Should art be as important as industry In a left society?

[victim77]

This is where my beliefs clash. I am a strong believer in sydicalism but at the same time I'm an artist myself. In my opinion Art may not be as important as industry but it is still a very important aspect of life. Some may say art has no job other than a simple entertainment but art serves much more of a purpose then that. Art is a way of documenting ones view of society at that time and is a tool commonly used to interpret the past. Take for example the Great Depression, If we view the paintings, poetry and other art from that time we can easily see that a large majority of the population were very discontent while a small few continued to me happy and rich. I'd like to hear other peoples opinions on this topic.

[Holden Caulfield]

simply: no, art should have importance but art will not keep people working and will not keep people fed and provided for, and so obviously industry or any kind of work is more important,

art only gains 'importance' after all the needs of the people are met,
'famous' art at the moment however seems to be the pinacle of the capitalist greed, somebody will pay 26 million for a picture (which has no value except in its value) when there are people starving in the world,

[victim77]

I'm not just talking about visual art. I am also talking about writings and performing arts as well.

[jake williams]

Art and related sensory and creative activity are the only real meaningful endeavours. Industry is a means to an end. It doesn't mean these activities can't be interesting and enjoyable, perhaps some more than others, but I think the number of people who could really be fulfilled building cars or even farming, especially solely, is pretty slight, if they exist at all.

I don't have a high tolerance at all for these "left" folk're all "No! Get back in the factory, comrade!". There are things we need to do and produce to live, and things we need to do and produce to pursue our various wants. But they supersede our actual wants only insofar as they are required to achieve them, not because they have a higher "intrinsic value" - in a sense they have a lesser value.

[Awful Reality]

What you need to read is Trotsky on art. He believed that art is an important part of history and society, and that a communist state would actively foster art as the workers become stronger in control. He said that the competitive spirit in a capitalist society leads to people struggling to increase their personal capital, and yet in a Marxist society the competitive spirit in people would make them attempt to propagate their ideas; that art is an important way in which this happens. All in all, he said that art is an important part of class-consciousness and Marxist society.

Edit: He talked about precisely what you talk about when you invoke the Great Depression, about art being the people's view of history.

[chegitz guevara]

What point is life without art?

[IronColumn]

The society of the future won't need art because no one will be sublimating their desires-art will be replaced by a new art of living. The working class only has anti-art, just like it only has an anti-state. But I don't expect people who admire bourgeois revolutionists to understand this fundamental difference between the proletarian and bourgeois revolutions.

[Awful Reality]

The society of the future won't need art because no one will be sublimating their desires-art will be replaced by a new art of living. The working class only has anti-art, just like it only has an anti-state. But I don't expect people who admire bourgeois revolutionists to understand this fundamental difference between the proletarian and bourgeois revolutions.

Not true. Some people just like art. It's one of the eight intelligences. It's a form of intellectual pursuit. Again, Artist Marxists, Trotsky's your man.

[Mujer Libre]

I think it's important to remember that production will be much more efficient in a communist society. Without capitalists extracting wealth, and without a lot of the work that goes into fuelling capitalism, people will have a LOT more free time on their hands to pursue things they're interested in.

People also will not be locked into a job that they are limited to (and, as addressed above, it certainly won't be 9-5 or worse). So, while the artist as "professional" doesn't really work in a communist society, I can see many more people having the opportunity to pursue their artistic interests than currently are able to do so.

And lol at Iron Column. This is the first I've ever heard of the withering away of the art!

[Sankofa]

That seems logical; no professional artists, but not throwing the entire concept out all together.

Anyway, Art would be very important in a communist society, right? For propaganda purposes, I mean.

[Dystisis]

Being an artist (painter, musician, poet, what-ever) is essentially a method of communicating a message. In this sense it is not too different from writing a book or simply speaking out about political beliefs. What I find exciting about the different forms of arts is that they allow for different kind of expressions and different kinds of interpretations.

As has been noted above, artists at the moment are often hindered by the capitalist system. Often it is normal working people that face the consequences. I hate to seem artistically "righteous", but alot of what you see on the telly today - let's face it - is far from the most informative, interesting, provoking or even entertaining things you could spend your time with. Most of all, the commercials are to blame, but also for example the agendas of huge corporations that are behind most television networks. Obviously this is just one example where capitalism distorts or destroys any image of reality and in this case most importantly, art. The TV could be a good thing, it could be filled with interesting and entertaining movies as well as thought provoking documentaries. By now, however, I suspect the TV is in the process of comitting suicide and in turn the populace is turning to the internet.

I believe everyone is an artist, or would, if given the opportunity, use their free time to do something creative. In this day and age, with the technological advancements we have today it is really no telling what people are capable of. The biggest thing standing between people and their creative abilities is the level of wage slavery that is in place today.

[RNK]

Again, Artist Marxists, Trotsky's your man.

You're such a transparent douchebag.


Anyway, Art would be very important in a communist society, right? For propaganda purposes, I mean.

It depends on your definition of propaganda. To me, propaganda embodies the idea of trying to "sell" an idea. Historically, every revolutionary movement has seen a great surge of revolutionary art which embodies the spirit of emancipation and empowerment, as well as reverance and in some cases worship, both from "the vanguard" (ie the state) and spontaneously from the population. In Cuba, for instance, along with the "state-sanctioned" art erected in the towns and cities, there is still much graffiti and "un-sanctioned" revolutionary art being expressed by everyday people. In China, too, artists mobilized in the thousands across the country.

[Mujer Libre]

That seems logical; no professional artists, but not throwing the entire concept out all together.

Anyway, Art would be very important in a communist society, right? For propaganda purposes, I mean.

Well I'm an anarchist, so there won't be a state to churn out propaganda. :)

I mean, I can imagine revolutionary artwork etc, but not the vapid state-sanctioned "art" of the sort produced in the Soviet Union. I'm not sure if that's what you meant, but basically I can't imagine art of that sort having a place in a society where people are supposed to think freely.

[Dros]

I think the question of comparing the importance is some abstract way lacks any kind of real meaning.

Of course both will occur. It's not like we have to choose. Art and industry are clearly integral parts of society.

As for the question of "professional artists", the way I see it, in a Communist society, there will be a real change in the conception of "professional". People won't be just one thing. Due to the material conditions (end of scarcity) people will be able to pursue multiple life projects while simultaneously being productive. There won't be an intelligentsia, a peasentry, and a proletariat. Maybe, you'll get up one morning, go to work in a factory for several hours, go to school and teach a class on astro-physics, then go write a book or take a painting class. These rigid boundaries of "professionality" are dictated by and created out of capitalist production relations.

[Everyday Anarchy]

Art is equally important to any other job in society. People should be allowed to pursuit their talents and interests as much as they can. A society of people doing what they enjoy, is a society of people who are happy with life. If we have people forced into jobs that just isn't their "thing," then we'll have people who won't fight to defend their way of life, people who won't care enough to help each other, and people who will no longer value their life or the lives of others.

A society of people who enjoy life is a fruitful one. A miserable society is a failure.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

Maybe, you'll get up one morning, go to work in a factory for several hours, go to school and teach a class on astro-physics, then go write a book or take a painting class. These rigid boundaries of "professionality" are dictated by and created out of capitalist production relations.I'm hesitant to accept that scenario as being efficient. Certain fields will certainly require professionalism for quite awhile: medicine, for example. Factory production can be made more enjoyable with the construction of comfortable, health-conscious facilities, a drastic reduction in working hours (less so than careers viewed as enjoyable), and the workers' ability to have first dibs.

The question I come to throw back and forth in my head is whether or not devotion to art alone will be deemed appropriate if the person doesn't seek to be productive in any other way possible. One (admittedly weak) idea I threw around in case pre-attempts at communism in the post-revolution fail to achieve expecations is the idea of registered "trade unions" that allow people to enjoy the benefits of community involvement: registering for delegation positions, transportation, housing, etc. All people join a trade union (or unions) in their local community to prove that they're working in some capacity. There could be unions for "housewives" and "artisans" - the problem I see is a question of objectivity. How does one come up with a conclusion as to how one's contributions would be judged? Art is verily subjective.

The above paragraph is only hypothetical musing, though - it may not even be necessary.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Well I'm an anarchist, so there won't be a state to churn out propaganda. http://www.revleft.com/vb/../revleft/smilies/001_smile.gif

Or one to stop billionaires from mass producing counterrevolutionary trash (and raising well armed counterrevolutionary mercenary bands).

Anyway, looking at history, it would probably best if you ended your sentence with "if an 'anarchist revolution' ever succeeds."

PS. 'Propaganda' simply means 'info which is to be spread'. It's not necessarily misleading. The negative connotation was born out of the Cold War.


I mean, I can imagine revolutionary artwork etc, but not the vapid state-sanctioned "art" of the sort produced in the Soviet Union. I'm not sure if that's what you meant, but basically I can't imagine art of that sort having a place in a society where people are supposed to think freely.

Then you have little understanding of either art or society (and its structures). Art (not only paintings, but movies, music, etc.) is a key force in culture.

It's not a coincidence that upswings of class struggle (e.g. the early 20th century in the U.S.) come along with all sorts of revolutionary themes emerging in literature, films, paintings, etc.

Of course anyone can draw any picture they want (for example) in a revolutionary society, but we can't give much needed resources to someone who wants to make movies about the "superiority of imperialist Britain" or something of the like.

BTW, to imagine that people can somehow "think freely" -- that is that ideas are somehow independent or 'above' society -- is to roll back our understanding and bag materialism entirely.

* * *

To answer the original question: art is not as important as industry, and can't be, because of the different roles the two things play. You can't eat or wear a painting. Still art definitely does play a role, and we should wield it in our interests as much as possible.

For example, after the October Revolution, when many people couldn't read, artwork was used to explain things like new methods of agriculture.

[Mujer Libre]

Way to misinterpret my point Cdl, and be a real patronising jerk. (I also noticed your sectarian points-scoring- charming...)

I was talking about state-sanctioned art, in the sense that the state controls what can and cannot be said, so you essentially reiterated the point I made but acted as though I had said the opposite.

Of course people will create political art! And of course art and society/culture are related. I NEVER said anything to imply that they aren't. And by "think freely" I meant think free of the coercion and discursive power of the state and class structure.

Nice try though. *huge fucking eyeroll*

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Nice try at what? I have no hidden motives, I'm just trying to have a civil discussion. Anyway..


Way to misinterpret my point Cdl, and be a real patronising jerk.I don't think I misinterpreted you at all, as the rest of your post shows (see below). I also don't know how I was patronizing, or a "jerk." I simply posted a critical response to your post (and I certainly didn't resort to grade school name calling).


(I also noticed your sectarian points-scoring- charming...)Sectarianism means putting the program of your sect above the interests of the working class. I haven't done that here. I simply pointed to a reality: there have been no successful "anarchist revolutions," so talk of how to deal with art and the like is a little more hypothetical than talk among communists who have lead revolutions that have resulted in the formation of workers' states that have had to deal with these sort of questions in actual practice. The fact that anarchists have never succeeded ties into the need for a workers' state.


I was talking about state-sanctioned art, in the sense that the state controls what can and cannot be said, so you essentially reiterated the point I made but acted as though I had said the opposite.Well the question was asked of a "left society," which presumably means a socialist (worker run) society. I spoke of workers deciding what resources go where under such a state, and that counterrevolutionary garbage must not be alloted anything (and indeed even repressed).. I'm not sure how that was in tune with your liberal bemoaning of "state-sanctioned art" (which commits the anarchist folly of viewing the state as an independent body free from class relations.. under a workers' state, state-sanctioned would mean worker sanctioned, just as state-sanctioned art under the capitalist states is capitalist sanctioned).


And by "think freely" I meant think free of the coercion and discursive power of the state and class structure.So, immediately following a revolution, the recently overthrown capitalists and their minions should be able to produce counterrevolutionary garbage "free of coercion"? No, what's needed is the repression of those folks (by workers!) so that we can reshape society and move forward, towards a classless world.

And again, imagining that thought can be "free .. of class structure" is exactly as I originally described it: unmaterialist make believe.

[Forte]

Art is the vehicle the people use to share ideas, dreams, thoughts and theory. In any society with the wellfare of the people in mind, art will be an important aspect.

[Led Zeppelin]

This should be in Learning.

Moved.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

No it shouldn't. It is a theoretical question, not a beginner's question. Moved back.

[victim77]

Well I'm an anarchist, so there won't be a state to churn out propaganda.
And thats why in a anarchist society it is the job of every artist to create his own propaganda expressing his views.

[Awful Reality]

And thats why in a anarchist society it is the job of every artist to create his own propaganda expressing his views.

Trotsky. :trotski: :star:

[Led Zeppelin]

No it shouldn't. It is a theoretical question, not a beginner's question. Moved back.

Beginner's questions include theoretical questions...

But fine, it was requested of me to move it by another member, so I acted on that.

[F9]

i think that it shouldnt have so much role in a left society but it should be consider as a hobby!

Fuserg9:star:

[careyprice31]

I study art. Im doing the BA (bachelor of arts)

It teaches u about people

as opposed to the science faculty which teaches you for example about the life cycle of a butterfly or the structure of a killer T - cell.

but it will not teach you about people.

So Yes, what is any society without art?

All my family are artistic. my brother is a musician, my uncles have been drummers, my aunt sings at karaokes, and so on. I study history and Russianlanguage.

[phil22091991]

hell yeah, but only if oned by the people themselves and not collectors, it represents a combined view of sociaty, industry is importand in a different way so you can't really compare them as they no one is running out of either, but art is important to stop your contry filling with dull comformed boring people, also socialist art is one of the most stylistic around especially in the USSR, but like i said you can't really compare

[Bucketmaster101]

I seem to find myself constantly agreeing with the view that art is important in a communist society. It is the most obvious reflection of human nature at the time, and seeing as capitalism, being removed, would have saved a lot of time, we would see a lot more of the arts being practiced.

- W.

[bcbm]

And again, imagining that thought can be "free .. of class structure" is exactly as I originally described it: unmaterialist make believe.

In a classless society, people's thought will continue to be constrained by class structure?

----

As for art as propaganda, while there will undoubtedly be political art, I should hope the "political" won't come before the "art," that is, the aesthetics should be the primary focus and point of the work.

[Invader Zim]

The question of art here can actually be extended to other non-essencials; what of history, archeology, classics, and the various non-essencial sciences? What of them? I think it is clear that such study and activies have a place in a post-revolutionary society.

[Hit The North]

By 'art' we're really talking about human creative self-expression. In that sense, in a communist society there will be a convergence between art and production.

Art will become more central to our lives and, in the sense that it will no longer be up on a pedestal, exhibited as the product of great individuals, it will become less important - or, rather, less reified.

[Don't Change Your Name]

As for art as propaganda, while there will undoubtedly be political art, I should hope the "political" won't come before the "art," that is, the aesthetics should be the primary focus and point of the work.

I've been wondering this for a long time...in what could be called "communism", art which attempts to be critical nowadays would ideally cease to exist because in a society where such things that can be criticized don't exist, then what would be the point? Would artists who are now "critical" turn to "propaganda" for the new system?

In other words, what would someone who sings "protest songs" now sing about then?

I guess that of course disagreements would still exist, but they might be minimal so they won't be relevant enough in art.

"Art" is an industry nowadays in a way (and a big one), but in spite of such attempts to use it to "change the world" it hasn't really achieved that much in the "real life". Art, in such a future, would become a more relevant part of people's lives. And if those problems we face now dissapear, then art will be more about "beauty" or pleasure than now.

[LavenderMenace]

How can production/industry ever be more valuable than doing what makes you happy?

Life should be art...fuck industry.


As for art as propaganda, while there will undoubtedly be political art, I should hope the "political" won't come before the "art," that is, the aesthetics should be the primary focus and point of the work.
What about in the absence of politics?


I've been wondering this for a long time...in what could be called "communism", art which attempts to be critical nowadays would ideally cease to exist because in a society where such things that can be criticized don't exist, then what would be the point? Would artists who are now "critical" turn to "propaganda" for the new system?
I'm sure there will things to be critical about, though I'm not talking through communism but let's say, 'utopia;' I don't think there will be a time when people stop learning or thinking critically, even in the presence of a utopia. -
It [art] teaches u about people


i think that it shouldnt have so much role in a left society but it should be consider as a hobby!
Having a 'hobby' is both a capitalist and an authoritarian idea. The idea that there is something that takes up most of your time and then there are the things/skills you actually like to cultivate which you do in the small amount of 'spare' time alloted to you seems absurd to me.

[Red_or_Dead]

I havent seen any threads devoted to this particular subject, so here it is: what would be the role of art(ists) in a potential future communist society? Im guessing that art like music, book illustrations, covers, graphic design and stuff like that will remain, but what exactly will be the role of art in general?

[Angry Young Man]

The purpose of art in a communist society should be to liberate those with talents but no means to use them. That's basically what I base my political beliefs on: people in a capitalist system cannot exercise the talents that they have, and instead you have some art school prick painting three colours and selling it for £3m to the Saatchi gallery.
Primarily, though, the arts are important (crucial, I'd dare say) for propaganda, for example, verse 91 of Shelley's Masque of Anarchy:
Rise like lions after slumber
In unvanquishable number
Throw your chains to earth like dew,
Which in sleep had fallen on you.
Ye are many, they are few.

I'd advise against Socialist realism though.

[professorchaos]

What the role of art has always been; to boost morale, affect the psyche, foster cultural and personal unity, examine society, inspire thought, and advance the human condition in general.

[bcbm]

I've been wondering this for a long time...in what could be called "communism", art which attempts to be critical nowadays would ideally cease to exist because in a society where such things that can be criticized don't exist, then what would be the point? Would artists who are now "critical" turn to "propaganda" for the new system?

I really doubt there would be nothing to be critical of in a communist society. As I see it, such a society isn't really an end point, but merely a step on the road. Striving for equality and freedom are continual processes.


"Art" is an industry nowadays in a way (and a big one), but in spite of such attempts to use it to "change the world" it hasn't really achieved that much in the "real life". Art, in such a future, would become a more relevant part of people's lives. And if those problems we face now dissapear, then art will be more about "beauty" or pleasure than now.

I don't think art is really meant to accomplish much in real life. Its primary purpose is (should be...) beauty and pleasure, or some form of self-expression at the least.

---


What about in the absence of politics?

Politics in the vague sense, not referring specifically to a political machine. Art that has a larger purpose relating to societal issues.

[Dr Mindbender]

I havent seen any threads devoted to this particular subject, so here it is: what would be the role of art(ists) in a potential future communist society? Im guessing that art like music, book illustrations, covers, graphic design and stuff like that will remain, but what exactly will be the role of art in general?
I'm guessing that not only will they play a role in entertaining, and inspiring us culturally they will play an important part in producing propaganda for the worker's state.

[BIG BROTHER]

I think art would play the same role it plays today, which is expresion, development of the mind(and soul if you believe in it) and also information.

[LavenderMenace]

That clears things up, thanks.

[victim77]

I havent seen any threads devoted to this particular subject, so here it is: what would be the role of art(ists) in a potential future communist society? Im guessing that art like music, book illustrations, covers, graphic design and stuff like that will remain, but what exactly will be the role of art in general?

heres a rather in depth topic:
http://www.revleft.com/vb/should-art-important-p1085368/index.html#post1085368

[YSR]

Life should be art...fuck industry.

Life, referring to the interpretation of reality, is probably already art. If all signs can be read as texts, and all texts can be interpreted as having an aesthetic quality, I think it's probably safe to call all signs art. The challenge, then, becomes transferring the art we perceive under capitalist society to aesthetically pleasing art, ie communism.

The goal of communism is to create a classless society. In doing so, art is freed from the bourgeois division of art from everyday life. So art shouldn't be an important "industry," but rather art should be an important part of life, and recognized as such.

[Hiero]

Here is a Maoist aritcle on the role of art in the socialist state, and the struggle against bourgeois ideas.

http://www.etext.org/Politics/MIM/classics/br/br073071upholdmarxist.html

[Niccolò Rossi]

In a future communist society Marx and Engels predicted that the division of labour in society will be eliminated.

I quote Marx and Engels from Section I of the German Ideology (emphasis added):
"Further, the division of labour implies the contradiction between the interest of the separate individual or the individual family and the communal interest of all individuals who have intercourse with one another. And indeed, this communal interest does not exist merely in the imagination, as the "general interest", but first of all in reality, as the mutual interdependence of the individuals among whom the labour is divided. And finally, the division of labour offers us the first example of how, as long as man remains in natural society, that is, as long as a cleavage exists between the particular and the common interest, as long, therefore, as activity is not voluntarily, but naturally, divided, man's own deed becomes an alien power opposed to him, which enslaves him instead of being controlled by him. For as soon as the distribution of labour comes into being, each man has a particular, exclusive sphere of activity, which is forced upon him and from which he cannot escape. He is a hunter, a fisherman, a herdsman, or a critical critic, and must remain so if he does not want to lose his means of livelihood; while in communist society, where nobody has one exclusive sphere of activity but each can become accomplished in any branch he wishes, society regulates the general production and thus makes it possible for me to do one thing today and another tomorrow, to hunt in the morning, fish in the afternoon, rear cattle in the evening, criticise after dinner, just as I have a mind, without ever becoming hunter, fisherman, herdsman or critic. This fixation of social activity, this consolidation of what we ourselves produce into an objective power above us, growing out of our control, thwarting our expectations, bringing to naught our calculations, is one of the chief factors in historical development up till now."

From this one can understand that art will play a much more central and important role in a future communist society than in modern day capitalist society. This is for the reason that every man, not just the trained artist will be able to pursue the arts without having to be locked into it as a profession. Not only that but in a future communist society of super abundance, man will not have to labour as he currently does for 8, 10, 12 hours a day, he will be more free in engage in education, the arts and all forms of physical labour and academic endeavor.

[Red_or_Dead]

What the role of art has always been; to boost morale, affect the psyche, foster cultural and personal unity, examine society, inspire thought, and advance the human condition in general.

I agree. Even in a future communist society, there has to be a mean of critical expresion against things that are wrong, if there are any, of course.


From this one can understand that art will play a much more central and important role in a future communist society than in modern day capitalist society. This is for the reason that every man, not just the trained artist will be able to pursue the arts without having to be locked into it as a profession. Not only that but in a future communist society of super abundance, man will not have to labour as he currently does for 8, 10, 12 hours a day, he will be more free in engage in education, the arts and all forms of physical labour and academic endeavor.

I agree in general, but one has to keep in mind that some art forms (in particular stuff like realistic painting, or playing some musical instruments really well) require a lot of training, practice and experience, and are very near impossible to master without profesionalising, at least to a certain extent. Of course, there are people today that do it as a hobby, and are really good at it, but thats pretty much just a handfull of people. We can hope that the fact that people wont have to work for the most of their waking day will solve that.


I think art would play the same role it plays today, which is expresion, development of the mind(and soul if you believe in it) and also information.

I dont believe in a soul, but still, development of the mind, expresion and information are good enough for me.

[Mujer Libre]

Merged the two threads on the topic.

[FireFry]

Art isn't always happy. Sometimes art is labor. Art is misery or art is anything. That's what art is. It's communication, it's one of our other tools that we use to tell eachother what we really want to say.

What I really want to focus on is the dissolution of leftist symbols, flags, circle-A's, Hammers and Sickles. It's worse than repeating the word "communism" over and over ten times in a paragraph. In fact, I want to defeat minimalism altogether. So =years of philosophical anguish and focus aren't erased in a single word like, "communism".

[bcbm]

Even in a future communist society, there has to be a mean of critical expresion against things that are wrong, if there are any, of course.


If? :rolleyes:

[RedAnarchist]

Art makes people happy and being creative is someone many peiople enjoy, so it should be considered jsut as important, IMO.

[LavenderMenace]

Life, referring to the interpretation of reality, is probably already art. If all signs can be read as texts, and all texts can be interpreted as having an aesthetic quality, I think it's probably safe to call all signs art. The challenge, then, becomes transferring the art we perceive under capitalist society to aesthetically pleasing art, ie communism.


I don't really consider mass produced signs (stop signs, etc.) art, nor do I consider billboards and other advertising 'art.' Art shouldn't have anything to do with profit.

If industry is more important than art, there is no space for life to be art - life as art (to me) is the ability to live your life as the way you feel is best.


In doing so, art is freed from the bourgeois division of art from everyday life. So art shouldn't be an important "industry," but rather art should be an important part of life, and recognized as such.
So then, divide art from everyday life but still have art be an important part of life? How can life be art unless it is part of 'everyday life?'

[Random Precision]

Since we're talking about art, I figure some comrades might be interested in this manifesto on the subject written by Leon Trotsky with the French Surrealist poet André Breton, and co-signed by the Mexican painter Diego Rivera:


We can say without exaggeration that never has civilization been menaced so seriously as today. The Vandals, with instruments which were barbarous, and so comparatively ineffective, blotted out the culture of antiquity in one corner of Europe. But today we see world civilization, united in its historic destiny, reeling under the blows of reactionary forces armed with the entire arsenal of modern technology. We are by no means thinking only of the world war that draws near. Even in times of "peace" the position of art and science has become absolutely intolerable.

Insofar as it originates with an individual, insofar as it brings into play subjective talents to create something which brings about an objective enriching of culture, any philosophical, sociological, scientific or artistic discovery seems to be the fruit of a precious chance, that is to say, the manifestation, more or less spontaneous, of necessity. Such creations cannot be slighted, whether from the standpoint of general knowledge (which interprets the existing world), or of revolutionary knowledge (which, the better to change the world, requires an exact analysis of the laws which govern its movement). Specifically, we cannot remain indifferent to the intellectual conditions under which creative activity takes place, nor should we fail to pay all respect to those particular laws which govern intellectual creation.

In the contemporary world we must recognize the ever more widespread destruction of those conditions under which intellectual creation is possible. From this follows of necessity an increasingly manifest degradation not only of the work of art but also of the specifically "artistic" personality. The regime of Hitler, now that it has rid Germany of all those artists whose work expressed the slightest sympathy for liberty, however superficial, has reduced those who still consent to take up pen or brush to the status of domestic servants of the regime, whose task it is to glorify it on order, according to the worst possible aesthetic conventions. If reports may be believed, it is the same in the Soviet Union, where Thermidorian reaction is now reaching its climax.

It goes without saying that we do not identify ourselves with the currently fashionable catchword: "Neither fascism nor communism!", a shibboleth which suits the temperament of the philistine, conservative and frightened, clinging to the tattered remnants of the "democratic" past. True art, which is not content to play variations on ready-made models but rather insists on expressing the inner needs of man and of mankind in its time - true art is unable not to be revolutionary, not to aspire to a complete and radical reconstruction of society. This it must do, were it only to deliver intellectual creation from the chains which bind it, and to allow all mankind to raise itself to those heights which only isolated geniuses have achieved in the past. We recognize that only the social revolution can sweep clean the path for a new culture. If, however, we reject all solidarity with the bureaucracy now in control of the Soviet Union, it is precisely because, in our eyes, it represents, not communism, but its most treacherous and dangerous enemy.

The totalitarian regime of the USSR, working through the so-called cultural organizations it controls in other countries, has spread over the entire world a deep twilight hostile to every sort of spiritual value. A twilight of filth and blood in which, disguised as intellectuals and artists, those men steep themselves who have made of servility a career, of lying for pay a custom, and of the palliation of crime a source of pleasure. The official art of Stalinism mirrors with a blatancy unexampled in history their efforts to put a good face on their mercenary profession.

The repugnance which this shameful negation of principles of art inspires in the artistic world - a negation which even slave states have never dared to carry so far - should give rise to an active, uncompromising condemnation. The opposition of writers and artists is one of the forces which can usefully contribute to the discrediting and overthrow of regimes which are destroying, along with the right of the proletarian to aspire to a better world, every sentiment of nobility and even of human dignity.

The communist revolution is not afraid of art. It realizes that the role of the artist in a decadent capitalist society is determined by the conflict between the individual and various social forms which are hostile to him. This fact alone, insofar as he is conscious of it, makes the artist the natural ally of revolution. The process of sublimation, which here comes into play and which psychoanalysis has analyzed, tries to restore the broken equilibrium between the integral "ego" and the outside elements it rejects. This restoration works to the advantage of the "ideal of self", which marshals against the unbearable present reality all those powers of the interior world, of the "self", which are common to all men and which are constantly flowering and developing. The need for emancipation felt by the individual spirit has only to follow its natural course to be led to mingle its stream with this primeval necessity - the need for the emancipation of man.

The conception of the writer's function which the young Marx worked out is worth recalling. "The writer", he declared, "naturally must make money in order to live and write, but he should not under any circumstances live and write in order to make money... The writer by no means looks on his work as a means. It is an end in itself and so little a means in the eyes of himself and of others that if necessary he sacrifices his existence to the existence of his work... The first condition of the freedom of the press is that it is not a business activity." It is more than ever fitting to use this statement against those who would regiment intellectual activity in the direction of ends foreign to itself, and prescribe, in the guise of so-called reasons of state, the themes of art. The free choice of these themes and the absence of all restrictions on the range of his exploitations - these are possessions which the artist has a right to claim as inalienable. In the realm of artistic creation, the imagination must escape from all constraint and must under no pretext allow itself to be placed under bonds. To those who urge us, whether for today or for tomorrow, to consent that art should submit to a discipline which we hold to be radically incompatible with its nature, we give a flat refusal and we repeat our deliberate intention of standing by the formula complete freedom for art.

We recognize, of course, that the revolutionary state has the right to defend itself against the counterattack of the bourgeoisie, even when this drapes itself in the flag of science or art. But there is an abyss between these enforced and temporary measures of revolutionary self-defense and the pretension to lay commands on intellectual creation. If, for the better development of the forces of material production, the revolution must build a socialist regime with centralized control, to develop intellectual creation an anarchist regime of individual liberty should from the first be established. No authority, no dictation, not the least trace of orders from above! Only on a base of friendly cooperation, without constraint from outside, will it be possible for scholars and artists to carry out their tasks, which will be more far-reaching than ever before in history.

It should be clear by now that in defending freedom of thought we have no intention of justifying political indifference, and that it is far from our wish to revive a so-called pure art which generally serves the extremely impure ends of reaction. No, our conception of the role of art is too high to refuse it an influence on the fate of society. We believe that the supreme task of art in our epoch is to take part actively and consciously in the preparation of the revolution. But the artist cannot serve the struggle for freedom unless he subjectively assimilates its social content, unless he feels in his very nerves its meaning and drama and freely seeks to give his own inner world incarnation in his art.

In the present period of the death agony of capitalism, democratic as well as fascist, the artist sees himself threatened with the loss of his right to live and continue working. He sees all avenues of communication choked with the debris of capitalist collapse. Only naturally, he turns to the Stalinist organizations which hold out the possibility of escaping from his isolation. But if he is to avoid complete demoralization, he cannot remain there, because of the impossibility of delivering his own message and the degrading servility which these organizations exact from him in exchange for certain material advantages. He must understand that his place is elsewhere, not among those who betray the cause of the revolution and mankind, but among those who with unshaken fidelity bear witness to the revolution, among those who, for this reason, are alone able to bring it to fruition, and along with it the ultimate free expression of all forms of human genius.

The aim of this appeal is to find a common ground on which may be reunited all revolutionary writers and artists, the better to serve the revolution by their art and to defend the liberty of that art itself against the usurpers of the revolution. We believe that aesthetic, philosophical and political tendencies of the most varied sort can find here a common ground. Marxists can march here hand in hand with anarchists, provided both parties uncompromisingly reject the reactionary police patrol spirit represented by Joseph Stalin and by his henchman Garcia Oliver.

We know very well that thousands on thousands of isolated thinkers and artists are today scattered throughout the world, their voices drowned out by the loud choruses of well-disciplined liars. Hundreds of small local magazines are trying to gather youthful forces about them, seeking new paths and not subsidies. Every progressive tendency in art is destroyed by fascism as "degenerate". Every free creation is called "fascist" by the Stalinists. Independent revolutionary art must now gather its forces for the struggle against reactionary persecution. It must proclaim aloud the right to exist. Such a union of forces is the aim of the International Federation of Independent Revolutionary Art which we believe it is now necessary to form.

We by no means insist on every idea put forth in this manifesto, which we ourselves consider only a first step in the new direction. We urge every friend and defender of art, who cannot but realize the necessity for this appeal, to make himself heard at once. We address the same appeal to all those publications of the left wing which are ready to participate in the creation of the International Federation and to consider its task and its methods of action.

When a preliminary international contact has been established through the press and by correspondence, we will proceed to the organization of local and national congresses on a modest scale. The final step will be the assembly of a world congress which will officially mark the foundation of the International Federation.

Our aims:

The independence of art - for the revolution.

The revolution - for the complete liberation of art!

Trotsky wrote a great deal about art's revolutionary nature:

http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/works/art/index.htm

In particular, his collection Literature and Revolution has profoundly influenced my own writing. I would recommend it to any comrades who seek to develop their own writing along revolutionary lines.

[YSR]

I don't really consider mass produced signs (stop signs, etc.) art, nor do I consider billboards and other advertising 'art.' Art shouldn't have anything to do with profit.

I meant signs in the semiotic sense. (Definition (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sign_%28semiotics%29))


So then, divide art from everyday life but still have art be an important part of life? How can life be art unless it is part of 'everyday life?'


That's not what I said. Bourgeois society divides art from life. Communism must combine art and life. Which, as I argued above, may already have happened. While for you, as an artist, art may be life, I think a closer theoretical understanding is that life is art.

While this may sound like high-falootin' philosophizing, I think it's important as a way to understand exactly what kind of society we are building. One which recognizes life and art as indistinguishable, where "artists" as a category no longer exist. The idea that some people "do" art and some do not has always troubled me. A truly liberated society is one which does not commodify labor OR art.

[bcbm]

The idea that some people "do" art and some do not has always troubled me.

Does the idea that some people pick vegetables while some do not trouble you? Or that some build computers while some do not? I don't think recognizing that some people make art (ie, are artists) while some do not necessarily commodify art. You're not one of those who would suggest that "everything is art," or some-such, I would hope.

[Ferryman 5]

What we now call ‘art’ as a distinct separate activity from other activities was not always so in our history. Class society created the separation (alienation) of form and content, subjective and objective etc. Paintings, drumming, singing, dressing-up and dancing can be as much a part of our “scientific socialist” future as it was our “primitive communist” (cave painting) past perhaps. Lets make really beautiful industrial production.

[YSR]

You're not one of those who would suggest that "everything is art," or some-such, I would hope.

Indeed, I made that claim above. I think surrealism makes a convincing case for revolution.

[bcbm]

Was that a yes I believe that or no I don't... you lost me.

[to the bearricades]

Lets make really beautiful industrial production.

Industrial production and beauty are mutually exclusive.

[Ferryman 5]

Industrial production and beauty are mutually exclusive. Ok I'll buy it. How or why are industrial production and beauty mutually exclusive?