[Red_Army]

See this is what I'm trying to get at, people aren't really divided by their ideology. There is amazing creativity, capacity for violence and struggle, hate and love - in every human...

The human spirit is not about a specific ideology, when you try to subject art to the wishes of ideology is when you run into trouble, and start generating shit art.

[Dave]

Most of history's greatest art is subjected to the wishes of ideology.

[Potemkin]

Art is saturated with ideology, and always has been. Virgil, for example, was writing propaganda for the Augustan regime. Augustus and Virgil would even have long discussions lasting several hours at a time about what should and should not go into the Aeneid.

[Dave]

I am also perfectly willing to concede that the left produces, and always will produce, more artists. Neurological research has shown that "liberal" minded people are more creative and open to new ideas, whereas "conservative" minded people are more likely to value tradition and to be alert to danger. Society obviously needs both types.

[Red_Army]

Of course art is saturated with ideology, what I meant is that a person can create glorious art whatever the ideology. Hell art is supposed to be edifying, symbolic capital and all that, but there has been art since before any currently existing ideology. It is at the whim of ideology in general, yet it transcends any particular one.

[Potemkin]

Of course art is saturated with ideology, what I meant is that a person can create glorious art whatever the ideology.

Perhaps so, but that is not what you actually said: "The human spirit is not about a specific ideology, when you try to subject art to the wishes of ideology is when you run into trouble, and start generating shit art." Virgil wrote highly ideologically charged poetry; would you say his work is shit? The films of Eisenstein are ideological through and through; would you say his films are shit? I would actually claim that any work of art which does not adhere to a particular ideology tends to be shit.

Hell art is supposed to be edifying, symbolic capital and all that, but there has been art since before any currently existing ideology. It is at the whim of ideology in general, yet it transcends any particular one.

Ideology has existed since the dawn of human history, and probably earlier. Modern ideology just tends to me more conscious and more differentiated, that's all. And what do you mean by 'transcend', in this context?

[Huntster]

I am also perfectly willing to concede that the left produces, and always will produce, more artists. Neurological research has shown that "liberal" minded people are more creative and open to new ideas, whereas "conservative" minded people are more likely to value tradition and to be alert to danger.

This is very close to the truth. To demonstrate how people evolved thus:

in the beginning, people lived on deer in the mountains during the summer and would go to the coast and live on fish and lobster in the winter.. The two most important events in all of history were the invention of beer and the invention of the wheel. The wheel was invented to get man to the beer. These were the foundations of modern civilization and together were the catalyst for the splitting of humanity into two distinct subgroups:

1. Liberals, and 2. Conservatives.

Once beer was discovered, it required grain and that was the beginning of agriculture. Neither the glass bottle nor the aluminium can had been invented yet, so while our early ancestors were sitting around waiting for them to be invented, they just stayed close to the brewery. That's how villages were formed.

Some men spent their days tracking and killing animals to B-B-Q at night while they were drinking beer. This was the beginning of what is now known as the Conservative movement. Other men who were weaker and less skilled at hunting learned to live off the conservatives by showing up for the nightly B-B-Q's and doing the sewing, fetching, creating artistic doo-dads, and hair dressing. This was the beginning of the Liberal movement.

Some of these liberal men eventually evolved into women. The rest became known as girlie-men. Some noteworthy liberal achievements include the domestication of cats, the invention of group therapy, group hugs, art involving urine, and the concept of Democratic voting to decide how to divide the meat and beer that conservatives provided.

Over the years conservatives came to be symbolized by the largest, most powerful land animal on earth, the elephant.. Liberals are symbolized by the jackass.

Modern liberals like imported beer (with lime added), but most prefer white wine or imported bottled water. They eat raw fish but like their beef well done. Sushi, tofu, and French food are standard liberal fare. Another interesting evolutionary side note: most of their women have higher testosterone levels than their men.

Most social workers, personal injury lawyers, journalists, dreamers in Hollywood, artists, and group therapists are liberals. Liberals invented the designated hitter rule because it wasn't fair to make the pitcher also bat.

Conservatives drink domestic beer, mostly Bud. They eat red meat and still provide for their women. Conservatives are big-game hunters, rodeo cowboys, lumberjacks, construction workers, firemen, medical doctors, police officers, corporate executives, athletes, Marines, and generally anyone who works productively. Conservatives who own companies hire other conservatives who want to work for a living.

Liberals produce little or nothing. They like to govern the producers and decide what to do with the production. Liberals believe Europeans are more enlightened than Americans. That is why most of the liberals remained in Europe when conservatives were coming to America. They crept in after the Wild West was tamed and created a business of trying to get something for nothing.

[Red_Army]

"The human spirit is not about a specific ideology, when you try to subject art to the wishes of ideology is when you run into trouble, and start generating shit art." Virgil wrote highly ideologically charged poetry; would you say his work is shit? The films of Eisenstein are ideological through and through; would you say his films are shit? I would actually claim that any work of art which does not adhere to a particular ideology tends to be shit.

Well I'll concede this being incorrect, but what I mean (since I just started reading Bukowski, I'll use him to reinforce what I mean) focuses heavily on the 'subject' part of what I said. I'm talking along the lines of the 'not trying' Bukowski talks about. If your artistic purpose is to edify an ideology from the outset I feel like it is going to be crippled even if it is good.

I see your point, and since every person has some sort of ideology - of course their art is heavily influenced by it. Whatever, count me conquered if you want

What I mean by transcend is simply that no particular(I can't stress this enough, because I think you're consistently misunderstanding my rather minuscule point) ideology is the sole foundation of art. Any sort of ideologue creates something meaningful to him, its not as if adhering to socialism or fascism or something imbues you with art, but on the contrary - you take your art and apply it to your ideology.

Through all this argument my point seems silly to me now. Really all I mean is that anyone, regardless of ideology has the potential to create art.

Do you think the art or ideology comes first?

[NoRapture]

This is very close to the truth. To demonstrate how people evolved thus:

Can't think of anybody, huh? Let's see, Tiny Tim, Harry Houdini, Ann Coulter...um...

Of course art is saturated with ideology...

Not where I come from. Of course Stalin and Hitler stenciled a lot of pretty posters and poured a lot of concrete into molds.

[Potemkin]

Well I'll concede this being incorrect, but what I mean (since I just started reading Bukowski, I'll use him to reinforce what I mean) focuses heavily on the 'subject' part of what I said. I'm talking along the lines of the 'not trying' Bukowski talks about. If your artistic purpose is to edify an ideology from the outset I feel like it is going to be crippled even if it is good.

'Crippled' in what way?

I see your point, and since every person has some sort of ideology - of course their art is heavily influenced by it. Whatever, count me conquered if you want

*licks finger and writes an imaginary '1' in the air*

What I mean by transcend is simply that no particular(I can't stress this enough, because I think you're consistently misunderstanding my rather minuscule point) ideology is the sole foundation of art.

Agreed. But in my view, some ideology must be the foundation for artistic creation. Even if it's only the ideology that art must exist for its own sake.

Any sort of ideologue creates something meaningful to him, its not as if adhering to socialism or fascism or something imbues you with art, but on the contrary - you take your art and apply it to your ideology.

...

Do you think the art or ideology comes first?

Which comes first, the chicken or the egg? Art and ideology are inextricably linked; neither can be said to be prior to the other.

Through all this argument my point seems silly to me now. Really all I mean is that anyone, regardless of ideology has the potential to create art.

Agreed.

[NoRapture]

Art and ideology are inextricably linked; neither can be said to be prior to the other.

Art and ideology are inextricably polarized. If there were ever an apple and an orange it is these two things. Art appeals, or doesn't, in spite of ideology. Art appeals in spite of language or symbol. It is possible to associate art with ideology after the fact of its creation and existence. But art can never be appreciated or created on an ideological basis. Individual, subjective interpretation is limited to ideology, art is not.

[Potemkin]

Art and ideology are inextricably polarized. If there were ever an apple and an orange it is these two things. Art appeals, or doesn't, in spite of ideology. Art appeals in spite of language or symbol. It is possible to associate art with ideology after the fact of its existence. But art can never be appreciated or created on an ideological basis. Individual, subjective interpretation is limited to ideology, art is not.

You also claimed that art is not ideological "where I come from". Are you claiming that American art is not ideological? Because I assure you that it is. As Eisenstein pointed out, art is ideological in its very forms. Homer's Iliad is an epic poem centred around Bronze Age codes of aristocratic honour; its very form as a discursive epic poem whose heroes are part of an aristocratic warrior elite embodies that ideology of a warrior aristocracy. Likewise, Hollywood movies are constructed in such a way that they 'suture' the spectator into an apparently realistic narrative centred (usually) around middle-class heroes who are striving to achieve their goals; the form of Hollywood movies itself embodies that materialist bourgeois ideology. Our aesthetic response to these works is conditioned and coloured by the various ideologies embodied in their forms. This cannot be 'transcended' or wished away in some vague, mystical manner.

[NoRapture]

As Eisenstein pointed out...

Eisenstein was a propagandist. His greatness emerged in spite of it. Homer, and language itself became ideology only after it's song was sung. That smaller minds attribute smaller ideas to the gift of art and great artists does not define its essence. The fact that Hollywood is being used as an example of anything having to do with greatness could be a clue as to where the confusion is coming from.

[Potemkin]

Eisenstein was a propagandist. His greatness emerged in spite of it. Homer, and language itself became ideology only after it's song was sung. That smaller minds attribute smaller ideas to the gift of art and great artists does not define its essence. The fact that Hollywood is being used as an example of anything having to do with greatness could be a clue as to where the confusion is coming from.

I would classify some Hollywood movies as great works of art, despite my disagreement with their ideology; for example, the films of DW Griffith were acknowledged by the Soviet montage directors as masterpieces, despite embodying a petty-bourgeois, racist ideology. You seem to be confused about the role of ideology in works of art. No work of art worth a damn is without an ideological viewpoint embodied in its very forms as well as its content. A work of art empty of ideology would be an empty-headed work of art; like the sort of poetry which goes "Ah me! O Fate! O Life! I swoon!" I think you know what I mean. Part of the pleasure of experiencing a work of art lies in the collision between our own ideological viewpoint and that of the artist; it forces us to think about how we see and experience the world, and that challenge is ideological as well as perceptual. Art, and language itself, is always-already ideological in its very forms.

[NoRapture]

Part of the pleasure of experiencing a work of art lies in the collision between our own ideological viewpoint and that of the artist...

But this is a purely subjective observation. I could not claim this pleasure of experience for art personally. I believe great art transcends any ideology. I know it does. Maybe by definition. Although definitions and art don't find each other very often. Ideology is about mere human survival. Great art is, at least, about all the magic that may be contained in the universe. Being hungry may have motivated cavemen to first attack and kill bison. But it is not what motivated them to paint bison on cave walls.

[Potemkin]

But this is a purely subjective observation. I could not claim this pleasure of experience for art personally. I believe great art transcends any ideology. I know it does. Maybe by definition. Although definitions and art don't find each other very often.

How do you know? And in precisely what way does great art 'transcend' ideology?

Ideology is about mere human survival.

No, it isn't. Ideology is about dreaming and aspiring as well as about establishing and maintaining societal norms.

Great art is, at least, about all the magic that may be contained in the universe. Being hungry may have motivated cavemen to first attack and kill bison. But it is not what motivated them to paint bison on cave walls.

How do you know? There is a growing body of opinion that they painted the bison on the cave walls in order to magically 'hunt' and 'kill' the bison in their minds first, thereby magically ensuring a successful real hunt. We impute 'artistic' motives to them because, well, that's our current ideology. And ideology can be quite magical, too - in fact, it could be regarded as a logical development of magical thinking.

[DanDaMan]

The fact remains that, particularly today, virtually all celebrated art and literature is created by liberal individuals.

Ever notice that they usually don't have a job?

[Red_Army]

I agree with you Potemkin that some ideology is imperative for art, but ideology - loosely defined as general worldview. I would agree with you again that they are inextricably linked, which is why I asked you which came first. It seems like artistic inclination is distinct from ideology, yet wholly consumed and driven by it.

What I meant by crippled though, was if you are trying to make an edification of a particular ideology you may ignore other more profound artistic inclinations and produce an inferior work that satisfies the proprietors of your ideology.

[Potemkin]

I agree with you Potemkin that some ideology is imperative for art, but ideology - loosely defined as general worldview. I would agree with you again that they are inextricably linked, which is why I asked you which came first. It seems like artistic inclination is distinct from ideology, yet wholly consumed and driven by it.

I'm using ideology in the sense in which Althusser defined it (following Marx and Gramsci): "Ideology represents the imaginary relationship of individuals to their real conditions of existence." Once you accept this definition, it becomes clear that everyone has an ideology, and their particular ideology will colour the way in which they create works of art. To ask which came first, art or ideology, is therefore meaningless - neither of them is logically or temporally prior to the other. And bear in mind too that artists are often motivated to create works of art in the first place by their ideology - they wish to 'say something' with their work; ie, communicate their particular ideology to an audience.

What I meant by crippled though, was if you are trying to make an edification of a particular ideology you may ignore other more profound artistic inclinations and produce an inferior work that satisfies the proprietors of your ideology.

So long as the artist believes in his own ideology, this should not be a problem. The problems arise when the artist is trying merely to please his or her political masters by creating works of 'art' into which they have poured the officially approved ideology, like pouring water into an empty cup. Because they don't really believe in the official ideology, and they have separated form from content, they tend to produce hack work which rings false. Witness most 'socialist realist' novels of the Stalin era, for example. Eisenstein was a great artist not because he 'transcended' ideology, but because he believed in the official ideology of the Soviet Union, and indeed this ideology motivated the creation of his works of art.

[NoRapture]

Art is the opposite of ideology. Both in creation and appreciation. Only a jingoistic socialist or right-wing anti-communist appreciator of Ayn Rand or the Left Behind series would think otherwise. Human ideology, from the basic concept of thirsting for a drink of water to thirsting for social justice is the antithesis of art. All ideology has been a lie including the drink of water. If truth exists at all it finds it's way into the world through art in spite of ideology. If you plant your muse in ideology you will never find, much less appreciate great art.

And God, please deliver us from any Marxist definitions for art. Or any of Ronald Reagan's or Newt Gingrich's for that matter. If the failure of the communist state has proven anything it is its all encompassing artlessness. Capitalism is on its way to proving the same.