Jenson71
Ghost writer
Bush is watching you
Posts: 810
|
Post by Jenson71 on May 30, 2009 23:48:31 GMT
To what extent can serious art of any form be free from commentary on social and class issues?
Do you think there's a hierarchy of purposes of art?
Thanks in advance for your perspectives.
Right now, I'm reading my first ever book about art theory. It's by Freeland, called /But is it Art?/ It's very much an easy introduction -- just what I need really. So far, she has talked about some of the shock art of the past three decades, and now she is talking about the history of art, starting from the Greeks through Gothic architecture through Hume and Kantian perspectives to Andy Warhol's stack of boxes. It's really great. In only two chapters it has really made me think of art in a more sophisticated way.
|
|
|
Post by svsg on May 31, 2009 0:24:55 GMT
To what extent can serious art of any form be free from commentary on social and class issues? Are you sure that this is not a bait post to see all of us fighting here, given the controversy the DarkKnight thread created? ;D Haha, just kidding, I would only be a spectator this time and see what new points are brought up in the discussion.
|
|
Capo
Administrator
Posts: 7,847
|
Post by Capo on Jun 7, 2009 12:09:31 GMT
To what extent can serious art of any form be free from commentary on social and class issues? Serious art cannot be exempt from questions of reality. Make of that what you will. I'll offer more precise answers to more precise questions.
|
|
Jenson71
Ghost writer
Bush is watching you
Posts: 810
|
Post by Jenson71 on Jun 7, 2009 23:30:47 GMT
So can we agree that not everything real involves social and class issues, but all social and class issues are real. Therefore, art attempting to say something about social and class issues should be based on a perspective of reality, and should not distort anything. That would be irresponsible.
But, some art does not attempt to say something about social and class issues and can still be serious art. For example. a poem about love can be serious art and have nothing to do with social and class issues. It is only about feelings and emotion.
And that can be a legitimate purpose of serious art. Agreed?
|
|
RNL
Global Moderator
Posts: 6,624
|
Post by RNL on Jun 7, 2009 23:58:08 GMT
We cannot, I'm afraid.
It's not, because no emotions occur outside of the context of society. The cause of all emotional experience is the material reality in which one exists.
|
|
Jenson71
Ghost writer
Bush is watching you
Posts: 810
|
Post by Jenson71 on Jun 8, 2009 0:16:10 GMT
Does that mean that our love poem is about social and class issues?
It seems really broad. To the extent that anything can qualify as serious art.
|
|
RNL
Global Moderator
Posts: 6,624
|
Post by RNL on Jun 8, 2009 0:29:59 GMT
Well, all social issues are related to class issues, and surely no love can occur outside of a social context. So if you give any kind of specific, concrete details in your poem, you're necessarily situating it in an historical context and therefore engaging with everything that entails. How deeply, how superficially? how directly, how peripherally? are the questions. And of course, no poem is written outside of, or autonomously from, an historical context.
|
|
Omar
Global Moderator
Professione: reporter
Posts: 2,770
|
Post by Omar on Jun 8, 2009 6:55:05 GMT
Well, all social issues are related to class issues, and surely no love can occur outside of a social context. So if you give any kind of specific, concrete details in your poem, you're necessarily situating it in an historical context and therefore engaging with everything that entails. How deeply, how superficially? how directly, how peripherally? are the questions. And of course, no poem is written outside of, or autonomously from, an historical context. Sometimes, I have a hard time keeping up with you guys. ^^^^^^^^ But it is posts like the one above that always bring be back.
|
|
Jenson71
Ghost writer
Bush is watching you
Posts: 810
|
Post by Jenson71 on Jun 8, 2009 17:18:58 GMT
Well, all social issues are related to class issues, and surely no love can occur outside of a social context. So if you give any kind of specific, concrete details in your poem, you're necessarily situating it in an historical context and therefore engaging with everything that entails. How deeply, how superficially? how directly, how peripherally? are the questions. And of course, no poem is written outside of, or autonomously from, an historical context. Okay, okay, so it can be looked at with a type of lens that involves examination of social and class issues, but the love poem's purpose isn't about social and class issues, is it? Isn't its purpose still about communicating how much our noble knight loves the lord's daughter?
|
|
|
Post by ronnierocketago on Jun 8, 2009 18:10:02 GMT
And of course, no poem is written outside of, or autonomously from, an historical context. Question: Then what of those read, digested, and appreciated by those outside of the historical context, i.e. another epoch? Do we "get it" from our epoch's cultural logical paradigm, or from that epoch's?
|
|
RNL
Global Moderator
Posts: 6,624
|
Post by RNL on Jun 8, 2009 18:39:47 GMT
Is the poem's 'purpose' determined by the author's conscious purpose in writing it; her motivations, intentions, perspectives, etc?
If so, then the answer to your last question is, by definiton, yes. Though of course the author's consciousness is relatively off-limits to us, so the poem's purpose would in this case be, for the most part, an insoluble mystery.
But if we apply your initial question, the answer in this case remains no, because this poem (which we presumably are defining as 'serious') is not free from commentary on social and class issues. The only questions that can be asked of its commentary are, again: How deep, how superficial? How direct, how peripheral? Etc.
|
|
RNL
Global Moderator
Posts: 6,624
|
Post by RNL on Jun 8, 2009 18:44:21 GMT
And of course, no poem is written outside of, or autonomously from, an historical context. Question: Then what of those read, digested, and appreciated by those outside of the historical context, i.e. another epoch? Do we "get it" from our epoch's cultural logical paradigm, or from that epoch's? When we read a poem we must always situate it in its appropriate historical context, both in terms of its production and consumption. I don't know what "cultural logical paradigm" means.
|
|
Jenson71
Ghost writer
Bush is watching you
Posts: 810
|
Post by Jenson71 on Jun 8, 2009 20:33:12 GMT
Is the poem's 'purpose' determined by the author's conscious purpose in writing it; her motivations, intentions, perspectives, etc? If so, then the answer to your last question is, by definiton, yes. Though of course the author's consciousness is relatively off-limits to us, so the poem's purpose would in this case be, for the most part, an insoluble mystery. So then that's something we can argue over, right? Unless the artist comes right out and says what its purpose was. Right, thinking more about this, I don't see how it could be free from those questions and analyses. But let's say we analyze our poem and we find it's rather empty in what it says about broader social issues, including class but also about female modesty. We decide that this poem is really deep in issues of the love one person has for another. It makes people break down in tears because the emotions conveyed are so strong and its words are so beautifully strung together. Can this be serious art?
|
|
RNL
Global Moderator
Posts: 6,624
|
Post by RNL on Jun 9, 2009 1:38:37 GMT
Is the poem's 'purpose' determined by the author's conscious purpose in writing it; her motivations, intentions, perspectives, etc? If so, then the answer to your last question is, by definiton, yes. Though of course the author's consciousness is relatively off-limits to us, so the poem's purpose would in this case be, for the most part, an insoluble mystery. So then that's something we can argue over, right? Unless the artist comes right out and says what its purpose was. Yeah. And that's only if accept the artist as an authority on their own work, meaning: a) we eliminate subconscious motivations from consideration, and b) we assume full disclosure on the artist's part. In no sense, though, is 'purpose', if we define it this way, synonymous with meaning. The 'purpose' can only be considered one part of the work's overall meaning/s. Hmm. See, I would question whether it's possible for it to be "really deep in issues of the love one person has for another" without engaging critically with the social conditions that in large part determine the quality of that love. A beautifully animated Disney film can make people cry too, but I wouldn't think many, if any, of them are approached with great seriousness by their creators, in terms at least of the social questions that necessarily arise from the stories. I'm sure, on the other hand, that they're treated with the utmost seriousness in terms of craftsmanship. I'm disinclined these days to speak of 'art' as a generality, actually. You posted this initially in the (stagnant) Visual & Performing Arts section, but we've been talking about poetry, and I think your use of the word 'art' in the thread title is in a very general sense. All art is about life, right? The 'human condition'. How can an artist be said to be 'seriously' exploring that 'condition' (which is not an ahistorical constant, which is always undergoing change) without engaging critically with such a fundamental social reality as class?
|
|
Jenson71
Ghost writer
Bush is watching you
Posts: 810
|
Post by Jenson71 on Jun 23, 2009 0:32:54 GMT
Well, I've thought more about this, and right now, I will agree with you and also question whether it's possible for our love poem (or any art) to be considered serious art without engaging social conditions. It's almost impossible for art to not touch upon them even if it tried hard to avoid them, much less unconsciously or subconsciously touching upon them.
Perhaps a poem can speak of love with emotion and string the words together beautifully . . . but, I can't qualify that as serious art. I am almost thinking that serious art must rise above primitive gut feelings like our strict love poem . . . but no, I don't think I want to go quite that far, but I'm thinking my love poem sounds fairly empty, something that won't last, that only touches upon a low part of the human condition and is too narrow to be respected as serious. There are some serious issues that can be seen through an individual -- honor, glory, finding peace, "coming to age", personal journeys -- but many times, these represent global aspects of human condition. Ugh, so does love though, or course, and that's where I'm tripping up and losing my point in all this.
Anyway, I side with those who think art must be grounded in a higher purpose (and society comes in somewhere here) in order to be considered serious.
Now...is class a fundamental social reality? Of course. But I am cautious of bringing everything down to a matter of class. I understand Marx's need for bringing an essential onto the table to complete the theory of history as a science, but I reject it. There is more to the human condition than class, and there could possibly be more important issues than class. My religion is more important than my class (though here I know Marx is telling me to wake up!). My civic traditions and civilization as a whole which I respect and value, my country which I love deeply, my family, the communities of people that I know have affected me are other examples that are not completely dependent on class.
I think class is subordinate to a larger issue and that is justice. I think there can be justice with classes. The abolition of class does not necessitate the coming of justice. Or perhaps the abolition of class strikes me too much as a utopian experiment, that as all too often led to disaster. It is like the flip side of the fascist utopia. Either way, the coin will kill, or individualism (which some is necessary for a good life) will be stamped out, and freedom is gone.
Now, I am 21 years old and I don't know a whole lot. It took Socrates his whole life to figure that out, but it took me a few months on FCM to figure that out. But there are some things I strongly believe in: 1.) God, 2.) that the ideals of the United States from the Founding still help guide the truest form of human freedom and a good life for all, and 3.) that serious art must engage critically with what is true, and what is true must very often deal with social issues, including, but not limited to, class.
So basically, I do believe in a hierarchy of purpose of art. At the top lies the serious art which engages critically with social issues and other fundamental aspects of the human condition. This is a higher purpose than art that merely attempts to create something beautiful and aims for that to be its highest purpose. Below that, is the purpose of art to stir emotion. That last purpose is too vague and can be irresponsible and worthless. Those are the three purposes of art that I know of, and two are respectable, and one, as a whole, is not. (Though of course, beautiful art can also engage critically in social issues and stirred emotions must be present in all good art).
I look forward to all replies and criticism, and thank you all for the discussion.
|
|
Capo
Administrator
Posts: 7,847
|
Post by Capo on Jun 23, 2009 11:34:18 GMT
It's too narrow to muddle "serious art" with "political art". By that latter term I mean a work that is ostensibly and obviously politically motivated, it is "Political" with a capital P, so to speak.
I wouldn't call Shakespeare's sonnets non-serious (nor by definition are they apolitical). A meditation on a drug trip takes as its theme something that is no more or less transient than a deep feeling of gut-wrenching lust. But neither has to be non-serious.
From this comes the critic's difficulty, of deciphering the codes at work within the piece; how to find the issues at stake and coax them out, and from that make a worthy, serious analysis? Not enough of this happens. If artists need to have their consciousness raised as to what's going in their work, so too do their critics, I think.
|
|
Capo
Administrator
Posts: 7,847
|
Post by Capo on Jun 23, 2009 11:55:06 GMT
The notion that a classless society is a utopian dream is only defendable on the grounds of impatience. Socialism can't happen overnight. Stalinism shows the dangers in approaching it so. Here is an interesting exchange I had on the BB about this.
|
|
Omar
Global Moderator
Professione: reporter
Posts: 2,770
|
Post by Omar on Jun 23, 2009 15:14:06 GMT
WHY THE FUCK ARE YOU WASTING YOUR TIME WITH THEM? READING SOME OF THE RESPONSES HAVE MADE MY BLOOD BOIL
|
|
|
Post by svsg on Jun 23, 2009 15:22:46 GMT
Hey Omar, I was an active participant in that thread. Don't hate me man I just don't buy the promises/merits of either school of thought, when it comes to protecting the interests of the individual.
|
|
Omar
Global Moderator
Professione: reporter
Posts: 2,770
|
Post by Omar on Jun 23, 2009 19:28:14 GMT
I didn't read far enough to see your comments. I know I have been bipolar on here in the past, but I wouldn't hate on you buddy! Don Cardi's comment about putting the prisoners from "Gitmo" ( ) into our neighborhoods is exactly the type of bullshit that the conservative news pundits are spewing out. I can't believe people actually eat that shit up! And Sicilian Babe's tone is that of condescending elitist jargon. I was also under the wrong impression that none of you guys were on there anymore (except you Ronnie!). So what is it with me going off topic all the time?
|
|