Thread: Is communism better or worse for an artist?

Results 1 to 20 of 39

  1. #1
    Join Date Jan 2010
    Location Chicago, Illinois
    Posts 316
    Rep Power 0

    Default Is communism better or worse for an artist?

    Than capitalism I mean.
  2. #2
    Join Date Nov 2008
    Location Norfolk, England
    Posts 3,128
    Organisation
    Peoples' Front of Judea (Marxist-Leninist)
    Rep Power 73

    Default

    Better, of course.

    Think about it, under capitalism its very difficult and unlikely for an artist to make a living off his art, unless it is profitable. Under a socialist system, artists would have more social security and free time to produce the art that they want to. Furthermore, because we will appreciate things for their true beauty rather than for some financial value, people will produce and appreciate art much more. And without things being determined by capitalist profit, we will not have to suffer the bullshit pseudo-art that infests much of our society today (eg much 'pop music', tv commercials, etc).

    So yeah 2 things that make art (and the life of artists) better under socialism/communism-
    1. More free time to produce and appreciate art
    2. More quality art produced
    Both of these are because the profit motive disappears and society becomes organised based on the interests of the people instead.

    Though if you'll let me get a little utopian, I have to say that under complete stateless communism I don't think 'artist' will exist as a seperate occupation. Because everyone will be an artist of sorts. What I mean is that with advances in technology and resolution of various social contradictions, 'work' will become minimal and people will not have to work very much in order to live and help society prosper. It probably wont even be thought of as work. Everyone will be completely free to appreciate the world and express themselves, and what better way to do that than through art?
    COMMUNISM !

    Formerly zenga zenga !
  3. The Following 12 Users Say Thank You to scarletghoul For This Useful Post:


  4. #3
    Join Date Jul 2008
    Location Lincoln, UK
    Posts 1,243
    Organisation
    Anarchist Federation
    Rep Power 18

    Default

    It depends on the artist.
    The minority of artists who are really successful under capitalism may be worse off, but the majority would probably be better of.
    Anarchist Federation|afed blog
    libcom.org - Libertarian-Communist website with excellent library
    The Anarchist FAQ

  5. #4
    Join Date Mar 2010
    Posts 636
    Rep Power 0

    Default

    It is better for several reasons, some material, and some cultural.

    Art, if it is to have a social use, is a means by which an idealization can be presented that works as a motivational or guiding force for social action.

    I think art can work like a lighthouse in a stormy sea. It can caution us against potential harms, or show us better ways. Utopia and 1984 for example.

    It can show us how we want to be.

    Under capitalism art is dying. It is becoming parasitic. It is stagnating. How many remakes are coming out this year? How many books for young people are based around the same Harry Potter type mythos?

    You rarely get anything like Avatar or V. You usually get the same market determined device over and over. The same Teen Movie, or Horror Movie, or Action Movie, etc. All formulated before hand, pre-packaged, sterilized, and sent out for a target audience.

    That is in part because the bourgeoisie will not allow other kinds of art, and in part because under a bourgeoisie ideology art cannot progress any further. Without a Dialectical Materialist world view, without Marxist or Socialist ideology, all art comes down to something reflective of bourgeoisie culture.

    It expresses absurdities- bourgeoisie neurosis. Or trivialities- a story about the family or a romantic comedy. Or some prior bourgeoisie epic, where the story typically goes: the social order is threatened (by which it is implied the bourgeoisie order), someone saves the day (Batman, Captain Kirk, whoever), everything goes back to normal: normal being the bourgeoisie order, and this of course being good.

    Only by questioning bourgeoisie presumptions will art break these shackles.
  6. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Dermezel For This Useful Post:


  7. #5
    Join Date Dec 2003
    Location Oakland, California
    Posts 8,151
    Rep Power 164

    Default

    You said it!

    Also just to add to the points you made, more people will be able to access art education and training because education would most likely be a higher priority and open to everyone on an ongoing basis if they want to learn more or develop new skills.

    In addition to this, since the means of art production will be shared rather than the property of big Hollywood studios, music companies, private galleries and studio spaces, art production could be open to more people. Art equipment and supplies are very expensive and specialized. Most people only have access to a wide range of production materials if they are in a college art program - I'd imagine that people in general would be able to reserve expensive equipment just as today a grad-student in an art department can reserve time with a film camera or theater or gallery space.
  8. The Following User Says Thank You to Jimmie Higgins For This Useful Post:


  9. #6
    Join Date Mar 2010
    Posts 636
    Rep Power 0

    Default

    A good example of freer art is the internet. Sites like Deviant Art for example.
  10. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Dermezel For This Useful Post:


  11. #7
    Join Date Apr 2009
    Location Altoona, PA
    Posts 507
    Organisation
    American Party of Labor
    Rep Power 0

    Default

    And without things being determined by capitalist profit, we will not have to suffer the bullshit pseudo-art that infests much of our society today (eg much 'pop music', tv commercials, etc).
    Abso-fucking-lutely! I think I lose a couple IQ points every time I see a McDonald's commercial or an advertisement for some Rap CD. And it agrevates the hell out of me, seeing all these teenagers buy into it, as if they don't have the brain power to think of anything better to do than to listen to Lil Wayne or Lady Gaga.
  12. The Following User Says Thank You to Uppercut For This Useful Post:


  13. #8
    Join Date Jul 2009
    Location Detroit, MI
    Posts 413
    Rep Power 0

    Default

    I'll listen to Top 40 stations occasionally and I'm always horrifyed to realize that the majority of pop singers are AutoTuned to fucking oblivion.

    "Fuck talent! You're a pretty face, here is your new attitude and image. You will play the songs we choose for you...now sell, damn you!"
  14. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Axle For This Useful Post:


  15. #9
    Join Date Jan 2010
    Location Chicago, Illinois
    Posts 316
    Rep Power 0

    Default

    Good answers, everyone. I showed a friend of mine this thread.
  16. #10
    Join Date Aug 2007
    Posts 767
    Rep Power 0

    Default

    It would generally benefit artists a great deal. There would be enormous teaching opportunities and a change to increase the liveliness of the ones particular art scene stemming from the fact that many more people are going to have more time on their hands for higher pursuits after the general hours of human labor gets shortened by the increasing use of automation, the elimination of redundant capitalist jobs and elimination of unemployment.
  17. The Following User Says Thank You to al8 For This Useful Post:


  18. #11
    Join Date Aug 2005
    Location Richmond, VA
    Posts 6,143
    Organisation
    I.M.C.C.
    Rep Power 49

    Default

    The only kind of art that would suffer under a communist state-of-things is that art which requires immense resources in the furtherance of the artistic vision and interests of a minority.
  19. #12
    Join Date Oct 2009
    Posts 49
    Rep Power 0

    Default

    probably worse initially. communist states (or stateless societies, if you prefer) come into existence through revolutions, and societies just coming out of civil wars are generally not all that friendly to free expression no matter how tolerant the 'official' line is.

    in the long term though, it would be better for the reasons listed in above posts.
  20. The Following User Says Thank You to mlgb For This Useful Post:


  21. #13
    Join Date Mar 2010
    Posts 301
    Rep Power 10

    Default

    After the seizure of power in the Soviet Union, there was a lot of necessity but there was also a great flourishing of creativity, literally like an uncorking. And a lot of artists were both taking responsibility to be part of meeting that necessity, including bringing the masses into political and cultural life, and there was a great deal of experimentation in that regard. In October 1918, Lunacharsky (who was the commissar for public education) said, "let us make the squares our palettes, the streets our brushes!" This book explains, "The cities were turned into huge open air exhibitions with hundreds of large decorative panels and monuments. Street shows and plays—some with thousands of performers, and tens of thousands of spectators—light effects, music and songs, created an entirely new synthesis of art forms." The pictures in this book show great festivities, huge red banners hanging all over the streets, big murals, sculptures and tens of thousands of people filling the streets. It's breathtaking. They also wanted to unleash the artists to put themselves to architecture, and every other part of life, Lenin had a vision of the walls being covered in frescoes.

    [I found a really interesting and significant quote from Lenin in this book that I hadn't heard before: "In relation to all forms of popular education, Lenin emphasized that 'it would be the greatest and most terrible mistake which a Marxist could make to think that the millions of craftsmen and peasants could emerge from the darkness along the straight line of pure Marxist education.' These simple people, he said, 'must be approached in such a way that their interest is awakened—they must be roused from all directions and by all manner of means.'" (the book says "simple people," and the citation for this was in Russian so I don't know where it's from). I thought this was very interesting in terms of the dynamism and vibrancy Lenin was fighting for, and learning from that, you can see the role for the enrichment in terms of taking up all spheres.]
    There was a lot of discussion about this art serving the people, and from what I can tell this was a lot of the impetus of different artists themselves and there was a great deal of experimentation with abstract art. A lot of it was geared to the building of the new society (and Rodchenko talks about art of construction). But there was also a great deal of experimentation here and a lot of use and playing with abstraction. Rodchenko, for example, wanted to make a new kind of painting that reflected the new world and new people. He wrote in one place, "Down with ART, the means to ESCAPE FROM LIFE which is not worth living. Conscious and organized LIFE, the ability to SEE and CONSTRUCT, that is the modern art." (This is most definitely not the only kind of art that is required, and I think even this doesn't have quite enough space, but there is a lot to learn here including again, in the experimentation and how different artists saw filling the needs of this new society broadly understood.)

    Toward the late '20s the festivals became very geared towards celebrations of industry (this was in there before, but it became really constricted around that) and there was in the arts the single focused emphasis on socialist realism. The book I have on Rodchenko describes it this way, "The climate had changed, and at a time when the Soviet Union was struggling with a series of Five Year Plans to modernize industry and agriculture to establish economic viability it was felt that the simple rhetoric of Socialist Realism provided a more easily intelligible framework for communicating the changes that were taking place. Like many of his colleagues Rodchenko was not able to comply with this prevailing aesthetic and as a result he was thrown more and more in upon himself with few outlets for his work."

    The lights more or less went out. And yes, there was a profound amount of necessity they were facing—the numbers lost in the war, and what it took to fight that war are staggering. The newness of all this was a big deal. And you do need economic plans, but not everything that goes on in your society has to immediately serve that or it's no good. This was an unprecedented flourishing, and it's not like everything should continue at the same height or intensity (or that it was all fantastic), but the constriction around all this, along with many other contradictions, did lead to "turn out the lights, the party's over."
    Taken from one of the responses to Bob Avakian's "An Historic Contradiction: Fundamentally Changing the World Without 'Turning Out the Lights.'"
  22. #14
    Join Date Jun 2008
    Location paradise
    Posts 841
    Rep Power 0

    Default

    Gallery art; modern art in general has historically suffered under socialist regimes and it is not difficult to see why: the exponents of these genres have generally been of a petit-bourgeois class character and mentality. The subject matter of much of the art has reflected this, as you can see in the preoccupation with individual expression free from any accountability to society (i.e. the common sentiment that the artist owes nothing to his audience and his expression is beyond reproach or subjection to socially defined meaning "I don't have to explain anything; Art doesn't need to have a point").

    On the other hand, classical and folk forms of art have often thrived, and popular art needn't be backwards looking and non-innovative as classical and folk forms (arguably) tend to be. Popular art forms, such as the constantly developing genre of street art and the now highly advanced fields of what is called "art and design" (generally harnessed for the interests of corporate marketing often in effect making the producers of this art wage-laborers) are currently the natural modes of artistic expression of the proletariat, modes of expression that were not very highly developed in the eras of past socialist revolutions. A future revolution would likely see a flowering of such modes of expression, to the expense of "serious art" which is by its very nature a bourgeois and individual endeavor.

    The question of will artists be better of worse off is impossible to answer objectively because the way in which art is practiced is socially determined and is likely to change dramatically under a new type of society. Generally speaking those artists which are happy with the current system will be worse off while those whose creative energies are de-emphasized or suppressed under the current system will benefit. You can think of it historically through analogy with the transition from feudalism to capitalism and what that meant to the art world. There were major changes in not only the form and content of art (say, the transition from religious to secular themes and experimentation with form and style) but also the changes in the social position of artists: who artists were in a society and where they came from. These changes scandalized and eventually destroyed the established art world to the benefit of a rising tide of new artists from dramatically different social backgrounds. In the long-term, the transition from capitalism to socialism would lead to as drastic a change in how art is done and what it is even perceived to be as the transition from pre-modern to modern and postmodern art.
  23. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Glenn Beck For This Useful Post:


  24. #15
    Join Date Feb 2006
    Posts 7,012
    Rep Power 0

    Default

    why is capitalism bad for artists?

    Look at x fucking factor.
  25. #16
    Join Date Jan 2010
    Location Dobson, NC
    Posts 4,600
    Organisation
    Freedom Road Socialist Organization - Fight Back!
    Rep Power 58

    Default

    why is capitalism bad for artists?

    Look at x fucking factor.
    Yes, look at x fucking factor, the ones that got beat during the christmas #1 by Rage Against the fucking Machine through a grassroots campaign on Facebook with all its sales coming from online only!

    btw, I'm pretty sure I realize you were being sarcastic

    "Does God exist? Well, not yet." ~Ray Kurzweil
  26. #17
    Join Date Apr 2009
    Location The Outer Limits
    Posts 1,926
    Rep Power 22

    Default

    And without things being determined by capitalist profit, we will not have to suffer the bullshit pseudo-art that infests much of our society today (eg much 'pop music', tv commercials, etc).
    AMEN brother. We could all use fewer (and quieter!) TV ads...
    money is to politics as fertilizer is to garden weeds.
  27. #18
    Join Date Nov 2008
    Location Norfolk, England
    Posts 3,128
    Organisation
    Peoples' Front of Judea (Marxist-Leninist)
    Rep Power 73

    Default

    I know, theyre so freakin loud it does my nut in !

    A good example of freer art is the internet. Sites like Deviant Art for example.
    Thats a really really good point. The internet has shown that art of all kinds can really flourish when set free, in an environment where everyone can produce, distribute and appreciate it without any regard for money. In many respects the internet is communising art already and liberating it from the grip of the capitalist art/music/movie industry (however much they try and claw it back with their crazy laws and their branding of sharing as 'stealing')
    COMMUNISM !

    Formerly zenga zenga !
  28. The Following User Says Thank You to scarletghoul For This Useful Post:


  29. #19
    Join Date Nov 2009
    Posts 1,384
    Rep Power 0

    Default

    I know this is "Theory" forum but in practice, the "socialist" states were and are very bad places to be an artist. There was relative artistic freedom in the USSR until the defeat of the Left, Right, and United oppositions by the bureaucratic centralists, after which the Zhdanov doctrine was enforced and any art the authorities did not like such as futurist painting, constructivist theater, jazz, etc. was banned and the artists imprisoned, tortured & executed if they were below a certain level of global fame. On the other hand, international renown was also the downfall of many Soviet artists whose torture and executions were justified by their "Western imperialist" links. Formalistic restrictions were loosened after 1956 but overbearing political censorship continued.

    The People's Republic of China had a brief flowering of artistic freedom in 1956, but then the "Anti-Rightist" Campaign of 1957 put a stop to that. It has only been in the last few years that movies about modern history started to appear in large quantities in China, since for so long, directors were afraid to do anything political about the 20th Century for fear of being repressed due to a change in the official historical line.

    The governments of Cuba and Yugoslavia experimented with greater artistic freedom, but you could still get sent to prison and your work destroyed if you were seen as critical of the gangsters-in-chief, or if you were gay.
  30. #20
    Join Date Feb 2010
    Posts 718
    Rep Power 0

    Default

    Communism = no profit. Create. Create to create. Define "success" under communism. Fame? What do you mean by better off? Everyone would be better off.

Similar Threads

  1. Amazing artist...
    By GiantBear91 in forum Cultural
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 2nd May 2009, 15:52
  2. Looking for an Artist
    By Fietsketting in forum Cultural
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 4th January 2009, 10:35
  3. A stencil artist...
    By K.Bullstreet in forum Cultural
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 29th July 2008, 14:16
  4. I want to be an artist.
    By ahhh_money_is_comfort in forum Opposing Ideologies
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 1st December 2004, 06:04
  5. The duty of the artist
    By Faceless in forum Theory
    Replies: 23
    Last Post: 8th September 2004, 08:12

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts

Tags for this Thread