such as movie making?
If we are talking about a communist society there will be no money. One does not need money to create art. You can find empty buckets and sticks and play drums on them. You can take clay from the earth and make sculptures. You can take the fur of a rabbit and make a hat or something. Art is not confined to money. Especially in a communist society.

In a communist society we would live something along the lines of "from each according to their ability, to each according to their needs". Now if an artist needs something like a paint brush there might be someone in the commune that knows how to make them. You could contact them. If you need a drumset talk to someone who is handy with wood. I have known people who like to make furniture as a hobby. They made it chairs, desks, tables and a bunch of other good stuff. Now if this person was living in a communist society they would likely make comrades stuff out of wood and both people would be happy because the person making the thing enjoys doing that type of stuff and the person receiving it wants that certain thing.

Art would not be a hobby in my vision of a communist society. It would be free play. Right now, for most of us, it is confined as a hobby because we should not dare to have a career doing what we like unless it makes tons of money. But in a better society it would stop being confined to the downtime that you have and would instead be available for your full attention and expression.

[yns_mr]

Originally posted by Chicano Shamrock+May 30, 2007 05:19 am--> (Chicano Shamrock @ May 30, 2007 05:19 am)
[email protected] 29, 2007 02:15 am
one needs money if s/he wants to perform art. So will a socialist government provide citizens with the tools needed to be able to perform the arts which are expensive to perform such as movie making?
If we are talking about a communist society there will be no money. One does not need money to create art. You can find empty buckets and sticks and play drums on them. You can take clay from the earth and make sculptures. You can take the fur of a rabbit and make a hat or something. Art is not confined to money. Especially in a communist society.
[/b]
What would happen if i wanted to make movie for the sake of art? The tools needed for movie making are not something you can obtain naturally...

[drain.you]

What would happen if i wanted to make movie for the sake of art? The tools needed for movie making are not something you can obtain naturally...

I quite liked comrade bobkindles's idea that
Community art centres may be an important characteristic of Socialist society.
I think of it almost as a storage place for all art related resources where you can go and paint a painting, sculpt something, sit and write a poem, rent out a camcorder for making a movie. Ideally there would be a system ensuring that for X amount of people there is Y amount of equipment and stick to that nationwide making sure that everyone has the tools in order to express themselves artistically. I would class music as art, so these centres would have musical instruments to be used aswell. Much like I would approve of community sport centres so that everyone has the chance to play football or basket ball or go rock climbing.

[Sacrificed]

The Soviet Union under Stalin enforced a style called 'Soviet Realism' upon artists, which was little more than propaganda. In fact, it wasn't altogether different from the 'Heroic Realism' of Hitler's regime. I hope that a socialist society today would learn from the past and permit freedom of expression. But I don't see it being a problem. I would imagine that art in a truly socialistic society would involve a lot of found objects and such.

[drain.you]

i can totally understand why soviet realism was enforced but i would much prefer it if the people were happy enough with society to be inspired to make that kind of art without pressure from officials.

on the subject of art : we should make a movement of anti-capitalist paintings and drawings depicting the problems of capitalism and its downfall. lol.

[Sacrificed]

People will always make kitsch like that ('Soviet Realism' and 'Heroic Realism' and Ayn Rand's brand of 'Romanticism' and everything like that bores me to tears), but the primary purpose of art has never been to reflect any sort of social reality. Art is a method of interpreting the world; while I'm very much dedicated to the goals of socialism, I don't think it either necessary or wise to insist that everything (especially so important a cultural activity as art) reflect that. Socialism as a goal is noble, but so is art. Once capitalism has been abolished, so too should any restrictions on the content or style of art.

Socialist artists have a long history of being involved with the Modernist movement, and that's as good a place as any for them. Why socialist-inspired Modernist art movements were banned in the Soviet Union is absolutely beyond me. Dada, for instance.

There's a vast difference between art and propaganda.

[luxemburg89]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26, 2007 05:06 pm

Does an artist have to work at a factory to be able to obtain the facilities or his performing art is just enough?
I don't see why an artist would have to work in a factory when s/he is probably more suited to other types of jobs such as design, etc.

As far as how art, music, film, and other creative enterprises would work and be created in a socialism, here are some past threads that go into more detail:
Entertainment (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?act=ST&f=36&t=48415)
entertainment (http://www.revleft.com/lofiversion/index.php/t55381.html)
entertainment (http://www.revleft.com/lofiversion/index.php/t36382.html)
entertainment (http://www.revleft.com/lofiversion/index.php/t32895.html)
exactly, well said.


'Soviet Realism' and 'Heroic Realism' and Ayn Rand's brand of 'Romanticism' and everything like that bores me to tears),

well that's your own personal opinion isn't it? While i respect that, remember that other people, me included, do like that type of art. Art is an essential part of the revolution - Artists since the early 19th century have provided a necessary part of the spirit of the revolution. Hopefully the revolution itself will be the greatest piece of art yet.

[Sacrificed]

Originally posted by luxemburg89+May 30, 2007 05:06 pm--> (luxemburg89 @ May 30, 2007 05:06 pm)
[email protected] 26, 2007 05:06 pm
well that's your own personal opinion isn't it? While i respect that, remember that other people, me included, do like that type of art. Art is an essential part of the revolution - Artists since the early 19th century have provided a necessary part of the spirit of the revolution. Hopefully the revolution itself will be the greatest piece of art yet. [/b]
But a revolution of today would not - should not - be like a revolution of the past, and neither should the artwork that heralds it. Art is an integral component of any revolutionary movement, you're right, and artwork that exists for utilitarian purposes (such as to advance the cause of the movement) will always reflect that purpose. But that purpose - the revolutionary movement of today - is far removed from the purposes that existed in the past.

I distrust all movements that would ban art of any sort. Art is a canary in the proverbial coal-mine: if they ban it, they'll ban many other things also.