There's a very interesting - nearly hidden nowadays - history of discussion,
debate and more on this.
Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot & more all demanded a politico/ethical dimension to art
(see "socialist realism" which, of course, was neither socialist not realist )
with horrifying results.
In contrast, Trotsky, thoughout his life and Lenin, at the end of his, both
argued against attempts to embed ethico/political positions in art.
Unfortunately even amongst those who abhor the Stalinist tradition in all other
respects there is still huge confusion on the question.
I put this down to art, quite understandably, not being seen in the first rank
of importance when one is engaged in a life and death struggle for the survival
of an authentic Marxist politics of human liberation as opposed to its
Stalinist/Maoist negation...
( although even at "midnight in the century", with the seemingly inexorable
rise of Hitler and Stalin and the reduction of the voices of authentic Marxism
to a few hundred, Trostky was involved in discussions and joint writings with
Breton about art and freedom)
Any of Trotsky's writings on art repay reading as does the tremendous "Art as
the Coginiton of Life" by Voronsky...
cheers
michael
________________________________
From: bob catchpole <[email protected]>
To: NetBehaviour for networked distributed creativity
<[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2012 7:35 AM
Subject: Re: [NetBehaviour] Read this about Gilbert & George in the Evening
Standard yesterday
Michael,
You make an intriguing and thought-provoking point which I'm going to have
to ponder further. I've always seen values ('ethics') inherent in the
form and sensibility of artistic work. For example, I'm not surprised
that much of the work G&G have produced in the last two decades has
been visually 'fascistic'.
Bob
>________________________________
> From: Michael Szpakowski <[email protected]>
>To: bob catchpole <[email protected]>
>Cc: NetBehaviour for networked distributed creativity
><[email protected]>
>Sent: Sunday, 11 March 2012, 18:09
>Subject: Re: [NetBehaviour] Read this about Gilbert & George in the Evening
>Standard yesterday
>
>
>Absolutely - in art that's worth the name, and, of course, there's the rub...
>
>Marx's favourite author? Balzac, reactionary monarchist.
>
>Why? because his complex, subtle and careful work embodied truths about the
>world *despite* his politics.
>cheers
>michael
>
>
>
>
>
>
>________________________________
> From: bob catchpole <[email protected]>
>To: Michael Szpakowski <[email protected]>; NetBehaviour for networked
>distributed creativity <[email protected]>
>Sent: Sunday, March 11, 2012 5:30 PM
>Subject: Re: [NetBehaviour] Read this about Gilbert & George in the Evening
>Standard yesterday
>
>
>Michael,
>
>Are you suggesting that there's no connection between ethics and aesthetics in
>the work artists produce?
>
>
>Bob
>
>
>
>
>>________________________________
>> From: Michael Szpakowski <[email protected]>
>>To: NetBehaviour for networked distributed creativity
>><[email protected]>
>>Sent: Saturday, 10 March 2012, 13:57
>>Subject: Re: [NetBehaviour] Read this about Gilbert & George in the Evening
>>Standard yesterday
>>
>>
>>There's no equation, unfortunately, between good (by which I mean left)
>>politics and good art.
>>There are some artists with rotten politics who repay repeated, even
>>lifelong, attention as artists.
>>Morandi, fascist sympathiser, is one of them.
>>There are some artists you'd trust with your life, politically, who are
>>deadly dull as artists.
>>
>>I saw the huge Gilbert and George retrospective at the Tate a couple of years
>>back and it was one of the most excruciatingly dull experiences of my life,
>>though "excruciatingly" makes it sound several degrees more attention
>>grabbing than it actually was.
>>My beef with G & G is they make very dull art on an industrial scale.
>>It hasn't always been the case - I love their early moving image stuff...
>>
>>
>>For me there's something about good art, whatever the personality or views of
>>the originator, that is inherently liberating, but that's another and longer
>>discussion...
>>
>>
>>
>>cheers
>>michael
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>________________________________
>> From: dave miller <[email protected]>
>>To: NetBehaviour for networked distributed creativity
>><[email protected]>
>>Sent: Saturday, March 10, 2012 11:00 AM
>>Subject: Re: [NetBehaviour] Read this about Gilbert & George in the Evening
>>Standard yesterday
>>
>>Hi Rob
>>
>>This makes sense to me - Gilbert and George have become the Terry
>>Thomases of the art world.
>>
>>dabe
>>
>>On 6 March 2012 19:31, Rob Myers <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> On 06/03/12 17:03, marc garrett wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I think it's obvious that G&G are elitists, and would not wish to lose
>>>> any income from their bourgeois client base.
>>>
>>> Their original artistic gesture was to conflate aesthetic and social
>>> form. This was interesting but over time it has led to their public
>>> pronouncements increasingly being bad form, in the Terry-Thomas sense.
>>>
>>>> Who gives a shit whether they work from 5. am or not - many work just as
>>>> hard for much less, and are losing their jobs, communities, and much
>>>> more - they are not
relevant.
>>>
>>> Yes hard work is not
sufficient to explain personal wealth, whatever the
>>> psychological needs of the rich or indeed the simply not impoverished.
>>>
>>> - Rob.
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> NetBehaviour mailing list
>>> [email protected]
>>> http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
>>_______________________________________________
>>NetBehaviour mailing list
>>[email protected]
>>http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
>>
>>
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>NetBehaviour mailing list
>>[email protected]
>>http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
_______________________________________________
NetBehaviour mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour_______________________________________________
NetBehaviour mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
