Freedom and Other Illusions – Excursions into what used to be called “high versus low culture”
(or, illusions concerning American art) With a view of art as revolt / counter-revolt / et cetera
by David A. Powell for The Saker Blog
Part 2 of 3 parts
“The counter concept to popular culture is art. Today artistic products are losing the character of spontaneity more and more and are being replaced by the phenomena of popular culture, which are nothing but a manipulated reproduction of reality as it is; and in doing so, popular culture sanctions and glorifies whatever it finds worth echoing. Schopenhauer remarked that music is ‘the world once more.’ This philosophic aphorism throws light on the unbridgeable difference between art and popular culture: it is the difference between an increase in insight through a medium possessing self-sustaining means and mere repetition of given facts with the use of borrowed tools.”
(From: Leo Löwenthal, “Historical Perspectives of Popular Culture”; Originally published in the American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 55, 1950; From Mass Culture – The Popular Arts in America, The Free Press: Glencoe, Illinois, 1957; pp. 49-50.)
Effectively replaced by a continually evolving universal mass (popular) culture of epic, world-historical proportions, things like art, along with the quote-unquote humanities, went out the window ages ago … in spite of all the attention these “timeless” things now get in The Web; attention and “information” much of which terminates in the clouding and neutralization of the potentially liberating, critical and / or independent-thought-inducing aspect of its subject by remaining within the illusion that one is “free” to think whatever one pleases no matter what … that is, as long as one’s thoughts never depart from group-think conditioned reflexes such as the Facebook “like” imperative.
Yet, in a world in which ONLY “information” which can be exploited has a home, this “disappearance of art” I refer to amounts primarily to the predictably logical fate of whatever refuses, due to its own inviolable inner nature, the tyranny of being instrumentalized for whatever cause regardless – those consisting of personal and / or social, political / economic worldviews and thought fallacies … all contained within a neatly pre-digested, gift-wrapped mindset existing for the sole purpose of reinforcing our cultural illusions … another endless circle we apparently can’t ever get enough of buying / buying into.
One crucial thing, in any event, should be remembered: only art worthy of its name disappears rather than submit to any kind of ideological exploitation; while the kind of art which submits and cannot ever find enough ways to compromise with the social order it obediently serves – along with all the personal “likes” it endlessly caters to – only proliferates endlessly, as can be presently observed with unambiguous clarity (that is, if one cares enough to observe such things to begin with).
What I mean here with the phrase “art worthy of its name” is exemplified by what is historically understood as the Romantic movement, a highly complex artistic / literary / philosophical / scientific / social / political phenomenon originating and flourishing during the late 1700’s in Germany, England and France – and lasting until the years immediately before the First World War (while having had its wings prematurely clipped as a consequence of the cataclysmic revolutions occurring in 1848 and affecting over 50 European countries).
But nothing directly resembling the Romantic movement in 19th century Europe ever happened in America (outside of one short-lived interlude to be touched upon below). The mainstream of American art essentially never had a viable relation to something like the tremendous, elemental force informing European Romantic thought and art. Certainly, there were “hot-house” American Romantics and sympathetic followers among a number of American intellectuals and artists during the 19th century as well as later. Nevertheless, the all-embracing, supremely PASSIONATE REVOLT of European Romanticism – which had a profound and lasting impact on all areas of human art, thought and endeavor – all this has remained an essentially a foreign entity in America.
In fact, the terms Romantic / Romanticism eventually acquired the status of pejoratives in America within certain ideologically-motivated “art circles.” The most degrading insult or criticism that my university painting professor could produce was the charge of “Romanticism” or the label “Romantic” … and I even heard the colorful variation, “warmed-over Romanticism”. My painting professor, by the way, was someone I got to know personally far better than I care to contemplate, and was the Director of my school’s Painting Department. This was during the 1970’s … and none of my professor’s anti-Romatic prejudices came out of nowhere.
Did my Romanticism-hating painting professor also paint? He sure did … that is, in a diametrically opposed direction to my own painting, which my professor, being the consistent authoritarian that he was, literally ordered me to stop doing. And, like every authoritarian dictator, my professor had more than his share of loyal acolytes and henchmen: a small army of devoted student teaching assistants who relished their roles of being able to terrorize their fellow painting students using my professor’s ideology – which, naturally, they all devoutly believed and shared with my professor to the utmost fanatical degree. The Painting Department at my school, therefore, had far more in common with a small country under the control of a ruthless dictator than anything having remotely to do with art – let alone any kind of independent thought or “creative activity.”
Then, there were the student Art Discussion Seminars which my professor held in his home during which all art-and-culture-related issues were covered (but closely “moderated” under my professor’s vigilantly censorious eye). The gist of what I took away from these events, however, were my professor’s amateurish attempts in the direction of what he mistook for profoundly “progressive” attitudes concerning “art and culture” … and all of which turned out to bear an uncanny likeness (as I remember realizing at the time) to the “Artistic / Cultural Statements To The Nation” which had come from another “artistically-committed leader” by the name of Adolf Hitler … and to the following statement in particular, in which Hitler proclaims:
“The proof of the endowment of a true artist is always to be found in the fact that his work of art expresses the general will of a period.”
[“expresses” being Hitler’s “refined” way of saying: “unconditionally obeys – or else“]
(From: Adolf Hitler, “House of German Art Dedication Speech”, Munich, July 18, 1937. https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Art)
In “the eyes of the world,” (i.e, the myth-based worldview of American culture) my former professor is now remembered as having been entirely “successful” with his art and teaching career. His motto, which he delivered in his lectures with nothing short of missionary zeal amounted to the following: “Either one totally compromises with the ruling order or one fails miserably“; and which he liked to end with: “… and if you don’t believe me and go your own way, don’t ever come back and tell me that I didn’t warn you … so, get all of those Romantic Thoughts out of your heads!”
Therefore, it was only inevitable that my painting professor would eventually score a retrospective exhibition of his work in one of New York’s major art museums (one enjoying – then as now – universal world-wide fame). How do I know this? Because I was there – having unintentionally stumbled into the exhibition’s opening reception around a decade after my university days … you know, where everyone stands around with a drink in their hand … which included a face-to-face encounter with my former painting professor during which his nearby wife pointedly asked me: “Why don’t you congratulate [name withheld] on his exhibit?” (and I even remember feeling guilty for a couple of minutes after she completely nailed me with this question due to my shamelessly rude failure of not immediately clicking my heels and doing so … while my former professor and I only speechlessly stared at one another in total disbelief most likely because we’d been nothing outside complete pains in the ass for one another during my student days) … all occurring after I’d viewed a different exhibit in another part of the museum. But more concerning my former professor a bit later …
Of course, nothing of what I write here is intended as any sort of comprehensive account of American art as a whole – one including music, literature and visual arts, etc. But the following can, with certainty, be said of the historical origins of the American visual art scene (with specific applicability for its New York based capitol). Even though American visual artists studied extensively during the 19th century in various European academies (Europe being where first-rate art schools existed at the time in contrast to America), the work they produced upon returning home was completely tailored to fit the worldview cultivated by the elite financial class then spearheading America’s developing industrial capitalism. The identification of the American artist during this period with the members of a wealthy elite amounted, on one level, to the most expedient career move possible to insure the acquisition of maximum financial and social success within the anglo-American system (while the “have-nots” of American society were summarily regarded as low-class “losers”). Yet, in a far more important sense, this identification also firmly cemented the very notion and practice of art itself within the myth-based system of American culture as a whole – together with the ethos of a thoroughly capitalist worldview – which had already begun to assume the religious character it now possesses.
To make a very long story far shorter than it should be: within the visual arts in America, the only force to ever challenge the mythology which had already engulfed American culture was a counter-mythology pursued by the so-called “New York School of Painting” of the 1940’s–early 1960’s (a very loosely affiliated group of individual New York painters inaccurately described to this day as practitioners of the critically fabricated phenomenon now known as “Abstract Expressionism”).
But when I speak of a “counter-mythology” having been pursued by this loosely affiliated group (i.e., by a few of its members), I’m using a term employed in the writings of the painters themselves: what was called “a new myth” capable of effectively coping with the entirely New Reality which descended upon all of us along with the dropping of two atomic bombs on Japan (a New Reality which, at the time, was calculatedly brushed aside by both the majority of the American press and the political / intellectual power elite alike as being merely “a natural, inevitable consequence of scientific / technological progress”). The CIA’s ensuing, clandestine Cold War “weaponization” of the work of the members of the New York School of Painting during this period finally signaled, in a profoundly symbolic manner, the complete end of the only major art phenomenon in America to have ever approached the status of a neo-Romantic revolt … and fully consistent with my painting professor’s hatred of whatever he perceived as being even remotely “Romantic.”
In the words of Dwight Macdonald (appearing in Politics, September, 1945): “The Authorities have made valiant attempts to reduce the thing [the atomic bomb] to a human context, where such concepts as Justice, Reason, Progress could be employed.… The flimsiness of these justifications is apparent; any atrocious action, absolutely any one, could be excused on such grounds. For there is really only one possible answer to the problem posed by Dostoevski’s Grand Inquisitor: if all mankind could realize eternal and complete happiness by torturing to death a single child, would this act be morally justified?… From President Truman down, they emphasized that the Bomb has been produced in the normal, orderly course of scientific experiment, that it is thus simply the latest step in man’s long struggle to control the forces of nature, in a word that it is Progress.
The Bomb is the natural product of the kind of society we have created. It is as easy, normal and unforced an expression of the American Way of Life as electric ice-boxes, banana splits and hydromatic-drive automobiles.
Again, the effort to ‘humanize’ the Bomb by showing how it fits into our normal everyday life also cuts the other way: it reveals how inhuman our normal life has become.”
(From: Dwight Macdonald, “Memoirs of a Revolutionist” (Politics, September, 1945); quoted in: Serge Guilbaut, How New York Stole the Idea of Modern Art – Abstract Expressionism, Freedom and the Cold War, 1983. https://academic.oup.com/oaj/article-abstract/7/2/60/1417806); See also the 1974 article by Eva Cockcroft, “Abstract Expressionism, Weapon of the Cold War” https://scrapaduq.wordpress.com/2013/07/31/modern-art-was-cia-weapon/evacockroft/ )
Comment from Serge Guilbaut: “For Macdonald, the dehumanization of society that made it possible to produce a weapon as sophisticated as the atom bomb, that made it possible for 125,000 workers to participate in a project without knowing the purpose of what they were doing, was incomprehensible. Under such conditions, he maintained, the words ‘democracy,’ ‘freedom,’ ‘progress,’ and ‘science’ no longer meant anything.”
Aside from being overwhelmed by the description of our own hellish reality already laid out by Macdonald in 1945, I was unexpectedly struck by his reference to “hydromatic-drive automobiles” (along with the now quaint-sounding term, “electric ice boxes” which I still heard as a kid). But who in the world remembers such formerly state-of-the-art wheels employing “hydromatic-drive”? (probably not many outside antique car fanatics). More importantly, though, these now-aging critical barbs aimed at the convenience-and-progress obsessions of The American Way of Life alerted me to some very nearby passages from Malevich’s The World as Objectlessness (which would have bitten me, had they been snakes):
“Life as social relations, like a homeless tramp, enters every form of Art and makes it its living space. And convinced, on top of that, that it was the cause of the appearance of that form of Art. After a night’s sleep, it abandons the housing as an unneeded thing, and it turns out that after life empties Art, Art becomes more valuable, it is kept in museums not as an expedient thing but as objectless Art per se, for it had never come from expedient life.
Objectless Art stands without windows or doors, like a spiritual sensation that does not seek prosperity or expeditious things or trade profit of ideas – neither prosperity nor ‘promised lands.’
The art of Moses is the path whose goal is to lead us into the ‘promised land.’ Therefore, he is still building expeditious things and railroad tracks, because the people being led are tired of walking out of ‘Egypt.’ Humanity is already tired of riding in trains, it is learning to fly and will soon soar up, but the ‘promised land’ is not in sight.
That is the reason why Moses was never interested in Art and is not interested now, for most of all he wants to find the ‘promised land.’
Therefore he banishes abstract phenomena and confirms concrete ones. Therefore his life is not in the objectless spirit but only in mathematical calculations of profit. Hence Christ did not come to confirm the expeditious laws of Moses but to annul them, saying ‘The Kingdom of Heaven is within us.’ By this he said that there are no paths to promised lands, therefore there is no expeditious railroad, for no one can say that it is located here or some other place, therefore, no one can lay a road to it. Millennia have passed in mankind’s travel, but there is no ‘promised land.’
Despite this historical experience of trying to find the true road to the promised land and attempts to make an expedient object, society is still trying to find it, straining their muscles ever harder, hammering the blade and trying to break through all obstacles, but the blade merely slipped in the air, since there were no obstacles in the space, merely the hallucinations of the imagination.
The historical path shows us that only Art can make phenomena that remain absolute and constant. Everything vanishes and only monuments live for the ages. […]
Up to this point, life developed from two points of view of goodness: the first is material, the grub-economical, and the second is religious; there should have been a third – the point of view of Art, but it was regarded by the other two as an applied phenomenon, whose forms come from the first two. Economic life was not examined from the point of view of Art, because Art was not yet the sun in whose warmth the tavern grub life would flourish.
In fact, Art plays an enormous role in the construction of life and leaves exclusively beautiful forms for millennia. Art has the capability, the technique, which people cannot achieve in a purely material road in the search for the prosperous land. […]
People of the most utilitarian outlook still see the apotheosis of the day in Art – of course, the apotheosis for them is ‘Ivan Petrovich’, [i.e., a representational image / portrait of “John Everyman”] the face embodying life, but still, with the help of Art, that face became the apotheosis. Thus, pure Art is still covered by the face/mask of life, and therefore the form of life that could be unfolded from the point of view of art is not visible.
You would think that the entire mechanical utilitarian world should have a single goal – to free up time for man’s main life: making Art ‘per se,’ to limit the sense of hunger in favor of the sense of Art.
The developing tendency to build task-oriented and expeditious things that try to overcome the sensation of Art should take note of the fact that basically there are no things in the purely utilitarian form, more than ninety-five percent of things come of the plastic sensation.
There is no need to seek convenient and expedient things, for historical experience shows that people were never able to make such things: everything collected now in museums will prove that not a single thing is convenient or achieves its goal. Otherwise, it would not be in museums, so if it once seemed convenient, it only seemed so, and this is now proven by the fact that collected works are inconvenient in daily life, and our contemporary ‘expedient things’ only seem that way, tomorrow will prove that they could not have been convenient. Everything made by Art, however, is beautiful and that will be confirmed by the future: therefore, we only have Art.”
(From: Kazimir Malevich, The World as Objectlessness; Kunstmuseum Basil, 2014, p. 193.)
In ending this second part, however, I have to admit something. My inclusion of the above passages from Malevich was not only because a line about hydromatic-drive autos reminded me of the technological mind-set discussed by Malevich – one which only advances with ever more break-neck speed as I write this.
I have also included the above passages from Malevich as a demonstration of the fact that there exist vitally important things which do not to amount to what is consumed and desired above all else now: mere “information” to be absorbed at a glance only confirming largely what we already believe in; what we have already concluded that we “know”; something only to be “understood” to the extent that it conforms itself according to whatever our “current understanding” of the world happens to be in the present.
Instead of what one usually gets when one tunes into the usual “information / disinformation source” of one’s choice, Malevich gives us real thoughts in rather sharp contrast to “real” news along with the “fake” variety; thoughts which are highly independent of how the majority – regardless of whatever individual political orientation – thinks and acts in our present. In short, Malevich’s thoughts are totally free from a uniform absence of thought which now only grows by the minute in spite of how “well-meaning” and sincere (or totally mistaken) this conformity doubtless remains. Consequently, what Malevich writes above requires nothing short of a reciprocal thought-effort in return – that is, in distinction to what the choir long already knows by heart and can effortlessly sing in its sleep … along with as much time as it takes to grasp the full meaning conveyed by Malevich … together with adequate patience and perhaps some courage … but with more than anything else, an open mind.
Finally, these thoughts from Malevich are in no way “out-of-date.” To the contrary – while there is nothing really “utopian” in them – they belong among the thoughts which can be said to exist largely in a future tense … that is, if the present can somehow be overcome and relegated once and for all to a dead past having only to do with ignorance, destruction and self-limitation; a present now wearing the highly deceptive mask of “progress”; an emblem only amounting to the perpetual, exclusively fear-motivated idolatry of “results that count” … one only propelling us into a more primitive past tense than can be presently imagined by our group-think instincts, reflexes, and Material Purposes.
——-
About the author: David A. Powell is an American artist living in Germany since 1990. In addition to having a lifelong, ongoing involvement and fascination with the most radically unpopular ideas and concepts capable of being imagined by anyone, he has a degree in art history and literature and – along a number of other occupations and activities throughout his life – has also exhibited his paintings (in Germany, at least).
In other words, the decline of the world in general and the West in specific ?
Interesting, even if I don’t grasp it fully. But, my observations confirm that all recreation, including pop art, has been subconded by the Establishment. Observe all major sport and acceptable ‘art’ as you describe (eg. SkyArts channell…). What is your view on the neo-realist Soviet era art, and the art of public buildings and infrastructure also?
As a musician, I’ve learnt that art is something that has to be given away from a pure heart. It is an experience – not a product. In arts, seeking compensation for what you do, can compromise what you do. And yet, over centuries it was deformed into different layers of entertainment and business ventures. Saying that, I’ve seen some stunning ideas being encoded into very commercial works. You talk about reinforcements of “cultural illusions”, and I would emphasize (or add) cultural confusions.
All in all, very good read, especially before going to sleep. Will reread it tomorrow. Thank you!
Isn’t it why all artists, at least the ones who lived in XV-XIX century lived and died poor, only so whoever grabbed their creative work could get rich?
I was just looking at Dan Brown’s Angels & Demons (A Special Illustrated Edition) admiring a wonderful creation by some artists who at least got some money from the Vatican.
I was actually looking for a picture which was talked about in another one of his books, unfortunately I can’t remember which ceiling in Washington was talked about. The ceiling was painted by Greek Artist, who was imported just to do that job.
I said it before and I am going to repeat it again. In my teenage years I blessed with an opportunity to attend an art exhibition of Picasso’s work. Going along the paintings I could see the negative progression in his art, as it started with classic wonderful work and it ended with obscure whatever it was for which rich snobs pay millions of dollars, which I am convinced he did not enjoy (money that is).
I recently visited a Picasso exhibition also, in London. I find him interesting but a lot of his stuff is just ‘samey’ to me. There were however two standout pieces for me, a larger-than-life sculpture of a somewhat deformed chicken and one of (I think) 13 sketches for a painting of the Crucifixion that he had long been trying to put together. The finished work didn’t interest me much but the one sketch had me transfixed for reasons I cannot yet fathom (and am not particularly bothered by, they will come in their own time or not, as the case may be).
I would be tempted to make house-room for both pieces, for a time at least, but, thankfully, do not have such grotesquely long pockets.
@ anonius
‘all artists lived and died poor’.
What the hell? Bramate, Durer, the master of Naumburger, Michaelangelo, Pissano, da Vinci, Miron, Praxiteles etc. In every discipline in every age, including the snap-shot you mention, good artisans have always been rewarded handsomely.
The phrase you refer to ‘an artist should suffer for their art’ was born at the end of the 19th century at the start of the gross idea that a practitioners first duty was to narcissistic self expression, to the exclusion of any need to express the thinking of a patron or public or contribute to a wider debate.
The article is specifically about artist as a contributor to movements (here Romanticism) each contributing their insights and experience through their medium to a broader conception. Greek art, Roman, Assyrian, Brutalist, Romantic, Gothic, Cubist, etc all revolved around central profundities under debate in wider society. Great proponents fare well. Lesser proponents make assistants, foundry workers and waitresses.
For goodness’ sake, stay clear of Dan Brown. They guy is a cultureless, hot air blowing, fantasist arse-hat.
PG,
I do agree with you, although usually the artists that did well had a rich sponsor who bought their work, many times in advance.
People like Leonardo were exceptionally gifted in many area’s not just art, which was a continuation of classics. People like him were part of the Renaissance, which as we know started shortly after the fall of Byzantium in 1453.
BTW,
Accordingly to some Turk in employ of one of the Turkish Emperors: Western crusaders destroyed no less that 12,000 ancient Greek documents including prehistoric maps when they plundered the Constantinople in 1203. Apparently Ottoman assigned him a task to find and record any and all ancient documents.
As for Dan Brown, I stayed away from his work once I realized that his job was to promote FreeMasonry.
Dear ‘Real History’,
I play the ‘pipes’. Does that make me a musician? I also sang with the Heidelberg City Choir, the suburb of Melbourne. What I know is that music comes from the heart and the soul.
I was never competent in art, but I know what I like, and I also know another truism; “He who pays the piper calls the tune.”
How do we know that a society is in decline? We see it in the ‘arts’; that is in music and all the other paintings and such, and we are witnessing the decline so strongly in this ‘Western Society’. The ‘Pop culture’ the ‘Pop Arts, the Reality music shows all demonstrate a total lack of understanding of art and a love of ‘Mammon’.
I found it a very good read too, that will bear some revisiting, thank you.
I’ve never read any of Malevich’s writings but my curiosity is piqued by your article and I will look out for what is available in English, as well as looking forward to your next article here.
Spoken language was invented a long time ago; written language rather more recently. They are ways of ‘expressing’ oneself; seeking to express others is ‘acting’, or copying.
There are many ways of ‘expressing’, some of which are referred to as ‘artistic’. Alternative ways may be regarded as ‘mundane’, ‘quotidian’, or ‘everyday’: one form is worth preserving, the other less or not so.
Poetry (for me) is an art form using ‘language rhythms’ as its medium, just as painting uses pigments, sculpture uses solid materials, music explores and exploits sounds, and dance uses rhythmic movements.
A perennial question in art is, “What is beauty”
A frequent answer is, “Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.”
‘Capturing the spirit of the age’ (zeitgeist) may be a valid target for expression. How well it is done will probably determine the artistry of the ‘expression’, in whatever form is used.
A perennial question in philosophy is, “What is the purpose of life?”
A possible answer is, “Life provides its own purpose.” It exists because it can.
Likewise, art exist because it can.
Art is related to talent, without having talent you cannot make art. A painting is not just purely about brush and pigments, there is the hand of the artist and behind is the spirit. A harder question to answer would be : what is talent ? everybody is using it (as terminology) but very little people can describe it properly. For me, it is harder to describe than to show. Being a teacher, I can say if a child has talent or not, according to my own experience. Others would argue otherwise on the same children, of course. So, that means, there is a relative – according to many artists and critics of art. For example, one painter I know of, can make very good paintings in a certain style, using a splendor of colors with beautiful nuances with an internal equillibrum which gives the viewer a good feeling. But, he cannot draw a human figure. He knows the notions of perspective, the depth, proportions, but cannot apply them on paper (or canvas) Actually he can’t sense them. But he can sense the nuances of colors and their harmony. Is he talented or not ? he is, but one sided. Many so called “modern” painters fall in this category. In my school years at the art high school, had to learn the – as in any art school I suppose – the basics of drawing, painting, sculpture, textile art, graphics (including applied one as advertising, billboards and so on) mural and wall paintings. In the second year we could choose to which section want to go (with advise from teachers) I choose painting : there we had to to begin again with draw and we made special sessions of making fast sketches on live models – that was interesting, the model was asked to stay in a position for only five(5) minutes and we had to do it very fast, repeating this during one hour, then after a ten minute pause, we continued another hour in the same rhythm. The result was staggering : we managed to have a better observation on the model in this shortened time than otherwise, our hand began to be more stable, the lines were much clearer and better.
When we made a study about a sculpture, we were learned – as usual – to use the so called construction lines to better determine the overall proportions of that statue. When this was achieved, we continued with drawings the details until completion. The painting hours went on the same path : construction lines for proportions, then shadows, then highlights. This was the status-quo of learning.
Some teachers tried of course to kindly force their style on us, others not.
But let’s turn back to talent : if you have not, you cannot “see” (or feel) the perspective, proportions of the object(s) in the given space. You can still play with colors, by exercising, you may develop an outstanding dexterity and make wonderful paintings.
What I wrote above in my comment, it is a soft and simplified approach of how the professional art is being taught. I did this because I am convinced about the very good influence of art on the person’s soul and mind, therefore, I would like to encourage anyone to take up a pencil, colors, brushes, ink or whatever and give it a try. I am sure, you shall discover a new world, new dimensions will open before your eyes, adding a positive energy to your inner life. You shall discover the power of creation, your own creation, your own world, your own prayer in your own way, without any external interference. One’s will and faith can move mountains.
Yes, this is why in say, XVII century all society ladies and some men had to learn to play some instrument, so that they could entertain their husband and his friends. Now, what I just said was meant to be a positive comment. Also, from my own experience, having been really good at accordion I learned to appreciate art, particularly music. This may have been a bad thing though, because now I know a bad “noise” including one line meaningless and dyslectic singing being pushed on people as “diva”. Did you notice that almost none of the “Western” singers never learnt diction, which has always been must in old days? Particularly for Opera singers.
On the other hand, I had a childhood friend, who was actually a very good singer, but never made it professionally for reasons I do not want to talk about.
@Anonius
Do you still have that accordion ? If yes, then if you have time and mood, play again, I sincerely envy those people who can play a musical instrument. Regarding your friend’s fate, I’m sorry for him, I know many such people who were indeed talented but the doors and windows have been closed in their face…in fact most talented people have sunk in the role of being nobodies. The society of today has made a nefarious turn, showing her back side to everything which has a spiritual-creative value. When any kind of artist has to live his/her days counting the every day’s material needs, what we can expect ? some are up and many are down, making art a scream of clown. But I hope in the light, some may ask “are you alright ?”,
ioan,
Unfortunately, do not have the accordion anymore, and I feel sad about it, also now I am to old to get a new one. Plus, I am not sure if my old fingers would function as they used to. Today I sit and think about my father, who dished out a lot of money for that instrument, only so I (13 years old) could say “I am not playing any more”.
As for my friend, he passed away few years back (heart failure), maybe he experienced to many disappointments about his dream of singing. This may have been the answer to “are you all right” possibly he wasn’t.
Or, you may find another form of self expression as in music or singing, or poetry or even drama. And if that doesn’t work, perhaps in gardening or sport.
We each have abilities and we each have things to share, and we each have things that we should pass on to our children and each generation.
And with each of these ‘gifts’ that we have there is something else that is born, character, honesty and integrity and a love for the fellow man. Think of the positives and try not to be negative as negativity can be destructive.
Yes, you are right, music, singing, poetry and writing are also part of the overall art and everything which can contribute to the growth of character, honesty and love for fellow man – as you excellently noted – is a welcomed activity. Thank you for your comment, very appreciated !
PS. I am indeed inclined to pessimism (or rather realism, depends on how man takes it, according to his/her personal life experience), there is still lot of work to do.
I can understand and appreciate this article. I was accepted into a university as a graduate student in painting. Professors were caught up with abstract expressionism. One professor was totally dictatorial about it. I did not believe in it, did not think it was real art. My thought was that art is a window to the world, an interpretation of what is going on. People are given a chaotic plethora of facts. It is the artist who makes sense of the “facts”. Life is short, art is long. True artists are always after the truth. Like Keats said, “Truth is beauty, beauty truth”. btw, Keats was a romanticist. Christ said to seek the truth and the truth will set you free, What happened to Christ is an example of what authorities think of the truth. I always felt nonobjective art was controlled by wealthy elite, who wanted to control art
I agree with you all the way. Unfortunately art which does not mean any thing is being pushed today, and it started sometime in the 1700’s it was called expressionism (just a bunch of colour dots on the canvas if you ask me”. Today it’s even worse, I do not know what to call it. BTW, I was looking at “art” of one young sculptor, and when I made a comment that this looks like something primitive made 9000 years ago, I got yelled at.
This is on the subject of freedom, from the people who lost it. When Spartan went to war, he was handed his shield by his mother of wife and told “Ή ταν ή επί τας – with it or on it” I do not need to explain what it meant. Nice song about it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D-5m8ubGLDE
But better one is by probably the most popular singer in Greece, Sfakianakis (who’s ancestors are from Smyrni today Ismir in Turkey): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LDS-XsFvlWs, It’s titled Oh my poor Fatherland.
This one is about all the fallen heroes: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TPtceGh3jNM
No offense to all western singers, but this is how you do the sing. This art is long forgotten in the West, when you could understand the words and they meant something.
I know, I said that freedom is a fiction yet we fight for:
Here is one Russian song titled “Stand up for your Belief=Religion Russian Land”:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8tGxp3HnOvs
Ever favored “Katusha” – Katusha means Katia from Katerina or Katherine”:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TDP8g6UjuZ4
This is bute “Slavianka – Slovian Girl”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z1Rs7Yw3vUc
When we were at war: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wOTD2KaAVjc
And one last one the Cossaks, who where symbol of Russian Tsardom:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i72el7JLHuA
Enjoy.
Well, regardless of what I said before about lack of freedom we fight for it and defend its idea.
Okay, one last beauty Журавли́, what a voice:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wV1kzblUElY
Okay I am back.
The subject is “garmoshka” it’s a form of accordion only with buttons for both hands. I used to play accordion when I wasn’t yet teenager. I love the instrument, and today I do not know why I stopped playing it, simply stupid:
The song is “Одинокая гармонь – one and only garmoshka”, check out the paintings:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ppz-Id_Qb7E
Okay one more, last one I promise ( this one has a wonderful Balalaika) “АХ, ТЫ ДУШЕЧКА – Oh my little soul”:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mvrgGYT5sRM
Wonderful art.
I was blown away by the outstanding important insight of Part 1, about how society erases serious criticism and why it doesn’t help (much) for people to continue with the endless task of detailing all the many serious crime of the Empire. That insight is incredibly useful, so I was hoping for further expansion in Part 2.
Other than the interesting quote by Dwight Macdonald, which I’m going to look into, Part 2 is a disappointment compared to Part 1.
I really hope Part 3 picks up where Part 1 left off.
I really look forward to the third installment of this series of articles, and I hope the the author, David A. Powell , will engage in a conversation with more references as he did in the first installment. I’d love for this subject to satay alive a bit longer. Thank you!
Great, great video on art and how it died and is dying. Brilliant, just brilliant.
https://youtu.be/lNI07egoefc
and here is a great quote from piece by Dr. Henry Makow:
Modern “culture” is a product of the Luciferian conspiracy against Christian Civilization.
Relentlessly negative and increasingly obscene, modern “culture” attacks the sources of dignity, decency, and hope that define us as human beings rather than animals.
For example last week the media in London was hyping a play about “sexual love” between a married man and a goat.
In an interview, the playwright Edward Albee said “The Goat” challenged this “societal taboo” and hoped that members of the audience would “re-examine their values and attitudes toward bestiality.”
https://www.henrymakow.com/000403.html
and this by Jonathan Stonehouse:
A reader, Jonathan Stonehouse wrote: “It staggers me to think that there are many who now associate freedom with the normalization of everything formerly regarded as morally repugnant, when the truth is we’re building a world in which the majority will be slaves to every whim and fancy, not to mention dark and abhorrent desire, the human imagination can conceive. That’s a form of ‘freedom’ I can well do without.”
the good news however, is Jesus and what He gloriously did through a child named Akiane. Her art and paintings just wow! This is what the work of the Holy Ghost is all about. Awe inspiring. Her life is a testament to the Glory of God and the truth of Christ’s teachings. She and that child Colton Burpo couldn’t have come at a better in history.
The troubling part is why now? Are their lives a sign of the beginning of the end? Of a coming great awakening perhaps and then the death of this terrible world? The Parousia.